[Alignment] Conflicts of Rights [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Zeofar

2010-10-20, 08:18 PM

Killing is good only if it is in self defense, in self-defense by extension (protecting someone who cannot viably defend himself against his attacker), to protect the rights of many over the rights of one when there is no other feasible solution, to mete out just punishment (obviously, how this interacts with a Chaotic alignment gets gray), or, usually, to destroy undead or demons.

Furthermore, killing in self-defense in any case is only acceptable if there are no other immediate ways to defeat the attacker such as running away or merely wounding the attacker; the death must result from the pursuit of defense, not an attempt to right-out kill the person. A permanent, temporary, or circumstantial inability to judge secondary means to defeat an opponent may waive the requirement, but maintaining any disposition that obstructs the removal of this inability is evil. Thus, the first time, the act may be good, but over time, any goodness of the act is eclipsed by his disposition, unless there is such a case where the person cannot be aware of this disposition. This means that for religious Paladins, their acts always become evil unless they have been mislead by their religion or they have no means of receiving council (and could not otherwise remove their inability to judge their actions), while for Paladins of virtue, this proceeds as normal since they have no greater moral judge.

The reason destroying undead is good takes some not unreasonable assumptions about the nature of negative energy, but it usually can be reasoned out. Killing demons is often okay for nothing more than the fact that, unless you are on their home plane, they aren't actually dead, which essentially means that you always only subdue them. Otherwise, normal assumptions are pretty much in place.

Zhalath

2010-10-20, 08:37 PM

Note that by D&D's alignment system, killing in self-defence may not be an Evil act, but at the same time it's definitely not a Good act (unless you're killing an <Evil> Outsider, which is defined as always being a Good thing to do).

What if the Evil Outsider is helpless and begging for mercy? Just because Evil outsiders don't die when not on their home plane doesn't make going to Hell any better. Heck, it makes it worse, because you have to remember.
Or is it alright to destroy undead that are simply trying to get by without harming anyone?
Because to live they need to kill sentient beings, do mind flayers essentially forfeit the right to live?

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-20, 08:41 PM

When does the end justify the means

Never if doing a good act.
Sometimes if doing a neutral act.
And all the time if doing an evil act.

Your answer is very strange (to say the least), as it states that the means of all evil acts are always justified, because of the accomplished end.

I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, but that's what you said, nonetheless.

In case you're unclear, to justify means to to show to be just or right.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-20, 09:14 PM

I'd say that the only time it's okay to kill undead out of hand is if they're being compelled to do harm beyond their will or control, such as with an Inescapable Addiction or if they're under the (otherwise unbreakable) control of another entity. Many undead can choose to prey upon animals, which would reasonably mean that coercing them into doing that might be a better option than what is, essentially, murdering a being a second time.

Mindless undead that are inherently harmful are, of course, prime candidates for extermination with extreme prejudice, as are unintelligent plagues like Shadows.

KillianHawkeye

2010-10-20, 09:18 PM

What if the Evil Outsider is helpless and begging for mercy? Just because Evil outsiders don't die when not on their home plane doesn't make going to Hell any better. Heck, it makes it worse, because you have to remember.
Or is it alright to destroy undead that are simply trying to get by without harming anyone?
Because to live they need to kill sentient beings, do mind flayers essentially forfeit the right to live?

It's okay to kill Evil Outsiders (that is, Outsiders with the [Evil] subtype) any time, because they are literally made of pure evil. I think it is Book of Exalted Deeds which says that. It doesn't matter if they are begging for mercy because they are just trying to trick you, because they are evil personified.

Undead and mindflayers are not always 100% evil (they don't have the [Evil] subtype), so you cannot make such generalizations about them. Usually good characters would only kill the ones who are actively involved in the destruction or enslavement of an innocent life.

EDIT: Mindflayers don't have to kill sentient creatures to survive. They can eat the brains of nonsentient life forms such as animals. I believe they can even eat normal food (they hate it, but it will sustain them). Thus, the ones who choose to eat the brains of humans and other sentient beings are evil and killing them is better than allowing them to continue with their mass slaughter.

However, I stand by my earlier assertion that killing is self defense or in the defense of others is not really a Good act. It is Neutral, and usually better than the alternatives. The true Good path would involve coming to a solution whereby no sentient creatures need to die.

blueblade

2010-10-20, 09:31 PM

TC, you could just as easily rephrase your question to real(ish) example, where the morality becomes absurdly easy:

Tim and Larry are trapped in a space station with at most 4 man-days worth of air available (i.e. with both alive, the air will be gone in 2 days). The rescue craft will arrive in 3.5 days (allowing for a little strenuous activity in the meantime). Tim has a gun (laser gun that won't pierce the hull, you pedants!)

Is Tim justified to kill Larry in order to survive? Not if he wants to keep that "good-aligned" status he can't!

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-20, 09:33 PM

Mindflayers don't have to kill sentient creatures to survive. They can eat the brains of nonsentient life forms such as animals. I believe they can even eat normal food (they hate it, but it will sustain them). Thus, the ones who choose to eat the brains of humans and other sentient beings are evil and killing them is better than allowing them to continue with their mass slaughter.

However, I stand by my earlier assertion that killing is self defense or in the defense of others is not really a Good act. It is Neutral, and usually better than the alternatives. The true Good path would involve coming to a solution whereby no sentient creatures need to die.

This statement is sort-of correct; check the Mindflayer thread for more specifics on the brain om noms.

horngeek

2010-10-20, 09:35 PM

PopcornMage

2010-10-20, 09:37 PM

TC, you could just as easily rephrase your question to real(ish) example, where the morality becomes absurdly easy:

The story you want is "The Cold Equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cold_Equations)" .

Psyren

2010-10-20, 09:41 PM

Your answer is very strange (to say the least), as it states that the means of all evil acts are always justified, because of the accomplished end.

I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, but that's what you said, nonetheless.

In case you're unclear, to justify means to to show to be just or right.

But that's exactly how the evil person committing the act sees them, even if the justification is nothing more pressing than "that peasant was cheeky."

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-20, 09:47 PM

By the by, let's not run with the stance that negative energy is automatically evil. Not only does WotC waffle on it constantly but, really, the energy itself? It's harmful to life, yes, but it's no more evil than a bullet, or a nuclear weapon; yes, it kills, but it doesn't do so out of malice or intelligent thought. Negative energy is entropic, but not evil.

Ormur

2010-10-20, 09:48 PM

The story you want is "The Cold Equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cold_Equations)" .

Of course the problem with that story as an ethical dilemma is that it's intended to show that in the harsh emptiness of space our comfy ethics don't apply whereas the fault actually lies with the criminal lack of safety standards and the negligence of the designers and staff of the spaceship. The actions of the pilot may have been necessary at that point but in the big picture the whole situation could have been easily avoided.

Toptomcat

2010-10-20, 09:56 PM

Zeofar

2010-10-20, 10:00 PM

Not to be a party pooper, but if you're working with ethical issues of this degree of complexity then I'd say that the D&D alignment axis is no longer a sufficiently discerning metric to meaningfully add anything to the discussion. Either implement, I don't know, a system of sliding scales that indicates how closely you're adhering to, say, utilitarianism, consequentialism, prioritarianism, and deontology, or pull an Eberron, admit that the alignment system is less than perfectly precise and discerning, and simply work around it.

Alignment is meant to encompass all moral issues; saying that it is too complex is essentially denying that the system has any validity, which isn't true. Wizards of the Coast just made it so poorly that they didn't give any concrete basis for judging the actions inside their system.

Pyrite

2010-10-20, 10:19 PM

PopcornMage

2010-10-20, 10:28 PM

Of course the problem with that story as an ethical dilemma is that it's intended to show that in the harsh emptiness of space our comfy ethics don't apply whereas the fault actually lies with the criminal lack of safety standards and the negligence of the designers and staff of the spaceship. The actions of the pilot may have been necessary at that point but in the big picture the whole situation could have been easily avoided.

Well, this thread's still alive. Huh.

Anyway, that's certainly a common (http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1999/coldeq.html) response to the story. Heck, if you've seen the TV version you'd say right out, why don't they toss out some of the other mass? Plenty of doors and whatnot to remove.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-20, 10:37 PM

Needing to do evil things to live doesn't justify them, it just makes you decide whether living or doing the right thing is more important to you. If doing the right thing is more important to you, well, you do live in one of "certain, older cultures" and it is acceptable to throw yourself on your sword.

This seems needlessly two-dimensional. What about my right to live? What about all the good I could still be accomplishing? What about all the people who will grieve for me? Why is it that my victim's survival is more important than mine? Who gets to set the absolute?

If you have to kill people for food, either starve, find a way to only kill people who deserve to die, or live with not being a good person.

Who judges the wicked? Who deserves to die for my sustenance? And if no one does, why should I be judged as evil for doing what I must to live? What about all the good I bring into the world? I mean, let's say for a moment that you do vamps WoD style and they NEED to prey on humans - but over the course of eternity, can you imagine how much good a vampire could do with his money, skills, and magic? Does this mean nothing?

If you kill people just by being around them, become a hermit and set up precautions to keep it from happening, or live with being the passing scourge.

This is actually somewhat reasonable, if the character in question is willing to be miserable for their entire life. Though that beggars the question - are they entitled to seek their happiness by attempting to break their curse? Even if that means putting other beings at risk?

If you kill people just by existing at all, declare war on the cruel universe or remove yourself from it.

Why does everyone else have a right to live when I do not? Why should I have to die to save them? How is that just? How is that fair? And, most importantly, in a universe where 'Good' is supposedly a tangible concept, why has this happened at all?

In my opinion, most problems with the D&D alignment system come from people not being willing to see things from an absolutist point of view.

Who gets to choose the absolute? What makes something absolutely right or absolutely wrong? Who shall judge the righteous from the wicked?

Absolute morality is a conceptual impossibility without some kind of impartial judge-figure, which D&D lacks utterly. Even then, all that makes morality is a question of whether or not you pleased some unimaginably powerful outsider.

Sometimes it's necessary to make hard decisions, to weigh the cost of lives. In those situations you just have to do the best you can to make the right decision.

And this is called moral relativism, my friend - that'd be the bit where everyone has to judge 'right' and 'wrong' for themselves. See above for examples - what makes one life worth more than another? Is Joe the Peasant really worth more than Count Vladamir the vampire? Is the Count evil for eating him to live? What if the Count has been doing good with his life? I mean, it's not like Joe is going to be anything more than a generic human, living a generic life and contributing to his environment in a small and utterly meaningless fashion. On a scale more than the absolutely local, who cares if he dies for any reason?

But if you have to murder an innocent to save the world or some obviously constructed paradox like that, find a third option, let the world die, or accept that you aren't able to be the ultimate paragon of good. If the forces of good in your universe let such a situation unfold without giving you a third option of some kind, maybe they weren't worth fighting for anyway.

In the end, there's nothing wrong with being a true neutral pragmatist, just accept that you can't be that and a saint at the same time.

The forces of good don't control the universe in D&D. Getting better, only Evil is allowed to be intelligent in D&D. So, yeah. Good luck with that one.

Pyrite

2010-10-20, 11:10 PM

This seems needlessly two-dimensional. What about my right to live? What about all the good I could still be accomplishing? What about all the people who will grieve for me? Why is it that my victim's survival is more important than mine? Who gets to set the absolute?
No one sets it. It just is. It's a universal metaphysical concept. That's apparently an unpopular idea these days, but it goes back to Plato.

Whose life is more important doesn't enter into it at all, nor does any good you could be doing with your life to outweigh it. Killing someone who doesn't deserve to be killed is always wrong and always will be wrong. It doesn't necessarily make you evil to do it, but it is an evil thing to do.

Who judges the wicked? Who deserves to die for my sustenance? And if no one does, why should I be judged as evil for doing what I must to live? What about all the good I bring into the world? I mean, let's say for a moment that you do vamps WoD style and they NEED to prey on humans - but over the course of eternity, can you imagine how much good a vampire could do with his money, skills, and magic? Does this mean nothing?

Whether or not the vampire can do good with his stolen life, it doesn't make that life any less stolen. You are essentially taking lives from some people and converting that into whatever good you are giving to some other people. Maybe this can be enough to let you live with yourself, but playing god with people's lives without their consent like that is still wrong.

This is actually somewhat reasonable, if the character in question is willing to be miserable for their entire life. Though that beggars the question - are they entitled to seek their happiness by attempting to break their curse? Even if that means putting other beings at risk?

That really comes down to what's a reasonable precaution, or a reasonable risk, which is a difficult question, but even in courts of law it's very often established whether "reasonable precautions" were taken. If an accident occurs, then it occurs, what matters is the intent to break the curse without anyone dying, as opposed to the intent to allow others to die for your own profit.

Why does everyone else have a right to live when I do not? Why should I have to die to save them? How is that just? How is that fair? And, most importantly, in a universe where 'Good' is supposedly a tangible concept, why has this happened at all?

I admit this last one is patently ridiculous, but I wouldn't include it if I hadn't seen it many times before. QUOTE]

Who gets to choose the absolute? What makes something absolutely right or absolutely wrong? Who shall judge the righteous from the wicked?
[/QUOTE]Absolute morality isn't about judgment. That's derived morality. Absolute morality just is. No one chooses it, and even the gods are subject to it. It is simply the order of the D&D multiverse.

Absolute morality is a conceptual impossibility without some kind of impartial judge-figure, which D&D lacks utterly. Even then, all that makes morality is a question of whether or not you pleased some unimaginably powerful outsider.

Or, you know, every single person with access to the detect evil spell. Morality isn't handed down from on high, it's clearly visible for those who know the right way to look.

And this is called moral relativism, my friend - that'd be the bit where everyone has to judge 'right' and 'wrong' for themselves. See above for examples - what makes one life worth more than another? Is Joe the Peasant really worth more than Count Vladamir the vampire? Is the Count evil for eating him to live? What if the Count has been doing good with his life? I mean, it's not like Joe is going to be anything more than a generic human, living a generic life and contributing to his environment in a small and utterly meaningless fashion. On a scale more than the absolutely local, who cares if he dies for any reason?

Joe does. And if you want to keep those paladin abilities, you should too.

The situations I'm talking about are more along the lines of "choose which city to defend" or "choose which fleeing hostage taker to pursue" rather than "choose whether to kill someone in order to live another day." These decisions are neutral, and can be made with such considerations as "which group will contribute more to society" in mind, so long as no one is excluded needlessly, and you aren't personally profiting by saving one group over another.

D&D is supposed to be heroic. Good people are supposed to care about Joe the peasant, and his wife Jane the peasant, and anyone else whose lives they might have a chance of affecting. Those people have rights and dignity inherent with being people. If you're character doesn't feel any need to care about their rights or dignity, then you should just accept that your character doesn't fit the D&D definition of good, and very well might just be another neutral.

It's often stated that while most people prefer good rulers over evil, the vast majority of people in a given D&D setting are neutral.

The forces of good don't control the universe in D&D. Getting better, only Evil is allowed to be intelligent in D&D. So, yeah. Good luck with that one.

They do have some influence, unless all those archons really are sitting on their butts playing poker.

PopcornMage

2010-10-20, 11:14 PM

Or, you know, every single person with access to the detect evil spell. Morality isn't handed down from on high, it's clearly visible for those who know the right way to look.

I think you're missing something here. :smallwink:

Pyrite

2010-10-20, 11:15 PM

I think you're missing something here. :smallwink:

Then please, enlighten me.

Psyren

2010-10-20, 11:18 PM

Alignment is meant to encompass all moral issues; saying that it is too complex is essentially denying that the system has any validity, which isn't true. Wizards of the Coast just made it so poorly that they didn't give any concrete basis for judging the actions inside their system.

I'm not sure who told you that, but it wasn't WotC. The books themselves say that alignment isn't detailed enough to capture more complex issues. For example, check the section titled "The Relative Approach" on BoVD page 6.

"A second approach considers evil to be a relative concept that is wholly dependent on the attitude of the observer. This is not the approach of most D&D games; rather, it resembles how many people see the real world."

PopcornMage

2010-10-21, 12:48 AM

Then please, enlighten me.

You are familiar with its spell-type?

Pyrite

2010-10-21, 12:57 AM

You are familiar with its spell-type?

You mean that it's a divination spell, or that clerics have access to it as a divine spell?

Paladins, among other classes, have it as an at-will ability, with no mention of some god-figure handing it down to them. They can simply look at a person and see the black cloud hanging over their soul or however you want to describe it.

And divination doesn't imply that a higher power's opinion is being sought, just that one is obtaining information one normally wouldn't be able to through magic.

Clerics having access to it as a spell is merely their gods giving them access to the ability to see the world as a paladin does for a short time.

PopcornMage

2010-10-21, 01:32 AM

And divination doesn't imply that a higher power's opinion is being sought,

Check your etymology. It does imply just that. :smallwink:

Pyrite

2010-10-21, 01:59 AM

Check your etymology. It does imply just that. :smallwink:

So who are wizards who cast divination spells getting their information from?
A lot of words have etymological connotations that aren't appropriate for a given context.

Do you really want to base that much on Wizards' word choice selection for a school of spells?

PopcornMage

2010-10-21, 02:11 AM

So who are wizards who cast divination spells getting their information from?

Good question! I think I'll have to cast a WISH to find out. Can you wait for me to gain enough levels in Wizard?

A lot of words have etymological connotations that aren't appropriate for a given context.

I know! Have you checked out Necromancer?

Do you really want to base that much on Wizards' word choice selection for a school of spells?

It predates Wizards of the Coast. Both examples. I suppose if you want to blame them for not fixing it, that's fine, but please do go back to the beginning when you're talking about choice.

Gralamin

2010-10-21, 02:52 AM

As I discussed briefly in the IRC:

In D&D the gods "quantify" how "good" an action is, and this determines which plane your soul ends up in, and your alignment. Assume it was possible to get access to this information - I do not have such numbers, but there must be an internal mechanic to the default setting to generate such a scale. Because of this, we can go to the idea of Maximization (in an ethical sense), to determine whether an action is good or not. Since good is also an objective state in D&D, we can evaluate each action based not only on the consequences, but weight it on the "goodness" of the actual act.

In this way, we can basically model D&D morality as a Markov Decision Process, with a fairly low discount weight (say .6) to show preference towards immediate objectively good consequences. We can then take a given situation, say the OP's "if for being A to live, being B (or members of group B) must die, is being A evil to kill?", and check the choice where A lives, and A dies. If the overall reward (the amount of "goodness") is higher for living then dying, then it cannot be said A is evil for killing B. It can be said that the action A takes is evil, but leads to a better future state. Assume that any soul, including As, going to the Nine Hells because of a current action being "objectively evil".

On the other hand, you can model this similarly using the corruption rules from Fiendish Codex 2 (though the rules are really bad). Basically, we define it as being "objectively evil" for any being to go to the Nine Hells. Then we can use the criteria of a Corruption value of 4 or more thus being objectively evil. So using an evil spell, committing murder, causing a gratuitous injury to a creature, etc. Can all be weighted as negative rewards, with a corruption rating to go with it. Then it becomes clear quickly that avoiding corruption is an important part of the action decision process. In this situation, if A hunts B, instead of B giving his/their lives willingly, A is committing murder and thus becoming corrupted, and thus A should die.

Note I do not account for conflict of rights (such as to live) directly: the conflict is resolved by the overall maximization.

TLDR: Gralamin has been doing too much AI classes, and alignment doesn't work.

Ether

2010-10-21, 04:02 AM

Ormur

2010-10-21, 02:33 PM

SurlySeraph

2010-10-21, 03:52 PM

This one deals with this question: how does one define the morality of a conflict between the inalienable rights of one being and another? One group and another? If for being A to live, being B (or members of group B) must die, is being A evil to kill? What about inescapable or incurable addictions (such as with some undead in Libris Mortis) that can strip away the ability to reason morally if not satisfied?

All the DnD creatures that need to kill to live that I'm aware of are Always or Usually evil. Therefore, by the rules, it's evil to kill even if you need to do so to live. Now, that makes killing in self-defense sound evil, and below I'll give an example of how that can produce stupid results, but the rules appear to suggest that killing to live is necessarily evil.

Assuming we're going by the rules of the game, not by philosophy, in which case we're not going to get a single right answer.

[The ends justify the means]
Never if doing a good act.
Sometimes if doing a neutral act.
And all the time if doing an evil act.

So buying a ball of yarn for my kitten to play with is never justified if I'm a good person? Or is "The ends justify the means" a ludicrously vague statement that can have any answer depending on what ends and what means you're looking at?

A vampire has the potential to do good, going by purely utilitarian measurements it would still have to be very lot of good indeed to justify the body count. Presuming we can't know the future the only certainty is that the vampire's single life is dependant on the murder of many people. Perhaps in the end the vampire can claim to have picked it's victims and lived in such a way as to maximise good and minimize evil so it's not a clear cut case but that is still after the fact, in isolation the act of taking a life to prolong your own is a very selfish act.

Example: High-level cleric gets turned into a vampire, feeds from people so he can go on resurrecting and healing more people than he harms. He casts Restoration on everyone he drinks from right afterwards, so there's no harm done beyond the few seconds it took to drain some blood from them. Is he still evil to do so? By the rules of DnD as written, probably yes. By any real-world moral framework that I consider reasonable, no.

Pyrite

2010-10-21, 04:13 PM

Example: High-level cleric gets turned into a vampire, feeds from people so he can go on resurrecting and healing more people than he harms. He casts Restoration on everyone he drinks from right afterwards, so there's no harm done beyond the few seconds it took to drain some blood from them. Is he still evil to do so? By the rules of DnD as written, probably yes. By any real-world moral framework that I consider reasonable, no.

There's nothing in D&D that says drinking blood from people but leaving them alive and more or less unharmed is evil. It's maybe a bit wrong if he isn't using only volunteers, but that's easily remedied.

In fact, as per the players handbook, he's actually showing a great deal of respect for the dignity of these people's lives by making sure that they are at most only slightly inconvenienced.

However, if becoming a vampire makes[I] you evil, then the cleric will find that he [I]can't respect these boundaries, and will end up killing people either out of convenience or pleasure.

Talon Sky

2010-10-21, 04:44 PM

Is Tim justified to kill Larry in order to survive? Not if he wants to keep that "good-aligned" status he can't!

But he is justified to kill himself, so that Larry can survive. Killing Larry simply because he can to survive, that's rather evil.

Playing a game of rock-paper-scissors to decide who dies, now that's Neutral. And probably Chaotic ;p

Starbuck_II

2010-10-21, 04:58 PM

So buying a ball of yarn for my kitten to play with is never justified if I'm a good person? Or is "The ends justify the means" a ludicrously vague statement that can have any answer depending on what ends and what means you're looking at?

[Means] How did you acquire the ball of yarn?
Did you buy it illegally (black market)?
Well, no buying illegally a yarn for a kitten is still illegal.
The ends didn't justify the means.

Ends justify means isn't vague by any stretch of the word.

Means are a means of doing something.
Ends are the end result of doing something.

How do you read the sentence? This isn't greek or latin, english while blah in its structure is pretty good in sentences like this.

SurlySeraph

2010-10-21, 05:16 PM

There's nothing in D&D that says drinking blood from people but leaving them alive and more or less unharmed is evil. It's maybe a bit wrong if he isn't using only volunteers, but that's easily remedied.

In fact, as per the players handbook, he's actually showing a great deal of respect for the dignity of these people's lives by making sure that they are at most only slightly inconvenienced.

However, if becoming a vampire makes[I] you evil, then the cleric will find that he [I]can't respect these boundaries, and will end up killing people either out of convenience or pleasure.

A fully plausible interpretation.

[Means] How did you acquire the ball of yarn?
Did you buy it illegally (black market)?
Well, no buying illegally a yarn for a kitten is still illegal.
The ends didn't justify the means.

Ends justify means isn't vague by any stretch of the word.

Means are a means of doing something.
Ends are the end result of doing something.

How do you read the sentence? This isn't greek or latin, english while blah in its structure is pretty good in sentences like this.

I was referring to doing something completely legal and nice for a completely legal and nice end. Another example would be walking to your fridge to get food for your child; the means (walking, opening the fridge) support the end (your child eats). But if you say that the ends never justify the means, then doing so is wrong. Because even completely benign ends and means aren't justified. Performing first aid on someone so that they don't die? Unjustified!

What I think you mean to say is that immoral means don't justify moral ends. For example, Kant said that he wouldn't lie even to conceal someone's location from people who intended to murder that person, because lying is wrong. The bad means (lying) didn't justify the good end (the murderers not finding the person). I disagree with this perspective and believe that almost any action can be justified depending on the situation; killing someone so he doesn't kill multiple people, for example, or on a larger scale fighting a war that kills millions of people to prevent the nation you're fighting from killing even more people.

Furthermore, it's easy to debate whether a given means or a given end is moral or not. Is charging interest on loans so you get more money in the end wrong because you take money from someone without giving them an equal amount in return for your own self-interest? Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child wrong? Is refusing to steal a loaf of bread and thus condemning said child to die wrong? All of these are debatable, though in my opinion they have obvious answers that I hope everyone here would agree on.

However, just saying that the end never justifies the means - that no end ever justifies any means - means that no action should ever be taken, and is pointless. That's clearly not what you intended to say, but that's what taking "Does the end justify the means? Never" completely literally means. Hence, why I said it was ludicrously vague.

EDIT: Also, if illegally buying yarn for a kitten is not just illegal but actually wrong, then I don't want to be right.

And now I'm wondering if you meant "justify" in a purely legal sense - that an action is illegal even if you're ignorant of the law, despite mitigating circumstances crimes are still crimes, etc. - rather than in a moral sense. In which case certain ends do justify certain otherwise-illegal means (i.e., laws in the eyes of the law you didn't commit a crime if you kill someone in self-defense, depending on the circumstances), but illegal acts meant for a good purpose are usually still illegal, though you would likely get a lenient sentence (i.e., buying black-market yarn for a kitten rather than buying black-market yarn to make a yarn-based killing machine).

Starbuck_II

2010-10-21, 05:20 PM

A fully plausible interpretation.
I was referring to doing something completely legal and nice for a completely legal and nice end. Another example would be walking to your fridge to get food for your child; the means (walking, opening the fridge) support the end (your child eats). But if you say that the ends never justify the means, then doing so is wrong. Because even completely benign ends and means aren't justified. Performing first aid on someone so that they don't die? Unjustified!

Trick answer.
The ends don't justify the means ever. Not ever than.
The ends feeding your child didn't justify have the food. The means buying it legally justify giving it to the kid.

Good believes the means justify the ends. Look to the means. Not the ends.

Look at good samaritan law:
Means giving first aid even if not a trained professional.

Justify the ends: helping the man.

We made the Good Samaritan law because deep down the law wants to be good even if it isn't supposed to pick sides.

SurlySeraph

2010-10-21, 05:27 PM

But you run into trouble there, too. To use a DnD example, your paladin friend stabs a necromancer in the face. You go over and cast Cure Serious Wounds on said necromancer so he won't bleed to death. The necromancer then rips out the paladin's soul to use as a doily and sets you on fire. Good means (healing a person), bad end (you are on fire and your friend's soul is a doily, and the necromancer will inflict said fates on more people).

It's more difficult to produce bad ends through good means than vice versa, but it's very much doable.

Saying that the means justify the end is also uncomfortably close to "Might makes right," but that would derail us into talking about Locke's construction of property rights and I've discussed that waaaay more than enough today.

EDIT: Also, Good Samaritan laws don't always protect reckless attempts to do good. If you're an EMT and haven't been taught how to do a tracheotomy, slice someone's jugular trying to do one and accidentally kill them in an attempt to save them, in some areas you were negligent and can be held liable, because you attempted something that wasn't within your standard of care and should have known better.

A real-world example of good intentions and good means producing bad results would be the IMF loans to former Soviet states post-1990. (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050143) The IMF lent governments money to improve their healthcare with. The loans had requirements to make sure they used the money responsibly, like that they control costs, privatize their healthcare systems, or maintain a certain level of economic growth. Most of these countries had to shift resources from directly providing care to meet these goals. So they shifted funding from programs that effectively improved health to ones that didn't; countries that took the loans ended up spending less on tuberculosis treatment than ones that didn't even though they theoretically had more money available. The results were clear. Good intent, good means, and ended with thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Now, you could argue that if it didn't produce a good end then it wasn't really a good means, but that's a) pretty circular logic and b) leads back to utilitarianism. If a good means is one that produces a good end, then killing one person to save ten is a good means.

PopcornMage

2010-10-21, 06:13 PM

Look at good samaritan law:
Means giving first aid even if not a trained professional.

Um, exactly what do you think a Good Samaritan Law says???

Starbuck_II

2010-10-21, 06:54 PM

Um, exactly what do you think a Good Samaritan Law says???
Well:
They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.

Under the good samaritan laws which grant immunity, if the good samaritan makes an error while rendering emergency medical care, he or she cannot be held legally liable for damages in court. However, two conditions usually must be met; 1) the aid must be given at the scene of the emergency, and. 2) if the "volunteer" has other motives, such as the hope of being paid a fee or reward, then the law will not apply.

So the law cares about the means (helping),no chance of suing, even if caused harm accidently (the end).

PopcornMage

2010-10-21, 06:57 PM

Well:
They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.

I don't think that parses with how I read what you were saying, which was closer to the interpretation found in say, the last episode of Seinfeld, where there was an obligation to assist.

That's why I wanted some clarification. I still don't think it quite parses, but as long as that particular confusion isn't there, it doesn't matter too much.

Turalisj

2010-10-21, 07:19 PM

Yes, another alignment thread!

This one deals with this question: how does one define the morality of a conflict between the inalienable rights of one being and another? One group and another? If for being A to live, being B (or members of group B) must die, is being A evil to kill? What about inescapable or incurable addictions (such as with some undead in Libris Mortis) that can strip away the ability to reason morally if not satisfied?

Essentially speaking, when do the ends begin to justify the means?

When the little guy on your right shoulder is tugging at your hair to stop and the guy on your left is laughing like a madman, you know you've hit the spot to stop and consider your actions.

Frosty

2010-10-21, 07:37 PM

Starbuck_II

2010-10-21, 07:51 PM

Still seems trying to justify genocide (or would it just be called Mass murder?).

Can't you just add Purify Metamagic so no good killed? That would lessen my issues.
Since killing evil who is trying to harm you is never evil (not always good but never evil).

Yeah, I'm asking to take a third option of possible. Granted this still might hurt/kill a few neutrals.

Pyrite

2010-10-21, 07:55 PM

If killing in self-defense is Not Evil, then this situation Evi?

You are the king of your kingdom, and you are embroiled in a long and costly (in terms of lives as well as materials) war against an enemy that has thus far refused your calls for diplomacy, and the enemy initiated the war.

Your advisers have informed you that continuing to fight the war using conventional means would inevitably end in defeat and that the enemy would either enslave your entire people or kill them all.

Is it Evil to use a super-weapon that your magicians have just researched (let's say you've got access a Locate City Bomb type spell) to blast the enemy cities to smithereens so that the enemy surrenders? Many civilians on the enemy side would die, but it'd all but ensure that your civilians live since the enemy army can't fight on without support, and you can blast more of their cities if they refuse to surrender.

Sure there are civilians on their side who might ping Evil on the Evil-dar, supporting the enslavement of your people and such, but there are surely many Neutral or Good civilians who may not have supported the war.

Would you not be deciding who lives and who dies in this situation? If you choose not to use your super-spell, your soldiers and your civilians will die and/or be enslaved. If you choose to use the spell to save the lives of your soldiers and civilians, you're in effect choosing for the people on the other side to die, even if some of them may be innocent/non-evil.

What would you do?

Yes it is still evil. Here you have to decide whether doing the right thing or the safety and security of your people are more important. If you're a neutral, (like most people) then it's probably the second one. If you're a paladin, however, even allowing this to happen without standing against it will mean a fall from grace.

To a person who would like to be wholly and completely good, assuming that defeat really is inevitable, the solution would be to allow the defeat to occur and to lead a resistance against the occupation.

Have you ever wondered why we call this sytem of Morality and Ethics an "alignment system?" it's because there are universal forces called good, evil, law, and chaos, and they measure how beings in the universe are aligned with them. You have to align yourself with evil in order to allow yourself to accept mass killing like you describe. The question you should ask is whether the safety and security of your people is worth that black spot on your soul.

Most people will say that yes, it is. Most people are neutral.

Zhalath

2010-10-21, 08:47 PM

It's okay to kill Evil Outsiders (that is, Outsiders with the [Evil] subtype) any time, because they are literally made of pure evil. I think it is Book of Exalted Deeds which says that. It doesn't matter if they are begging for mercy because they are just trying to trick you, because they are evil personified.

Undead and mindflayers are not always 100% evil (they don't have the [Evil] subtype), so you cannot make such generalizations about them. Usually good characters would only kill the ones who are actively involved in the destruction or enslavement of an innocent life.

EDIT: Mindflayers don't have to kill sentient creatures to survive. They can eat the brains of nonsentient life forms such as animals. I believe they can even eat normal food (they hate it, but it will sustain them). Thus, the ones who choose to eat the brains of humans and other sentient beings are evil and killing them is better than allowing them to continue with their mass slaughter.

However, I stand by my earlier assertion that killing is self defense or in the defense of others is not really a Good act. It is Neutral, and usually better than the alternatives. The true Good path would involve coming to a solution whereby no sentient creatures need to die.
I mean, I get that Evil is not just a concept but an actual force and tangible thing in D&D, but how can something be pure evil? I just can't think of a creature that exists that's utterly evil. Does the Evil subtype essentially deny it free choice? If given a decision between an evil option and a non-evil option, will the outsider take the evil option, regardless of the cost of it? To earn freedom, will a demon slaughter 1000 men over saving one? I just can't even perceive the idea of an objective morality like that overriding reasoning and free choice. (For the same reason, I don't understand creatures that are pure Good).

I always thought mindflayers had to eat humanoid brains. But why brains? What nutritional value do brains have that no other easier-to-produce foods do? It almost seems as if they were written to eat brains just to make them evil and alien, so that people would feel ok to murder them en masse. I mean, eats brains? That's just wrong.

By the by, let's not run with the stance that negative energy is automatically evil. Not only does WotC waffle on it constantly but, really, the energy itself? It's harmful to life, yes, but it's no more evil than a bullet, or a nuclear weapon; yes, it kills, but it doesn't do so out of malice or intelligent thought. Negative energy is entropic, but not evil.

Isn't positive energy dangerous to life? I mean, it knits up your wounds, but it eventually makes your body explode and tears you apart.
Negative energy isn't evil, it's just kind of callous and uncaring, like a lot of nature.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 04:21 AM

Yes it is still evil. Here you have to decide whether doing the right thing or the safety and security of your people are more important. If you're a neutral, (like most people) then it's probably the second one. If you're a paladin, however, even allowing this to happen without standing against it will mean a fall from grace.

To a person who would like to be wholly and completely good, assuming that defeat really is inevitable, the solution would be to allow the defeat to occur and to lead a resistance against the occupation.

Have you ever wondered why we call this sytem of Morality and Ethics an "alignment system?" it's because there are universal forces called good, evil, law, and chaos, and they measure how beings in the universe are aligned with them. You have to align yourself with evil in order to allow yourself to accept mass killing like you describe. The question you should ask is whether the safety and security of your people is worth that black spot on your soul.

Most people will say that yes, it is. Most people are neutral.
So because the paladin-king wants to keep his soul stainless, he's going to CHOOSE to let a large majority of his people (people that he has SWORN to protect, I might add, since that comes with being their King) and then try to lead a resistance which would prolong the bloodshed?

Choosing to do nothing is still making a choice, and this is one that would get the Good civilians on YOUR side killed. Isn't that also Evil?

Starbuck_II

2010-10-22, 05:19 AM

So because the paladin-king wants to keep his soul stainless, he's going to CHOOSE to let a large majority of his people (people that he has SWORN to protect, I might add, since that comes with being their King) and then try to lead a resistance which would prolong the bloodshed?

Choosing to do nothing is still making a choice, and this is one that would get the Good civilians on YOUR side killed. Isn't that also Evil?

Actually that is untrue. Not choosing isn't an aligned action in D&D.
You are not punished for your non-deeds. D&D only punishes a person for their deeds.

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 05:58 AM

So because the paladin-king wants to keep his soul stainless, he's going to CHOOSE to let a large majority of his people (people that he has SWORN to protect, I might add, since that comes with being their King) and then try to lead a resistance which would prolong the bloodshed?

Choosing to do nothing is still making a choice, and this is one that would get the Good civilians on YOUR side killed. Isn't that also Evil?

The paladin has no control over what his enemies want to do to his people. He only controls his own actions. If they invade and murder thousands, that isn't a mark on his soul (though he's expected to use all non-evil methods at his disposal to try to stop it.) If he commits even one evil act, though, he falls.

Eloel

2010-10-22, 06:08 AM

Actually that is untrue. Not choosing isn't an aligned action in D&D.
You are not punished for your non-deeds. D&D only punishes a person for their deeds.
You still choose to do nothing. That's a choice, and as such, is a deed of yours.
You also let your people die, which is another deed.

On the other hand, if you don't choose to let your people die, and if you don't deny your tacticians, many enemies will die. It will be a non-deed for you, since you did nothing. No alignments concerned, your people saved.

Mastikator

2010-10-22, 06:20 AM

Um, alignment in D&D makes no mention of rights. It talks about dignity and respect (on the side of goodness), but no mention of rights, inalienable or otherwise. According to the D&D morality system you have no rights, only dignity.

Starbuck_II

2010-10-22, 06:30 AM

You still choose to do nothing. That's a choice, and as such, is a deed of yours.
You also let your people die, which is another deed.

On the other hand, if you don't choose to let your people die, and if you don't deny your tacticians, many enemies will die. It will be a non-deed for you, since you did nothing. No alignments concerned, your people saved.

No, letting something happen isn't a deed.
Any evil done was done by the enemy.

But when you activate the weapon: any evil done is chosen/done by you. Remember you gave the order.

Burner28

2010-10-22, 07:00 AM

No, letting something happen isn't a deed.
Any evil done was done by the enemy.

But when you activate the weapon: any evil done is chosen/done by you. Remember you gave the order.

Yes because by Dnd definition inaction is by default Neutral. Letting children who are strangers starve would be neutral:smallfrown:. Taking advantage of starving children and making their situation worse just because it suits your situation is Evil by dnd definition

Ormur

2010-10-22, 08:04 AM

The paladin has no control over what his enemies want to do to his people. He only controls his own actions. If they invade and murder thousands, that isn't a mark on his soul (though he's expected to use all non-evil methods at his disposal to try to stop it.) If he commits even one evil act, though, he falls.

This, so very much.

There is always a small chance for a peaceful solution or a victory by other means. The paladin king isn't choosing between mass murder of his own citizens and mass murder of the enemies citizens but between the easy but evil way and the difficult but good way.

Of course that whole situation resembles a certain real life war where the nation that had the weapon of mass destruction wasn't even loosing but still used it, arguing it would safe lives.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-22, 09:40 AM

I've got to call shenanigans most foul, first on the idea that inaction is an alignment-less choice and second on the whole "there's always a better way" idea.

So: 1. Standing by and letting evil occur is evil. No, it's not as evil as holding the sword or flipping the switch yourself. But it's still evil. Failing to help someone in need of, say, food or water might not be evil, but it's still a pretty murky neutral. If you have the money to buy a starving street urchin a crust of bread, a truly Good character will help them without a second thought. But standing by while innocents get hurt because you think acting might be morally dubious? That's not making the hard choice. That's a cop-out rationalization to make committing evil by inaction feel less guilty.

2. The paladin-king in the example is bound by many ideals; Good, law, his oath to his people, his responsibility to defend the innocent, and his own role as a warrior of righteousness. It has been made clear that diplomacy has been tried and that it has repeatedly failed. What other options does he have? If prolonging the war was going to work, it would have by now. Appeal to another nation for help? Maybe, but why haven't they helped already? If that's not an option, can he take his people and flee to another land? Can he spare the troops to protect them as he does so? Can he feed and water them? Will another nation accept these refugees? Will his people even go?

If it comes down to the choice between using the weapon or allowing his people to die, the paladin is absolutely, positively required to protect his people. In the end, the toughest moral choices are not between doing the hard thing and the evil thing; it's deciding the lesser of two evils and then having the courage to commit it, even though it hurts. Yes, the paladin will regret hurting innocents. Yes, he will probably live the rest of his life in guilt. But there is not always a third option, and it's BS to penalize someone for making the hard choice and making it well. Not everything is as easy as saying, "Good is hard, so not everyone does it." Good is easy. Have you ever given for the sake of giving? Considered someone else before yourself? Said something nice to someone just because they're having a bad day? Campaigned for the rights of a minority group that you don't belong to? Good is easy. Evil is often difficult, if only because it is illegal. Don't penalize someone for truly having to stare into the Abyss and decide what to offer it to make it go away.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 10:00 AM

I've got to call shenanigans most foul, first on the idea that inaction is an alignment-less choice and second on the whole "there's always a better way" idea.

I disagree.

So: 1. Standing by and letting evil occur is evil. No, it's not as evil as holding the sword or flipping the switch yourself. But it's still evil. Failing to help someone in need of, say, food or water might not be evil, but it's still a pretty murky neutral. If you have the money to buy a starving street urchin a crust of bread, a truly Good character will help them without a second thought. But standing by while innocents get hurt because you think acting might be morally dubious? That's not making the hard choice. That's a cop-out rationalization to make committing evil by inaction feel less guilty.

GOOD characters will feel the need to help others. Evil characters will look to take advantage of the situation. Neutral is right in the center, neither feeling the urge to help or take advantage. A good character CAN ignore his urge to help people if the need is greater but they won't make it worse for the person, as if the character had never been there. This doesn't make the character evil or neutral. But it is a neutral act.

Evil characters CAN ignore their urge to take advantage of the situation if there is a greater concern on their mind. As above, this does not change their alignment and their alignment does not FORCE them to take certain actions. Free will and all. Alignments dictate what actions are likely for the character and if they follow through it re-enforces their alignment. Acting outside your alignment for long enough can force a change, as the DM sees fit.

Not ACTING when someone is in danger, that can be argued either way. Good characters are not required to help. As I said above, they feel the urge to do so.

There is no such thing as a character that perfectly reflects the alignment system. Even exalted characters (the best of the best) can not do everything and they don't fall if they aren't able to help every single person. Inaction is neutral but can be argued evil in certain situations, though these situations should be well outside the norm.

2. The paladin-king in the example is bound by many ideals; Good, law, his oath to his people, his responsibility to defend the innocent, and his own role as a warrior of righteousness. It has been made clear that diplomacy has been tried and that it has repeatedly failed. What other options does he have? If prolonging the war was going to work, it would have by now. Appeal to another nation for help? Maybe, but why haven't they helped already? If that's not an option, can he take his people and flee to another land? Can he spare the troops to protect them as he does so? Can he feed and water them? Will another nation accept these refugees? Will his people even go?

If it comes down to the choice between using the weapon or allowing his people to die, the paladin is absolutely, positively required to protect his people. In the end, the toughest moral choices are not between doing the hard thing and the evil thing; it's deciding the lesser of two evils and then having the courage to commit it, even though it hurts. Yes, the paladin will regret hurting innocents. Yes, he will probably live the rest of his life in guilt. But there is not always a third option, and it's BS to penalize someone for making the hard choice and making it well. Not everything is as easy as saying, "Good is hard, so not everyone does it." Good is easy. Have you ever given for the sake of giving? Considered someone else before yourself? Said something nice to someone just because they're having a bad day? Campaigned for the rights of a minority group that you don't belong to? Good is easy. Evil is often difficult, if only because it is illegal. Don't penalize someone for truly having to stare into the Abyss and decide what to offer it to make it go away.

A paladin's code is first and foremost before ANY other vows he has taken. He may chose to use the weapon and accept the fall, that is his right. But Paladins don't (or shouldn't) fall willingly.

The best choice for a paladin-king in this situation is to lay down the title of king and give it to someone who can make that decision. The soon-to-be-nuked country is going to need a great and good new king to set it straight and have someone to set an example. That is where the paladin should go next.

Eloel

2010-10-22, 10:01 AM

Good is easy. Have you ever given for the sake of giving? Considered someone else before yourself? Said something nice to someone just because they're having a bad day? Campaigned for the rights of a minority group that you don't belong to? Good is easy. Evil is often difficult, if only because it is illegal.
Many great points in your post - except I need to add one thing.
Good might be easy - true. But neutral is always the easier way.

Edit: Felt the need to explain.
When in doubt as a Paladin, think of what an animal would do. Being True Neutral (exclusively), animals always act Neutrally.
In case of a "your herd dies" vs "enemy herd dies", an animal would defend its own herd. Thus, killing the enemy to save your own people is, at worst, a neutral act. Neutrality doesn't make a paladin fall, crisis averted.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 10:29 AM

Edit: Felt the need to explain.
When in doubt as a Paladin, think of what an animal would do. Being True Neutral (exclusively), animals always act Neutrally.
In case of a "your herd dies" vs "enemy herd dies", an animal would defend its own herd. Thus, killing the enemy to save your own people is, at worst, a neutral act. Neutrality doesn't make a paladin fall, crisis averted.

A neutral creature would act this way, yes. However, a paladin also has to act 'honorable'. I doubt the use of this 'nuke' would constitute an 'honorable act' and the amount of death caused by this 'nuke' might be enough (depending on the DM) to be considered a gross violation of his Code of Conduct. Hence, my suggested solution.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-22, 10:36 AM

A neutral creature would act this way, yes. However, a paladin also has to act 'honorable'. I doubt the use of this 'nuke' would constitute an 'honorable act' and the amount of death caused by this 'nuke' might be enough (depending on the DM) to be considered a gross violation of his Code of Conduct. Hence, my suggested solution.

Can you quote the section of the Code that actually requires them to act honorably? 'Cause last I checked, it wasn't actually there; paladins are free to punch you in the 'nads, use poison, perform Sneak Attacks, et cetera, provided that A. the situation warrants it and B. the DM doesn't rule said action(s) evil.

Burner28

2010-10-22, 10:47 AM

So: 1. Standing by and letting evil occur is evil. No, it's not as evil as holding the sword or flipping the switch yourself. But it's still evil. Failing to help someone in need of, say, food or water might not be evil, but it's still a pretty murky neutral. If you have the money to buy a starving street urchin a crust of bread, a truly Good character will help them without a second thought. But standing by while innocents get hurt because you think acting might be morally dubious? That's not making the hard choice. That's a cop-out rationalization to make committing evil by inaction feel less guilty.

You do realize that most people's opinion of the rich man that is letting children starve to death (including my opinion) through inaction, even if he was a law abiding guy, would not be a very positive one to say the least. In DnD this guy would not be Evil by inaction alone. However if he was willing to hurt the starving children in some way then he would be by definition Evil by action, not inaction.

Besides, standing by and letting evil occur to some complete stranger, while in my opinion wrong, would have been by DnD definition the classic True Neutral character

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 11:14 AM

Can you quote the section of the Code that actually requires them to act honorably? 'Cause last I checked, it wasn't actually there; paladins are free to punch you in the 'nads, use poison, perform Sneak Attacks, et cetera, provided that A. the situation warrants it and B. the DM doesn't rule said action(s) evil.

Aye, aye. So Quoteth the SRD and bolded for your convienence.

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

Additionally, a paldin'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.

Of course, should you play 4E, this may not apply.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 12:33 PM

This, so very much.

There is always a small chance for a peaceful solution or a victory by other means. The paladin king isn't choosing between mass murder of his own citizens and mass murder of the enemies citizens but between the easy but evil way and the difficult but good way.

Of course that whole situation resembles a certain real life war where the nation that had the weapon of mass destruction wasn't even loosing but still used it, arguing it would safe lives.
That nation chose to end the war in a way that (according to the experts at the time) would result in the lesser loss of life for BOTH sides, but especially for the other side. The two sides are now friends. Was that the Right thing to do? Was the nation (or at least its duly elected leader) Evil for choosing that option?

War is bad period. The choice is in how to minimize the bad.

The Paladin-king IS choosing between systematic slaughter of his people and limited slaughter of the other people.

See, if a paladin wishes to heroically sacrifice himself in order to not do evil, then fine, that is his perogative. But remember in this case he's not just choosing for himself. He's choosing for his ENTIRE NATION. Does he have the authority to choose for his people, to force his own morale choice on his people, asking all of them to (most likely) sacrifice their lives in the name of not doing evil? Even if he has the authority, is it RIGHT for him to do so?

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 01:28 PM

Even if he has the authority, is it RIGHT for him to do so?

Maybe not but, unless he chooses to fall, he needs to pass on the task to someone that can do the job and do it willingly.

I honestly think its a bit ridiculous for a paladin to be in this situation anyway. Should be out fighting evil rather than ruling a kingdom. A keep, maybe but not a kingdom.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 01:58 PM

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-22, 02:00 PM

I mean really, passing the decision on for someone else to make sounds a lot like dodging responsibility in my book.

Gotta love the good ol' "If I don't dirty my own hands, think about it too hard, or pretend there was nothing I could do about it, I'm O-Kay and a better person than you to boot!" argument.

Heroes don't sit on their hands. They don't pass the buck. They don't make excuses. Sometimes making the right call is hard, and sometimes they might even be wrong, but that doesn't make them bad people.

But shirking responsibility, turning a blind eye, or blatant apathy are great sins indeed. And that includes offing yourself in order to evade making a real choice, or deciding that it doesn't matter if the person wasn't in the same room with you.

This stuff about ordering other people to go march off to slaughter their enemies isn't as bad as dropping a bomb on people yourself is just downright hokey. To me, it's intellectually dishonest and in complete denial of what it means to try to do the right thing.

The best choice for a paladin-king in this situation is to lay down the title of king and give it to someone who can make that decision.

The Paladin-King you describe isn't much of a paragon of heroic good, now is he? He just passes the buck to someone else and shirks responsibility to the people who put their trust in him, not to mention those who fought and died in his name, then pretends the blood isn't on his hands when someone else makes the wrong call. Sickening.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 02:17 PM

So forget about a paladin part. Instead we have an Aristocrat who is Good (hell, doesn't even have to be Lawful) on the king's throne. Does the decision-making process really change all that much?

I mean really, passing the decision on for someone else to make sounds a lot like dodging responsibility in my book.

Changing from Paladin to Good Aristocrat certainly changes things a lot! This Aristocrat is not bound by the Paladin's Code of Conduct, which by its nature, restricts the Paladin from many choices he could otherwise take. but, as I said before, a Paladin can willingly fall if he feels the sacrifice is truly worth it (it rarely is in the long run but thank goodness for atonement).

You can't very well dodge responsibility if you acknowledge that you don't have the ability to make such a decision without it being influenced heavily by your other vows. It would not be fair to you or your subjects. That's why someone who can make the clear choice needs to be the one to do so.

The Paladin-King you describe isn't much of a paragon of heroic good, now is he? He just passes the buck to someone else and shirks responsibility to the people who put their trust in him, not to mention those who fought and died in his name, then pretends the blood isn't on his hands. Sickening

You assume that the paladin stops with giving away the throne. You assume wrongly. Don't jump to conclusions. Besides, a Paladin will do the right thing regardless of how others view his decisions. A paladin can be HATED for doing the Good thing when evil is the only other choice. They choose to live with that.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-22, 02:25 PM

You assume that the paladin stops with giving away the throne. You assume wrongly. Don't jump to conclusions. Besides, a Paladin will do the right thing regardless of how others view his decisions. A paladin can be HATED for doing the Good thing when evil is the only other choice. They choose to live with that.

What you describe isn't a good thing, it's evasion of responsibility in order to maintain the illusion of keeping one's own hands clean, even though your direct action caused the decision that was made by the successor.

This is even more egregious when you realize that you can actually become aware of what that person's decision would be, since this is D&D and we have spells for that. Your argument is contingent on the idea that the Paladin needs to be ignorant of the successor's decision beforehand and the segregated thinking that the Paladin's actions didn't cause the result, and that it is not his act.

In fact, I could easily argue that the Paladin would be caused to fall due to dishonesty of such import, (not to mention that one could consider it an "Evil act" to make someone else suffer with the burden of such a hideous choice) while actually taking responsibility and making the choice wouldn't, since it is not actually his will to commit an Evil act. If he had his way, there would be world peace and everyone would live happily ever after and no one would have to fight ever and all the villains would be redeemed instead of killed with Smite Evil, but he does not have the power to make everything that he wills happen, and necessarily takes the better of unfortunate choices in almost every dilemma he comes across (I mean, seriously, there is an Evil aspect to killing anyone, including an Evil dude. If you don't have a definition that allows a paladin to Smite Evil, then it's not a very functional definition).

Your definition of "willfully committing an Evil act," on the other hand, would make all paladins of sufficient intelligence complete hypocrites. For example, few would contest that it is an Evil act to cause someone to cause an innocent to suffer greatly, and it is easy to foresee ways in which, for example, killing an evil tyrant (or really, any Evil human) would do exactly that, often in directly obvious ways. I'll take the version where it's not entirely impossible for anyone who used the Smite Evil power on something other than, I don't know, a mindless undead, to be a complete intellectually dishonest hypocrite, thanks. I prefer the paladins that are heroes people can look up to. Not vile, cretinous hypocrites who shirk responsibility, lie to themselves to maintain their holier than thou disposition (doing such things as saying that he did "everything possible" to redeem the villain before resorting to killing him, for example), and pass the buck whenever things get dicey.

In my opinion, your take goes against absolutely everything it means to be a Paladin, an exemplar, a hero, a self-sacrificing paragon. It goes directly against the Paladin vows.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 02:43 PM

Frosty

2010-10-22, 02:52 PM

Changing from Paladin to Good Aristocrat certainly changes things a lot! This Aristocrat is not bound by the Paladin's Code of Conduct, which by its nature, restricts the Paladin from many choices he could otherwise take. but, as I said before, a Paladin can willingly fall if he feels the sacrifice is truly worth it (it rarely is in the long run but thank goodness for atonement).

You can't very well dodge responsibility if you acknowledge that you don't have the ability to make such a decision without it being influenced heavily by your other vows. It would not be fair to you or your subjects. That's why someone who can make the clear choice needs to be the one to do so.

You assume that the paladin stops with giving away the throne. You assume wrongly. Don't jump to conclusions. Besides, a Paladin will do the right thing regardless of how others view his decisions. A paladin can be HATED for doing the Good thing when evil is the only other choice. They choose to live with that.
I just used a Paladin in my first example for convenience (because everyone knows that Paladins are Good(tm) right?) but my main question was always: What is the right thing to do in that situation? If YOU were in the position, what would YOU consider to be "The Right Choice?"

And yeah, in an ideal world paladins won't ever have to make that kinda choices, but paladins will often times have conflicting oaths. Only in dire straits will a man's full mettle be tested, and one can see the man's true nature. It's EASY to know what action is Good when things are rosy. It's not easy when the feces hit the rotating air-mover.

The fact that he doesn't WANT to choose which is more good (letting his people die or letting the enemy people die) doesn't make the choices any less valid or necessary in the situation. Once he is in that situation, he should NOT pass the buck onto somebody else. The atonement spell exists for a reason right?

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-22, 02:53 PM

You are assuming that the Paladin won't try to do everything else to prevent the weapon from being used. My statement will only work if the Paladin has to choose between using it or allowing his people to be overwhelmed. In that instance, he CAN NOT make that decision and must allow another to do so, unless he chooses to live with the consequences of his choice. OK, say there is no one else to make the decision. Time (or something else) is a factor, and your choice is inaction... or making a decision, and you can't reach anyone else to consult.

It's a do or die situation where you have to make a decision that will have worldwide ramifications. Any action that has worldwide ramifications will have Good and Bad results. Pretending that this is not so is intellectually dishonest.

Does the paladin just fall no matter what he does, according to you? Paladins can't ever make meaningful decisions with worldwide implications because not all the results will be perfectly good?

Seriously, if that's the case, he can't make pretty much any decisions because any decisions will have results that will not be perfectly good, and that includes protecting the village by smiting the Evil goblin raider.

Because smiting the goblin raider isn't the best you could have done. He could have been redeemed. Or any number of other things. But you used Smite Evil because it was a do or die situation and you had to make a choice.

Using the bomb will not be, in any way, an honorable act What you describe is a less honorable act.

But, i've said before a Paladin should not be in a situation like this, ever!
So It's Just Wrong for those of us who look at stories that place heroes in difficult and meaningful decisions, then?

Never give responsibility to a paladin, they're bad and ineffectual and can't make decisions. What heroes, eh? What icons, what paragons, what beacons of heroic good that we should all emulate!

I'm sorry, I like my paladins to actually be heroic. Heroes don't sit on their hands. Heroes don't pass the buck. Heroes don't make excuses.

Heroes try to do what's right, even when it's hard.

I never defined my view on 'willingly commiting an evil act' and think you are going way off on a tangent. Everything I described is not a universal manual for how a paladin acts, only a description of how a paladin, in this given situation, must act and not fall. Keep it to the point.

No, it is your understanding of how a paladin must act in order to not fall, contingent on your interpretation of what it means to willfully commit an Evil act, unless you're pointing at some other aspect of the Paladin's code. The description of the Paladin's Code in the PHB is not so ironclad that it is not open to interpretation. In fact, it's not even close.

I just used a Paladin in my first example for convenience (because everyone knows that Paladins are Good(tm) right?) but my main question was always: What is the right thing to do in that situation? If YOU were in the position, what would YOU consider to be "The Right Choice?" The thing is, you can't really know what the best choice is, because you're human and you're not perfect.

But I can tell you one thing. Heroes do not sit on their hands. They do no make excuses. They do not pass the buck. They don't shirk responsibility. When it's a do or die situation, they act in the best way they know how.

Maybe that goblin attacking the village could have been redeemed. Maybe you didn't have to leave his grieving widow and 4 children fatherless back at the encampment that the raiding party was getting supplies for. Maybe all sorts of things could have happened... but you saw that a goblin was going to stab that woman, so you used Smite Evil.

And if your DM makes you fall for that, your DM is a ****.

And yeah, in an ideal world paladins won't ever have to make that kinda choices, but paladins will often times have conflicting oaths. Only in dire straits will a man's full mettle be tested, and one can see the man's true nature. It's EASY to know what action is Good when things are rosy. It's not easy when the feces hit the rotating air-mover. Indeed. And a paladin who crumbles and runs away when anything resembling "dire straits" approaches, like the Paladin that some other posters are talking about, are not very paladinly at all.

The fact that he doesn't WANT to choose which is more good (letting his people die or letting the enemy people die) doesn't make the choices any less valid or necessary in the situation. Once he is in that situation, he should NOT pass the buck onto somebody else. Absolutely.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 03:09 PM

OK, say there is no one else to make the decision. Time (or something else) is a factor, and your choice is inaction... or making a decision, and you can't reach anyone else to consult.

Unless you're going to take the position that heroes sit on their hands, you're saying that the Paladin will necessarily fall if that position exists.

This is different. If there is no one else able to make the decision, then the Paladin must act. This is highly unlikely, even given a time limit, but I will entertain the option. Given the choice the 'right' thing to do is to drop the bomb, the 'good (tm)' thing to do is go out guns blazing. Since 'good' is a universal constant in the D&D universe, it can be drastically different than the 'right' thing to do in a circumstance.

If it was me (as I am, ie, not a paladin) I would drop the BOMB like it was hot and blow that other kingdom away. I am lawful neutral at heart, though I wish i was Lawful Good

What you describe is a less honorable act.

Kill potentially hunderds of thousand of people with no means for them to defend themselves vs refusing to make that decision. Maybe our definition of honorable is different.

So It's Just Wrong for those of us who look at stories that place heroes in difficult and meaningful decisions, then?

Actually, no. However, there is no guarantee those particular heroes where paladins and if they were, that they did the Good(tm) thing, rather thant he right thing.

Never give responsibility to a paladin, they're bad and ineffectual and can't make decisions. What heroes, eh? What icons, what paragons, what beacons of heroic good that we should all emulate!

A little out of context. Let me rephrase that. Never give responsibility over people to a Paladin because he will be forced to follow his vows and in doing so, force others to live under them too. A Paladin would be willing to die to prevent a city from being overrun if he could. I doubt all the other inhabitants would be willing to do the same thing. That is the crux of the matter, not a paladin being ineffective or unable to make decisions. They can make those decisions but you very well might not like they choice.

No, it is your understanding of how a paladin must act in order to not fall, contingent on your interpretation of what it means to willfully commit an Evil act, unless you're pointing at some other aspect of the Paladin's code. The description of the Paladin's Code in the PHB is not so ironclad that it is not open to interpretation. In fact, it's not even close.

I think i've gotten it pretty clear above.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-22, 03:15 PM

This is different. If there is no one else able to make the decision, then the Paladin must act. This is highly unlikely

Really? This happens every other game session in a campaign where villains actually have personalities instead of being monolithic mustache twirling forces of pure solidified nastiness. See the example with the goblin raiders above.

Maybe our definition of honorable is different. Boy, have you got that right.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 03:23 PM

Given the choice the 'right' thing to do is to drop the bomb, the 'good (tm)' thing to do is go out guns blazing. Since 'good' is a universal constant in the D&D universe, it can be drastically different than the 'right' thing to do in a circumstance.

If it was me (as I am, ie, not a paladin) I would drop the BOMB like it was hot and blow that other kingdom away. I am lawful neutral at heart, though I wish i was Lawful Good.
See, that's the thing. Some folks have trouble with the dissonance of doing "what is right" and doing "what is good" being different?

Shouldn't they be one and the same (not necessarily just asking this in DnD 3.5 terms and rules. Asking in general so it can apply to any roleplay system)?

If YOU could live with yourself by saying that you made the Right choice instead of the Good choice, then why should you strive for Good? After all, Good is not always the answer correct? If the Good choice is not always the Right choice, then isn't the ideas of "Good" flawed in some manner and not something that people should blindly aspire to?

In other words, wouldn't this make Good NOT the ultimate ideology to live by? Would a Paladin then be striving to live within the tenets of a system that he knows if flawed? If the Paladin knows the system is flawed should he not try to find a better system?

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 03:25 PM

Really? This happens every other game session in a campaign where villains actually have personalities instead of being monolithic mustache twirling forces of pure solidified nastiness. See the example with the goblin raiders above.

Your 'goblin' reference required instant action. The choice we are debating is whether or not to drop a locate city bomb (equivalent) to save your city from inevitable defeat. I doubt that decision requires a similar amount of time. Let me just repeat myself. I am only talking about this particular scenario (city bomb vs lose kingdom), none other and what I reply with should not be taken out of context for any other application.

In other words, wouldn't this make Good NOT the ultimate ideology to live by? Would a Paladin then be striving to live within the tenets of a system that he knows if flawed? If the Paladin knows the system is flawed should he not try to find a better system?

A HAH! That's the whole source of the arguement, right there. The good and right thing to do should be the same but because the world is not perfect, we create our own distortions of what is wrong and right, what is good and evil. The only way to clear up this distortion of the truth is to strive to be Good(tm). I have little faith in our success but what good is an ultimate goal that you can easily reach?

Starbuck_II

2010-10-22, 03:40 PM

After all, Good is not always the answer correct? If the Good choice is not always the Right choice, then isn't the ideas of "Good" flawed in some manner and not something that people should blindly aspire to?

In other words, wouldn't this make Good NOT the ultimate ideology to live by? Would a Paladin then be striving to live within the tenets of a system that he knows if flawed? If the Paladin knows the system is flawed should he not try to find a better system?

Good is the best answer. How the world should be.

No, the system isn't flawed the people are. The paladin is there/needs to change the world. Even if it means dying against impossible odds: he goes down guns blazing against the invaders (or retreats and fights another day).

Caring about others is hard. Good isn't easy. Good isn't always nice. But good you can trust to never lead you astray.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 03:52 PM

Good is the best answer. How the world should be.

No, the system isn't flawed the people are. The paladin is there/needs to change the world. Even if it means dying against impossible odds: he goes down guns blazing against the invaders (or retreats and fights another day).

Caring about others is hard. Good isn't easy. Good isn't always nice. But good you can trust to never lead you astray.

And its statements like this that reaffirms my faith in humanity. Bravo! :smallbiggrin:

I'm gonna sig that, if you don't mind?

Eloel

2010-10-22, 04:09 PM

Good is the best answer. How the world should be.

I can't possibly say how wrong that is.
It is how the world should be, according to like 1/3 of the world's population. So, majority thinks it's not the way to be.

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 04:20 PM

Essentially, we started assuming the king was a paladin because anyone who was not a paladin could make the choice to commit an evil action without any kind of immediate ramifications. A good aristocrat might feel regret later, might try to atone through some later action, and might face a stiff argument at the gates of heaven.

A paladin is like a dowsing rod for evil actions. If something causes him to fall, doing that thing is evil.

I should also remind that a paladin lives in a world where literal miracles occasionally happen for desperate people who have taken the hard road.

Doing nothing about a problem is the solution most people have to any given problem they encounter, and this is what primarily makes most people neutral.

A paladin who was acting as a king would be in the process of trying to create a kingdom built on a foundation of good laws, traditions, and practices, which would lead people in his kingdom to be more often good than evil.

Any paladin worth his paladinhood would expect that the cosmos is testing his devotion to his ideals with this choice. If he chooses to kill innocents, then he admits to himself that his dream was impossible and cannot maintain the devotion necessary to a paladin without atoning somehow.

If the situation is truly inevitable, and there is no miraculous salvation on it's way, then the only Good solution is to go down as the greatest symbol of law and good ever to have lived, to set an example for the world.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-22, 04:28 PM

Pyrite, how do you keep forgetting that good-aligned gods aren't the majority in D&D? Indeed, neutral and evil gods devoted to things like murder, war, destruction, et cetera ABOUND. This is not a universe with a single caring figure running the show. This is a cold, uncaring universe full of immortal jerks.

EDIT

If the situation is truly inevitable, and there is no miraculous salvation on it's way, then the only Good solution is to go down as the greatest symbol of law and good ever to have lived, to set an example for the world.

The sheer wrongness and immorality of this statement boggles my mind. The only Good solution is to protect as many innocents as you can, especially since the Code requires (see quote, above) that the paladin protect the innocent. The paladin might fall on a technicality, but another Good character can recognize that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Pushing the button might not be an easy choice, but it would be the right one.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 04:38 PM

A HAH! That's the whole source of the arguement, right there. The good and right thing to do should be the same but because the world is not perfect, we create our own distortions of what is wrong and right, what is good and evil. The only way to clear up this distortion of the truth is to strive to be Good(tm). I have little faith in our success but what good is an ultimate goal that you can easily reach?
Don't you get it? In a perfect world there IS no need for ethics and morality. Everything is RIGHT in a perfect world. But, in an imperfect world, what good are the tenets of "Good" if "Good" doesn't provide the best solution possible? There are situations in which greater harm comes from sticking to the ideals of "Good."

No, the system isn't flawed the people are. The paladin is there/needs to change the world. Even if it means dying against impossible odds: he goes down guns blazing against the invaders (or retreats and fights another day).So you'd want the entire nation to go down fighting and/or being enslaved for generations to come? And that is a BETTER choice than using the only viable option of defending yourself? You do realize that by allowing your people to be killed and enslaved you would let a greater amount of evil acts to be performed in the world compared to if you bomb a limited amount of people on the other side?

I sure wouldn't vote for this kind of leader :smallwink:

The division here is that you think any Evil act is unacceptable, no matter how much Evil fallout comes from your decision, while some others with a more utilitarian view look for the course of action that would maximize the total amount of Good/happiness and minimize the total amount of Evil/suffering.

Gray Guards have Bluff as a class skill are still Lawful Good for a reason, y'know. Even the church of Pelor or Moradin realize that sometimes shady methods must be used, and this is ENDORSED by the Good-aligned deities!

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 04:39 PM

Pyrite, how do you keep forgetting that good-aligned gods aren't the majority in D&D? Indeed, neutral and evil gods devoted to things like murder, war, destruction, et cetera ABOUND. This is not a universe with a single caring figure running the show. This is a cold, uncaring universe full of immortal jerks.

And the good gods have never come through for an otherwise impossible cause, not in the history of the multiverse?

The sheer wrongness and immorality of this statement boggles my mind. The only Good solution is to protect as many innocents as you can, especially since the Code requires (see quote, above) that the paladin protect the innocent. The paladin might fall on a technicality, but another Good character can recognize that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Pushing the button might not be an easy choice, but it would be the right one.
Good in D&D isn't utilitarian. You can't just tally up "people saved" and "people killed" on opposite sides of a chalkboard, point to a positive saved amount after subtraction, and say that this act was obviously good. Utilitarianism and pragmatism are philosophies that neutral people follow.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-22, 04:39 PM

Gray Guards have Bluff as a class skill are still Lawful Good for a reason, y'know. Even the church of Pelor or Moradin realize that sometimes shady methods must be used, and this is ENDORSED by the Good-aligned deities!

Paladins are gods-optional.

That is all.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 04:41 PM

And the good gods have never come through for an otherwise impossible cause, not in the history of the multiverse?
Good in D&D isn't utilitarian. You can't just tally up "people saved" and "people killed" on opposite sides of a chalkboard, point to a positive saved amount after subtraction, and say that this act was obviously good. Utilitarianism and pragmatism are philosophies that neutral people follow.
No, neutral people don't give a crap. Good people can follow Utilitarianism to make decisions. they'll just feel bad about any Evil they must do to preserve the Greater Good.

Let me ask you: Would YOU want to live under a leader that makes decisions like the Paladin-King does?

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 04:42 PM

The sheer wrongness and immorality of this statement boggles my mind. The only Good solution is to protect as many innocents as you can, especially since the Code requires (see quote, above) that the paladin protect the innocent. The paladin might fall on a technicality, but another Good character can recognize that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Pushing the button might not be an easy choice, but it would be the right one.

The Paladin does not fall for not protecting the innocent. He is charged to punish those that harm or threaten the innocent. A Paladin can not and will never be fully capable of preventing all harm to the innocent but sure as hell can be the righteous fist of justice to those that even think about harming the innocents.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 04:43 PM

The Paladin does not fall for not protecting the innocent. He is charged to punish those that harm or threaten the innocent. A Paladin can not and will never be fully capable of preventing all harm to the innocent but sure as hell can be the righteous fist of justice to those that even think about harming the innocents.He ought to be punished for willful negligence.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-22, 04:44 PM

And the good gods have never come through for an otherwise impossible cause, not in the history of the multiverse?

But you can't rely on that. You can't base your morals on the idea that a third option might mystically appear because, you know what, Pelor might be busy holding off some archmage from another dimension or engaging in righteous spell-battle with Vecna or something much more important than your tiny little war. Even better, if another set of gods has a stake in continuing the war, they might be actively limiting your option. Evil gets miracles too. Thus, you need to make decisions based on what is within your power to affect and not hope that some god will stroll along to take the hard choice away and tell you everything will be okay. It won't. They're not coming. When it's all down to you, a Good character will save as many people as they can, not condemn them to death because they won't pick up the buck and take responsibility.

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 04:47 PM

No, neutral people don't give a crap. Good people can follow Utilitarianism to make decisions. they'll just feel bad about any Evil they must do to preserve the Greater Good.

Let me ask you: Would YOU want to live under a leader that makes decisions like the Paladin-King does?

Assuming that this specific engineered situation was not inevitable, but just a possibility? Sure. Assuming he was intelligent and politically savvy, he'd be crafting the most good, generous, principled kingdom to ever exist.

In a world where this specific situation was inevitable, then I guess I'd have to figure out where my priorities were and whether I was ready to die for the dream of a morally perfect state.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 04:47 PM

But you can't rely on that. You can't base your morals on the idea that a third option might mystically appear because, you know what, Pelor might be busy holding off some archmage from another dimension or engaging in righteous spell-battle with Vecna or something much more important than your tiny little war. Even better, if another set of gods has a stake in continuing the war, they might be actively limiting your option. Evil gets miracles too. Thus, you need to make decisions based on what is within your power to affect and not hope that some god will stroll along to take the hard choice away and tell you everything will be okay. It won't. They're not coming. When it's all down to you, a Good character will save as many people as they can, not condemn them to death because they won't pick up the buck and take responsibility.
Obviously Pyrite does not consider saving the most lives to be a Good act.

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 04:48 PM

So: 1. Standing by and letting evil occur is evil. Nope, not in the slightest; doing nothing is strictly neutral.

Gray Guards have Bluff as a class skill are still Lawful Good for a reason, y'know. Even the church of Pelor or Moradin realize that sometimes shady methods must be used, and this is ENDORSED by the Good-aligned deities!Gray Gaurds are optional; it's not reasonable to assume that this is valid in all game worlds.

I sure wouldn't vote for this kind of leader :smallwink:Not surprising; I would't expect a leader that refused to do evil to be very popular.

But doing good isn't really what people want out of their leaders. "They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today."

Obviously Pyrite does not consider saving the most lives to be a Good act.Perhaps he thinks it's nice result of an Evil act (when achieved by evil means)? That kind of how I regard it.

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 04:52 PM

But you can't rely on that. You can't base your morals on the idea that a third option might mystically appear because, you know what, Pelor might be busy holding off some archmage from another dimension or engaging in righteous spell-battle with Vecna or something much more important than your tiny little war. Even better, if another set of gods has a stake in continuing the war, they might be actively limiting your option. Evil gets miracles too. Thus, you need to make decisions based on what is within your power to affect and not hope that some god will stroll along to take the hard choice away and tell you everything will be okay. It won't. They're not coming. When it's all down to you, a Good character will save as many people as they can, not condemn them to death because they won't pick up the buck and take responsibility.

A good character might do that, and even if they thought it was in the end the right decision, the people that decision killed will haunt them.

A paladin has to be the perfect example, and has to have faith that good will triumph without relying on evil to prop it up. A paladin has to be a paragon of good, a perfect example.

And as for hoping for a miracle, a paladin has to have faith that the universe will provide for him.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 04:56 PM

Assuming that this specific engineered situation was not inevitable, but just a possibility? Sure. Assuming he was intelligent and politically savvy, he'd be crafting the most good, generous, principled kingdom to ever exist.

In a world where this specific situation was inevitable, then I guess I'd have to figure out where my priorities were and whether I was ready to die for the dream of a morally perfect state.
The fact that you have to take time to "figure it out" shows that your version of the "Good" option isn't obviously better than the alternatives. If it were, you wouldn't be hesitating right?

A good character might do that, and even if they thought it was in the end the right decision, the people that decision killed will haunt them.I never said they wouldn't be troubled for doing the necessary thing.

Perhaps he thinks it's nice result of an Evil act (when achieved by evil means)? That kind of how I regard it.And you would prefer the alternative? An evil result of a Good act? If you were the leader of your nation and sworn to protect your people, you might choose to stick completely true to the "Good" action?

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 05:04 PM

I never said they wouldn't be troubled for doing the necessary thing.If you're troubled about doing it, then it seems pretty clear that you know you've done evil, and any claims to the counter are just trying to throw a veneer of justification over it.

And you would prefer the alternative? An evil result of a Good act? If you were the leader of your nation and sworn to protect your people, you might choose to stick completely true to the "Good" action?How is the alternative an evil result? It's just not a pleasant result.

I only have control over what I do; If I'm a paladin, I'll choose to do good, regardless of whether it's popular, or easy. Any evil that you choose to do will be on you. I'll protect people to the best of my ability, without doing any evil.

And as for hoping for a miracle, a paladin has to have faith that the universe will provide for him.Quite so.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-22, 05:10 PM

If you're troubled about doing it, then it seems pretty clear that you know you've done evil, and any claims to the counter are just trying to throw a veneer of justification over it.

Or a natural consequence of having made a difficult choice. Neither choice is really ideal, but if you have to choose between two bad options, you pick the lesser one. A good character is going to regret killing innocents no matter what, but if it's necessary, if it must be done, the act itself is not evil. How can it be, if you're protecting the lives of countless other innocents?

Cale, of Looking for Group, is a great example of a character that's had to live through this kind of choice. He started out high-minded and idealistic, but had to make the hard choice in killing an innocent child in order to ensure the survival of himself and his friends - an event that had to occur in order to break the power of the evil empire that rules his world. Was his decision easy? No. Was it right? I would say so.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 05:10 PM

If you're troubled about doing it, then it seems pretty clear that you know you've done evil, and any claims to the counter are just trying to throw a veneer of justification over it.

*laughes maniacally* Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere. :smallamused:

*has nothing else to add and sits back with popcorn to enjoy the ride*

Frosty

2010-10-22, 05:10 PM

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 05:13 PM

The fact that you have to take time to "figure it out" shows that your version of the "Good" option isn't obviously better than the alternatives. If it were, you wouldn't be hesitating right?

No, it just means that being good isn't easy, and that to some degree I'm a selfish person and it's difficult for me to make a sacrifice like that. A paladin doesn't get to be a selfish person.

I'm not perfectly good, and I haven't dedicated my life to perfect goodness. a paladin has.

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 05:19 PM

Deaths of innocents (of which your nation has plenty of) is an Evil thing. Th enemy army is going to perpetrate a LOT of evil if they succeed. You can stop them by performing Evil on a lesser scale, therefore taking the less Evil of the two options and leaving the world with less total Evil.
You aren't responsible for what other people do. You are responsible for what you do about it.

D&D alignment is not utilitarian. No matter how much you want it to be, it isn't. The ends do not justify the means.

And yes, you ARE doing Evil. you're just doing LESS Evil than what YOU advocate. So, comparatively, it is Good.
Nope. it's still evil.

And again I ask you, what would YOU do if you were the leader of such a nation? There are plenty of historical situations similar to this you can draw upon for inspiration I am sure.

I'm not a paladin. I might choose to act in an evil manner, because my bonds to my fellow citizens are more important to me than my bonds to enemy civilians. I'd like to think that I'd be able to act with moral clarity and turn this solution away, however.

I'll mention Ghandi, but we shouldn't get into the details of that as that would lead us into Verboten territory.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-22, 05:19 PM

Frosty

2010-10-22, 05:21 PM

No, it just means that being good isn't easy, and that to some degree I'm a selfish person and it's difficult for me to make a sacrifice like that. A paladin doesn't get to be a selfish person.

I'm not perfectly good, and I haven't dedicated my life to perfect goodness. a paladin has.
Perfect Goodness will cause Evil to win the war. This is why Good is Stupid (think tvtropes). Having a self-preservation instinct is NOT Evil.

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 05:22 PM

Deaths of innocents (of which your nation has plenty of) is an Evil thing.Not at all; death is a natural part of life.

The evil part is the TAKING of the lives of innocents; whether you do it to them, or they do it to you, the same amount of evil is being done.

So that's not an especially evil situation comparatively, it's jut an unpleasant one, since it'd be my side that would be losing.

The only thing I have control over is MY actions. My only chance for a good outcome is to choose not to do evil, work toward preventing the evil of others.

The enemy army is going to perpetrate a LOT of evil if they succeed. Maybe they will. Advisers are sometimes wrong.

And yes, you ARE doing Evil. you're just doing LESS Evil than what YOU advocate. So, comparatively, it is Good.Not at all. If you use the bomb, then you have done evil. If you don't you haven't done any evil. Cut and dry. I only have control over my actions.

Perfect Goodness will cause Evil to win the war. Not true. Perfect Goodness MIGHT cause Evil; to win the war.

As for the rest, you may want to check out the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-22, 05:25 PM

You aren't responsible for what other people do. You are responsible for what you do about it.

D&D alignment is not utilitarian. No matter how much you want it to be, it isn't. The ends do not justify the means.Nope. it's still evil.

This? Right here? This is why Asmodeus spends so much of his time saving the multiverse. Because WotC wrote Good exactly like this, and that means, more often than not, they're not up for the job. When your alignment system ends up with the king of hell as the primary defender of innocent lives, there is a problem.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 05:26 PM

I like how you quoted me (by name), responded to me, then quoted someone else (not posting their name, inferring it was more of my post) then responded to that.

Did I? Whoops, sorry. Fixed that. I don't think it hurt anything? No? Good, good. No harm done.

Starbuck_II

2010-10-22, 05:29 PM

Good thing we are just using Paladins think how bad Exalted Good would be.

You have to accept every surrender even if you are sure the guy is faking it.
I could play Paladin, but Exalted is a little too much.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 05:29 PM

You aren't responsible for what other people do. You are responsible for what you do about it.

D&D alignment is not utilitarian. No matter how much you want it to be, it isn't. The ends do not justify the means.Nope. it's still evil.

I'm not a paladin. I might choose to act in an evil manner, because my bonds to my fellow citizens are more important to me than my bonds to enemy civilians. I'd like to think that I'd be able to act with moral clarity and turn this solution away, however.

I'll mention Ghandi, but we shouldn't get into the details of that as that would lead us into Verboten territory.The opening post in this thread does not specify DnD, even though I did use a Paladin in my first example. So forget DnD. In general, a utilitarian view works so much BETTER at bringing about the least total evil in the world because the Perfect Good methods just DON'T WORK. In theory, there are many forms of government that should work...but don't because of greed and other imperfections of sentient beings.

Within DnD, if doing Evil will bring about better results to the world, then so be it. The world will be better off because of it. You don't see Heironeous complaining do you?

Good thing we are just using Paladins think how bad Exalted Good would be.

You have to accept every surrender even if you are sure the guy is faking it.
I could play Paladin, but Exalted is a little too much.
Again, Good is Stupid. Asmodeus hasn't lost the war against Good because Good can't get its crap together. Dear gods...

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 05:30 PM

Neither choice is really ideal, but if you have to choose between two bad options, you pick the lesser one.No. You choose the lesser one; some people would choose the greater one. And some people use totally different methods to evaluate which is greater and which is lesser, many of which aren't going to agree with your evaluation.

A good character is going to regret killing innocents no matter what, but if it's necessary, if it must be done, the act itself is not evil. It's not necessary. That's not the correct word. It's just the one that you've evaluated as the better option.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 05:33 PM

No, you choose the lesser one; some people would choose the greater one. And some people use totally different methods to evaluate which is greater and which is lesser.

It's not necessary. That's not the correct word. It's just the one that you've evaluated as the better option.
So it's just a difference on opinion on the parameters on what the "better option" is. We just don't agree on the term "Good" and "Better" (and I'm NOT talking about DnD). I consider the least amount of suffering to be a Good choice and to be the Better option.

Zeofar

2010-10-22, 05:36 PM

I'm not sure who told you that, but it wasn't WotC. The books themselves say that alignment isn't detailed enough to capture more complex issues. For example, check the section titled "The Relative Approach" on BoVD page 6.

"A second approach considers evil to be a relative concept that is wholly dependent on the attitude of the observer. This is not the approach of most D&D games; rather, it resembles how many people see the real world."

I don't see anything there that suggests that the alignment system does not encompass all actions, or that some interactions are too complex to be properly judged, just a description of another approach to morality. I'm not checking back into this thread again, though, so if there is a direct claim that the alignment system cannot capture more complex issues, please pm it to me.

I'm not really interested to take part in this discussion any further, but just in case nobody mentioned it yet: there are never real conflicts of rights, only apparent ones.

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 05:37 PM

The opening post in this thread does not specify DnD, even though I did use a Paladin in my first example. So forget DnD. In general, a utilitarian view works so much BETTER at bringing about the least total evil in the world because the Perfect Good methods just DON'T WORK. In theory, there are many forms of government that should work...but don't because of greed and other imperfections of sentient beings.

Outside of D&D, where the universe judges your actions and determines if they're good or evil, it really comes down to what individual characters believe and are willing to sacrifice. Since morality isn't a game mechanic in most other games, it's essentially just roleplaying and fluff. In D&D we need a standard for what good is.

Within DnD, if doing Evil will bring about better results to the world, then so be it. The world will be better off because of it. You don't see Heironeous complaining do you?
That's a perfectly valid neutral or even slightly good approach, but not one a paladin can take.

Again, Good is Stupid. Asmodeus hasn't lost the war against Good because Good can't get its crap together. Dear gods...

Or maybe it's because the D&D universe is overall in balance, and one side doesn't get to win totally? Asmodeus hasn't succeeded in crushing hope and peace out of the worlds completely either, has he?

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 05:39 PM

The opening post in this thread does not specify DnD, even though I did use a Paladin in my first example. So forget DnD.This thread is about RPG's, specifically ones with alignment, and the OP was talking D&D.

If you want to debate General moral philosophy, there are other forums that would be more appropriate for that.

In general, {assert that my way is better}Seriously? Using reasons is a lot better than just asserting that your way is the better way.

You don't see Heironeous complaining do you?Actually, I think he'd be quite incensed at your proposed solution. If you were a paldin following him I'd expect him to come down on you harder than a ton of rectangular building things. I'm pretty sure he'd be far more in favor of you fighting it out to the last man."

Lord Raziere

2010-10-22, 05:40 PM

"True Heroes are those who do what they must, not what they want."

If you must kill 100 to save 100,000, you kill 100. Don't like it, suck it up and take the lesser of two evils, it is only logical.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 05:46 PM

That's a perfectly valid neutral or even slightly good approach, but not one a paladin can take.
Again, forget paladins. Just take the view of a person who is generally trying to do good and be a just and wise ruler, etc.

Ok, let me phrase it another way: Do you believe that the world (planet, multiverse, whatever) these people inhabit is worse off if a ruler chooses the City Bomb option, or do you believe the world is worse off if the ruler decides to let his nation be conquered and its citizens subject to horrific things (rape, torture, random executions, what have you)?

Which option would make the world a better place to live in? That's really the ultimate question.

I refuse to believe that any set of tenets claiming to be the ultimate Good philosophy would call for actions that allow more suffering.

Or maybe it's because the D&D universe is overall in balance, and one side doesn't get to win totally? Asmodeus hasn't succeeded in crushing hope and peace out of the worlds completely either, has he?He's done a pretty good job sowing despair and discontent. Only reason why he hasn't taken over is because of the LIMITLESS numbers of Tanar'ri constantly pounding on Avernus's front door. Once the demon problem is taken care of, Good is doomed.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 05:47 PM

Seriously? Using reasons is a lot better than just asserting that your way is the better way.And since you have taken the opposite position, you should also present arguments on why YOUR way is the better way.

Starbuck_II

2010-10-22, 05:50 PM

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 05:51 PM

The opening post in this thread does not specify DnD, even though I did use a Paladin in my first example. So forget DnD. In general, a utilitarian view works so much BETTER at bringing about the least total evil in the world because the Perfect Good methods just DON'T WORK. In theory, there are many forms of government that should work...but don't because of greed and other imperfections of sentient beings.

I think that is a failure of man rather than the methods used. I also do not buy into the whole utilitarian view. As far as I am concerned, either its good or its not good.

Within DnD, if doing Evil will bring about better results to the world, then so be it. The world will be better off because of it. You don't see Heironeous complaining do you?

I would be complaining from start to finish for two reasons. Its evil and using evil to 'make it all better' is nothing more than justifying more evil to be done. Eventually, it'll rise up in a giant wave and crush everyone beneathe it. Evil does not work in the long run.

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 05:52 PM

Just take the view of a person who is generally trying to do good and be a just and wise ruler, etc. There's nothing in that statement that precludes that ruler from having a lawful evil alignment. In fact, it's quite a common element in fantasy (I bet you can find several versions of this at TVTropes)

He's done a pretty good job sowing despair and discontent. Only reason why he hasn't taken over is because of the LIMITLESS numbers of Tanar'ri constantly pounding on Avernus's front door. Once the demon problem is taken care of, Good is doomed.Are you seriously taking something that is the way it is solely for game balance purposes and trying to argue that it means something beyond "it's designed that way to make games interesting" ...

Frosty

2010-10-22, 05:53 PM

I think that is a failure of man rather than the methods used. I also do not buy into the whole utilitarian view. As far as I am concerned, either its good or its not good.

I would be complaining from start to finish for two reasons. Its evil and using evil to 'make it all better' is nothing more than justifying more evil to be done. Eventually, it'll rise up in a giant wave and crush everyone beneathe it. Evil does not work in the long run.How perfect can the methods be if Man, the flawed creature, created it?

And Evil *might* not work in the long run, but Evil also *might* win NOW and crush you beneath the boots of their Army of Doom.

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 05:54 PM

And since you have taken the opposite position, you should also present arguments on why YOUR way is the better way.I'm not saying my way is better. I'm saying it's my way.

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 05:55 PM

Again, forget paladins. Just take the view of a person who is generally trying to do good and be a just and wise ruler, etc.

Ok, let me phrase it another way: Do you believe that the world (planet, multiverse, whatever) these people inhabit is worse off if a ruler chooses the City Bomb option, or do you believe the world is worse off if the ruler decides to let his nation be conquered and its citizens subject to horrific things (rape, torture, random executions, what have you)?

Which option would make the world a better place to live in? That's really the ultimate question.

It's hard to say, because it's hard to measure the impact that resorting to this sort of thing would have on the future of the world, and the kind of example it would set. The wise and good ruler, who isn't a paladin, has only his or her conscience to guide them. They have to decide whether committing this evil act is worth it in the long run. Most will likely say that it is, and at best try to find ways to mitigate the harm they cause.

A wise ruler, however, wouldn't deny that the action was evil, and wrong, even if they did not have the moral strength to refuse it.

I refuse to believe that any set of tenets claiming to be the ultimate Good philosophy would call for actions that allow more suffering.

You're clearly in favor of utilitarianism, and that's ok. It's just not the philosophy the cosmos of D&D judges people by. D&D morality considers deeds and intent, not consequences.

He's done a pretty good job sowing despair and discontent. Only reason why he hasn't taken over is because of the LIMITLESS numbers of Tanar'ri constantly pounding on Avernus's front door. Once the demon problem is taken care of, Good is doomed.

Somehow, I don't see that happening in the overall continuity, no matter how many fanboys he has.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 05:56 PM

I'm not saying my way is better. I'm saying it's my way.
But if you personally believe in it, it must, in your mind, have more merits than other ways correct? That is works more often or generates better results than other ways?

I'm not saying my way has no flaws either.

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 05:58 PM

But if you personally believe in it, it must, in your mind, have more merits than other ways correct? No, actually, I don't have to believe that it has more merits than other ways (that would be a utilitarian way of picking my moral philosophy).

kyoryu

2010-10-22, 05:59 PM

If the situation is truly inevitable, and there is no miraculous salvation on it's way, then the only Good solution is to go down as the greatest symbol of law and good ever to have lived, to set an example for the world.

Okay, my view of morality is based on a couple simple concepts.

1. We have rights (life, liberty, yada yada)
2. We have the right to defend ourselves from those who would infringe upon our rights
3. We our responsible for our own actions, not those of others.
4. A Good act involves sacrifice for others
5. A Neutral act is done out of self-interest, without infringing upon the rights of others
6. An Evil act infringes upon the rights of others (except in self defense)

So... I don't think pushing The Button is an Evil act, provided two things:

1. The enemy kingdom was the aggressor
2. The enemy population, as a whole, is supporting the war

Why? The kingdom clearly has a right to defend itself. It's not the aggressor. And if the enemy people are in support of the war effort, then they are also guilty of the war.

Now, that doesn't mean it's a Good act. At best, it's Neutral. And I'd expect any Paladin-King to do some serious soul-searching and contrition if put in that position.

On the other hand, using the Doom Spell to blackmail non-aggressive kingdoms into submission? Yeah, that's Evil.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 06:03 PM

It's hard to say, because it's hard to measure the impact that resorting to this sort of thing would have on the future of the world, and the kind of example it would set. The wise and good ruler, who isn't a paladin, has only his or her conscience to guide them. They have to decide whether committing this evil act is worth it in the long run. Most will likely say that it is, and at best try to find ways to mitigate the harm they cause.

A wise ruler, however, wouldn't deny that the action was evil, and wrong, even if they did not have the moral strength to refuse it.
Of course a wise ruler would understand and admit that the action was evil, and try to make sure damage is as limited as possible. I'm sure FDR was troubled by his own decisions as well, and the US rushed in and gave a lot of aid after the war. My point is that in *some* circumstances, that evil act could be worth it in the long run. Under the Perfect Good moral system, the possibility that some evil is good for the long term is rejected out of hand, and I find that silly.

You're clearly in favor of utilitarianism, and that's ok. It's just not the philosophy the cosmos of D&D judges people by. D&D morality considers deeds and intent, not consequences.Hasn't most other alignment threads here concluded that by RAW, it's NOT your intents that determine whether an action is good or evil?

After all, if you summon skeletons to save orphans from a burning house, you've cast an Evil spell and have brought more evil into this world or some non-sense.

No, actually, I don't have to believe that it has more merits than other ways (that would be a utilitarian way of picking my moral philosophy).Err...then why DO you believe in what you believe in?

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 06:05 PM

Okay, my view of morality is based on a couple simple concepts.

1. We have rights (life, liberty, yada yada)
2. We have the right to defend ourselves from those who would infringe upon our rights
3. We our responsible for our own actions, not those of others.
4. A Good act involves sacrifice for others
5. A Neutral act is done out of self-interest, without infringing upon the rights of others
6. An Evil act infringes upon the rights of others (except in self defense)

So... I don't think pushing The Button is an Evil act, provided two things:

1. The enemy kingdom was the aggressor
2. The enemy population, as a whole, is supporting the war

Why? The kingdom clearly has a right to defend itself. It's not the aggressor. And if the enemy people are in support of the war effort, then they are also guilty of the war.

Now, that doesn't mean it's a Good act. At best, it's Neutral. And I'd expect any Paladin-King to do some serious soul-searching and contrition if put in that position.

On the other hand, using the Doom Spell to blackmail non-aggressive kingdoms into submission? Yeah, that's Evil.

I agree 100% with this model and would rule the Paladin-King retains his powers after the bomb drops.

kyoryu

2010-10-22, 06:07 PM

After all, if you summon skeletons to save orphans from a burning house, you've cast an Evil spell and have brought more evil into this world or some non-sense.

Well, in D&D certain spells actually manipulate pure evil energy, and some beings are literally made up of said pure evil energy.

Those bypass typical, 'mortal' morality rules and are inherently aligned towards the energy that makes them up.

So, I guess in that case if the Bomb Spell fit in that category, it would be evil to use, no matter what. Since that hadn't been specified, I assumed that the spell did not fall in that category.

Did I? Whoops, sorry. Fixed that. I don't think it hurt anything? No? Good, good. No harm done.

So the edit justified the means?

Sorry, couldn't resist, since we both seem to be part of the very-very-small Team Anti-Utilitarian.

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 06:08 PM

Err...then why DO you believe in what you believe in?It's belief; it doesn't need a reason.

on this particualr subject, you'll find that many people won't be able to discuss the source of that belief due to the forum rules. I will neither confirm nor deny if that is true in my case.

(you missed part of the quote tag, so it's kind of unclear who you're quoting there)

Frosty

2010-10-22, 06:10 PM

I agree 100% with this model and would rule the Paladin-King retains his powers after the bomb drops.
Yes, in my example, the other nation is the aggressor, and over half the population does support the war.

Hell, the Paladin can fall, but he should be able to easily atone. He's sad he did it, but he had the guts to make the decision.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 06:11 PM

It's belief; it doesn't need a reason.

(you missed part of the quote tag, so it's kind of unclear who you're quoting there)
I was quoting you yes. And belief needs a reason. How else can others attempt to see the validity of your beliefs as it might apply to them?

I might as well ask you why you DON'T believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (assuming you don't believe in it).

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 06:13 PM

Of course a wise ruler would understand and admit that the action was evil, and try to make sure damage is as limited as possible. I'm sure FDR was troubled by his own decisions as well, and the US rushed in and gave a lot of aid after the war. My point is that in *some* circumstances, that evil act could be worth it in the long run. Under the Perfect Good moral system, the possibility that some evil is good for the long term is rejected out of hand, and I find that silly.

So do most people. The D&D cosmic moral system considers most people to be neutral. Perfect good is by no means a way of life that most people can sustain.

Hasn't most other alignment threads here concluded that by RAW, it's NOT your intents that determine whether an action is good or evil?

After all, if you summon skeletons to save orphans from a burning house, you've cast an Evil spell and have brought more evil into this world or some non-sense.
It's not just intents, it's deeds and intents. Somehow, fundamentally, summoning skeletons harms the universe. Also, magic is magic, and it's conceivable that one has to align their soul with evil a little bit to make such spells work.

kyoryu

2010-10-22, 06:16 PM

So do most people. The D&D cosmic moral system considers most people to be neutral. Perfect good is by no means a way of life that most people can sustain.

Exactly. But that doesn't change the fact that it's an Evil act - just recognizes that most people would be willing to perform an Evil act in some circumstances.

Stealing may be Evil, but most people would steal rather than starve to death. That doesn't mean it's not Evil, though, or that anybody who would do so is Evil.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 06:16 PM

So do most people. The D&D cosmic moral system considers most people to be neutral. Perfect good is by no means a way of life that most people can sustain.The standard you're going by is Exalted, not Good. That high level of standard definitely goes beyond normal Good.

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 06:17 PM

I was quoting you yes. I'm aware of that; the point is that you're being unclear, making it look like Pyrite said something he didn't; you may want to go back and edit that to fix it.

And belief needs a reason.Not in the slightest. Sometimes people believe things for no definable reason. Sometimes people believe things for reasons that can't be discussed on this forum (it has rather strict rules on that). Sometimes people believe things due to logic based reasons (I don't fall into this case). And sometimes that belief is the result of many different things, some logical and some entirely illogical.

Starbuck_II

2010-10-22, 06:17 PM

Stealing may be Evil, but most people would steal rather than starve to death. That doesn't mean it's not Evil, though, or that anybody who would do so is Evil.

Stealing isn't evil inherently. It is Choatic. That is why laws forbid it. It messes with order of the system.

Circumstances can make it evil (stealing organs causes suffering).

Frosty

2010-10-22, 06:18 PM

Exactly. But that doesn't change the fact that it's an Evil act - just recognizes that most people would be willing to perform an Evil act in some circumstances.

Stealing may be Evil, but most people would steal rather than starve to death. That doesn't mean it's not Evil, though, or that anybody who would do so is Evil.
If I am a Good adventurer, and stealing an evil artifact would stop the Summon Eldar Evil ritual, I'd steal it regardless of whether stealing is normally wrong or not.

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 06:18 PM

Yes, in my example, the other nation is the aggressor, and over half the population does support the war.

You also assumed a large number of innocent non-war supporters who are basically prisoners within their evil regime. Those are the people who are causing us such problems.

Hell, the Paladin can fall, but he should be able to easily atone. He's sad he did it, but he had the guts to make the decision.

This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.

Essentially, the paladin would have to admit that what he did was wrong before atonement was possible.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 06:18 PM

So the edit justified the means?

Sorry, couldn't resist, since we both seem to be part of the very-very-small Team Anti-Utilitarian.

Oh, ha ha ha. :smallwink:

That's a good one. I would have been tempted too.

Yes, in my example, the other nation is the aggressor, and over half the population does support the war.

Hell, the Paladin can fall, but he should be able to easily atone. He's sad he did it, but he had the guts to make the decision.

This changes things considerably. Half the population actively supports the war and the other half... does nothing? If the Paladin is aware of this, I would bet he only loses about one night of sleep for what he does and that's all. That entire kingdom is guilty of threatening the innocent under the Paladin's protection. He is completely justified in using that BOMB to protect his kingdom.

EDIT: I do have to add that if the other half is inoccent, we still have a problem

Starbuck_II

2010-10-22, 06:22 PM

If I am a Good adventurer, and stealing an evil artifact would stop the Summon Eldar Evil ritual, I'd steal it regardless of whether stealing is normally wrong or not.

Again, it isn't evil inherently to steal, but a Paladin couldn't do it unless he killed the owners (no longer stealing as they lost their rights when dead). Paladins can fall from steal (if DM considers it a gross violation).

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 06:23 PM

The standard you're going by is Exalted, not Good. That high level of standard definitely goes beyond normal Good.

You're right. There are plenty of good people who can commit the occasional evil deed and still be overall aligned with good. I've been admitting that throughout. But evil deeds are still evil deeds, regardless of what the consequences might be.

Jayabalard

2010-10-22, 06:26 PM

Half the population actively supports the war and the other half... does nothing? How much control do you think the farmers and tradesmen have?

"support the war" is a fairly nebulous term. That doesn't mean that the country is full of mustache twirling villains. Just as a couple of quick thoughts: Many of the peasants may support it or do nothing because the war means less soldiers in their country raping their daughters. People may do nothing or support it because openly disagreeing means death (or worse).

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 06:26 PM

Again, it isn't evil inherently to steal, but a Paladin couldn't do it unless he killed the owners (no longer stealing as they lost their rights when dead). Paladins can fall from steal (if DM considers it a gross violation).

Ok, even by my standards that's a little ridiculous. Stealing can be evil if it makes life significantly more difficult for the person stolen from, but a paladin shouldn't fall if he sneaks through the orc stronghold and nips the keys to the gate off the evil guard without killing him.

If this is a violation, then it violates the "act with honor" stipulation, rather than anything having to do with good.

PopcornMage

2010-10-22, 06:27 PM

Again, it isn't evil inherently to steal, but a Paladin couldn't do it unless he killed the owners (no longer stealing as they lost their rights when dead). Paladins can fall from steal (if DM considers it a gross violation).

I don't think I can agree with this interpretation. I can understand some moral qualms with killing somebody who innocently owned it, I can understand some dilemma with regards to stealing from the same, but if the paladin were part of a stealth mission to steal it from an evil cult, I wouldn't require that the "owners" be killed.

And really, in the case of the stealing from the innocents, I can see the paladin offering some secondary compensation post-theft if they were unwilling to otherwise part with it.

As the DM, if the player thought of that, I'd consider it reasonable unless the PC were playing the character otherwise. Which they could do, but if they made friction with the other players, it'd be time for a settlement conference.

Starbuck_II

2010-10-22, 06:28 PM

Ok, even by my standards that's a little ridiculous. Stealing can be evil if it makes life significantly more difficult for the person stolen from, but a paladin shouldn't fall if he sneaks through the orc stronghold and nips the keys to the gate off the evil guard without killing him.

If this is a violation, then it violates the "act with honor" stipulation, rather than anything having to do with good.

Agreed. I said as much.
There is no inherent evil in stealing.

But the Code makes you fall for actin' without honor. So still a potential fall.

Eldonauran

2010-10-22, 06:32 PM

But the Code makes you fall for actin' without honor. So still a potential fall.

You can get away with a few minor violations. Its only evil that knocks you down a peg immediately. And I wouldn't call stealing an evil artifact 'stealing' in the normal sense of the word. We are simply 'liberating' the item to prevent further lose of life.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 06:34 PM

Oh, ha ha ha. :smallwink:

That's a good one. I would have been tempted too.

This changes things considerably. Half the population actively supports the war and the other half... does nothing? If the Paladin is aware of this, I would bet he only loses about one night of sleep for what he does and that's all. That entire kingdom is guilty of threatening the innocent under the Paladin's protection. He is completely justified in using that BOMB to protect his kingdom.
The other half is either too afraid to speak out or just unsure where they stand (perhaps thanks to misinformation campaigns from the aggressor government. Governments can and do lie to their people).

You're right. There are plenty of good people who can commit the occasional evil deed and still be overall aligned with good. I've been admitting that throughout. But evil deeds are still evil deeds, regardless of what the consequences might be.And that's ok, as long as we recognize that the evil option is the LAST resort after all the non-evil options have been exhausted. War only after diplomacy attempts right?

PopcornMage

2010-10-22, 06:35 PM

Honorable solution, offer whoever holds it compensation, even anonymously, at least assuming they're "innocents" and not the evil cult about to use it.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 06:36 PM

Honorable solution, offer whoever holds it compensation, even anonymously, at least assuming they're "innocents" and not the evil cult about to use it.
Nonono, in my example an evil big bad above your pay grade is about to use it knowingly to summon Demogorgon or something. Steal it. Steal it now.

kyoryu

2010-10-22, 06:37 PM

Stealing isn't evil inherently. It is Choatic. That is why laws forbid it. It messes with order of the system.

In "normal" circumstances, stealing takes the property of someone (the product of his or her time and effort). This is an infringement of rights, and therefore evil.

If I am a Good adventurer, and stealing an evil artifact would stop the Summon Eldar Evil ritual, I'd steal it regardless of whether stealing is normally wrong or not.

... which is covered by "self-defense," or in this case, "defending just about everyone in the world." You are preventing an infringement.

You also assumed a large number of innocent non-war supporters who are basically prisoners within their evil regime. Those are the people who are causing us such problems.

This changes things considerably. Half the population actively supports the war and the other half... does nothing? If the Paladin is aware of this, I would bet he only loses about one night of sleep for what he does and that's all. That entire kingdom is guilty of threatening the innocent under the Paladin's protection. He is completely justified in using that BOMB to protect his kingdom.

EDIT: I do have to add that if the other half is inoccent, we still have a problem

Do we? If the other half is neither supporting nor resisting, you can argue that they are, at best, Neutral. If there's an active resistance, the Paladin would be better off assisting the resistance, and the scenario would never come around. Non-action can be a choice - it's just normally a Neutral one. However, non-action in this case could be argued as implicit support, even if it is support under duress. "Well, I know what they're doing isn't right, but resisting it could cost me so I just won't get involved."

Applying individual morals to groups is always somewhat sketchy, as groups are rarely homogeneous in makeup or thought.

Pyrite

2010-10-22, 06:42 PM

And that's ok, as long as we recognize that the evil option is the LAST resort after all the non-evil options have been exhausted. War only after diplomacy attempts right?

Well obviously, because even someone willing to do such a thing should be trying to avoid the situation in which he would feel it necessary.

The fact that this is such a last resort, that we'd be willing to try nearly anything else before allowing ourselves to choose this option, should make it's position as an evil act self evident.

The ends don't justify the means because the means can still be evil in and of themselves, regardless of what arises from them. No outcome, no matter how righteous, will sanctify the innocent blood spilled to achieve it.

Frosty

2010-10-22, 06:52 PM

Well obviously, because even someone willing to do such a thing should be trying to avoid the situation in which he would feel it necessary.

The fact that this is such a last resort, that we'd be willing to try nearly anything else before allowing ourselves to choose this option, should make it's position as an evil act self evident.

The ends don't justify the means because the means can still be evil in and of themselves, regardless of what arises from them. No outcome, no matter how righteous, will sanctify the innocent blood spilled to achieve it.
Sanctity is not needed. Only results (and the result include the way of least possible suffering is used) matter. Obviously it is preferable is those sacrificed are *willing*. If not, the need better be extremely, utterly dire.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-23, 12:37 AM

Re: Asmodeus.

Asmodeus does not have a war on Good. Good has a war on Asmodeus. Asmodeus works to corrupt the innocent not out of an inborn opposition to Good but because they need to be Evil to give him more foot soldiers in the war to secure Hell and to keep things down there running efficiently. Asmodeus' goals, in order from most important to least important, are:

1. Protect his all-important self and maintain his power.
2. Ensure the smooth and efficient running of Hell.
3. Ensure the smooth and efficient running of the multiverse.
4. Oppose the Abyss
5. Punish evil souls in the hereafter.

All other considerations (revenge, philosophy, his social life) are utterly tertiary to those five goals. Asmodeus was once a great general of Celestia and these tendencies still show. Many of his famously accredited quotes point to a genteel being that recognizes that the multiverse would fall apart without people like him propping it up. Why should he wage active war on Good? Let the innocent have their delusions. He's already paid the monstrous cost that innocence demands in the first place. And since the idealistic hordes of the uncorrupted are full of morons, they aren't a threat, and make great pawns to ensure that goals 1-4 are completed without undue expenditure of his own resources.

horngeek

2010-10-23, 01:17 AM

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-23, 01:43 AM

Wait. So, STEALING is better than KILLING?

...:smallconfused:

It gets better. Choosing whether or not to kill orc babies is a hard choice in the D&D universe. Hard choices like that one lead to the BoED being written by WotC.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-23, 05:27 AM

Paladins can fall from steal (if DM considers it a gross violation).

Let me fix that for you.

Paladins can fall from anything (if DM considers it a gross violation).

huttj509

2010-10-23, 06:33 AM

If a Paladin steals something to prevent the world ending ritual, I can kinda picture the gods sittin round:

"Ok, so maybe it wasn't really a Good act, but I'm not gonna be the one to ding him for it. I mean, can we let him off with a warning? It's not like it's a habit, and his Int's only 8 so he didn't notice the other alternative which involved deciphering the magic runes to undo the summoning circle (cause gods can see your stats!)."

hamishspence

2010-10-24, 06:06 AM

It gets better. Choosing whether or not to kill orc babies is a hard choice in the D&D universe. Hard choices like that one lead to the BoED being written by WotC.

And BoED provided a pretty simple answer- no, it's not justified to kill orc babies simply because "they might grow up to be villains".

In previous editions, it was portrayed as something excusable though.

Here:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75

"eye for eye" justice is portrayed as normal for LG, as well as killing enemey noncombatants.

WinWin

2010-10-24, 07:10 AM

And BoED provided a pretty simple answer- no, it's not justified to kill orc babies simply because "they might grow up to be villains".

In previous editions, it was portrayed as something excusable though.

Here:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&hilit=prisoners&start=75

"eye for eye" justice is portrayed as normal for LG, as well as killing enemey noncombatants.

Lextalionis or retributive justice. Commonly understood as "an eye for an eye..."

What are peoples thought on Divine Command (or it's alignment meta) as a form of moderation on matters of alignment?

ie. Moradin is a Good deity. Moradin commands his followers to kill orcs. Therefore, killing orcs is always a Good act when done in Moradin's name.

This seems to be a fairly simple way of handling alignment issues. Team Good is Team Good because they oppose Team Evil.

Justice is another matter completely. While it intersects with morality, morality is not justice.

The Oakenshield

2010-10-24, 03:51 PM

A sentient life has infinite potential. Ending one is evil. The only way it can be justified is by the saving of another life or lives with infinite potential.

Kaeso

2010-10-25, 01:59 PM

"True Heroes are those who do what they must, not what they want."

If you must kill 100 to save 100,000, you kill 100. Don't like it, suck it up and take the lesser of two evils, it is only logical.

This is Utalitarianism, and as a few posters before me have stated, Utalitarianism is neutral at best. Let me demonstrate this with an example.

Imagine that the invading kingdom is attacking the Paladin's kingdom because it has a certain resource (a sacred artifact, some magical catalysator, whatever) that they greatly value, but don't need in order to survive. Imagine that this artifact is considered so important for them, that the suffering of others (ie. the deaths of innocents) is less grave than their joy once they obtain the object. Does this mean that the slaughtering of countless innocent men, women and children is good? Or imagine a society in which a small group is thoroughly hated by the majority, does that justify the majority hanging the minority from the gallows, because their suffering is less than the joy of the majority?

Good is looking for the way of the least ammount of suffering and/or the highest ammount of joy without assuming joy and suffering can compensate eachother. This means that the Paladin-King should, at first, take the joy and suffering of both sides into consideration. Maybe he could parlay with the leaders of the attacking army. If that doesn't work, he should try to intimidate them into retreating. If the enemy is so determinded that they will attack the city by any means, the Paladin-King should reduce the total sum of suffering as much as possible by defending his people and forcing the enemy to rout. This means he will have to use violence, but the total suffering (which, we assume, will not be compensated by the joy of the foe) will be reduced to a minimum.

In conclusion, while I do agree with your conclusion, I do not agree with your argumentation of said conclusion.

On an unrelated note, some people claim that the Paladin-King is only responsible for his own acts. This has two flaws:
1. This is hedonism. Good is basically synonymous to altruism. Alot of ethical systems (which I shall not name due to forum regulations) prescribe that doing good is treating others as you would treat yourself.
2. He is not a Paladin, he is also a King. Kings didn't rule over kingdoms because the peasants thought it'd be "totally rad" to have a king, but because the peasants need somebody with the wisdom, skill and resources to defend them. This is a part of the king's oath and responsibility. Like others have said, a competent king doesn't 'pass the bucket' once the situation gets dire. This doesn't mean he can't ask for advice of other, wiser people. There are virtually no kings who didn't have advisors.

So to conclude my (pretty long) post and give my opinion on the dillemma: The Paladin-king will not fall when choosing to fight if, and only if all other possible means to limit the suffering on both sides have been exhausted.

Frosty

2010-10-25, 02:14 PM

Stuff
Kaeso, in the scenario I presented, the Paladin King has already...

1) Tried Diplomacy. Failed utterly.
2) Chose to fight after non-violent options didn't work
3) Is *losing* said fight
4) Is considering an act of desperation and violence (magical-nuking of enemy cities) to save his own people from an even worse fate

And remember, this enemy is attacking for the express purpose of killing, enslaving, and hurting the people of the Paladin's nation. The Enemy Nation (or at least the government of said nation, with at least half the population supporting the government) is clearly Evil.

No one here argues that the Good view of Utilitarianism would allow harming of others for your own pleasure. Right now the Paladin is trying to PREVENT the enemy from doing that very thing to the Paladin's people.

Kaeso

2010-10-25, 02:16 PM

Kaeso, in the scenario I presented, the Paladin King has already...

1) Tried Diplomacy. Failed utterly.
2) Chose to fight after non-violent options didn't work
3) Is *losing* said fight
4) Is considering an act of desperation and violence (magical-nuking of enemy cities) to save his own people from an even worse fate

And remember, this enemy is attacking for the express purpose of killing, enslaving, and hurting the people of the Paladin's nation. The Enemy Nation (or at least the government of said nation, with at least half the population supporting the government) is clearly Evil.

No one here argues that the Good view of Utilitarianism would allow harming of others for your own pleasure. Right now the Paladin is trying to PREVENT the enemy from doing that very thing to the Paladin's people.

*Facedesk* :smallsigh: I should read before going into full-rant mode next time.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 02:26 PM

Interestingly, the easydamus site:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

suggests that various forms of utilitarianism are potentially compatible with Good alignments- but each Good alignment tended to be associated with a different one- in the "Philosophy" section at the bottom of each individual alignment decription.

LG got Rule Utilitarianism
NG got Act Utilitarianism
CG got Preference Utilitarianism

In the same section (once the section for each alignment is checked) it suggests overall, on the Law/Chaos axis that Lawful people tend to be moral objectivists, Neutral people tend to be moral relativists- and Chaotic people tend to be moral subjectivists.

So- even if alignment is an objective system as BoVD suggests- not everyone in the D&D world will be aware of this- or believe it is true.

Frosty

2010-10-25, 02:33 PM

So- even if alignment is an objective system as BoVD suggests- not everyone in the D&D world will be aware of this- or believe it is true.This is because creatures have Free Will.

Eldonauran

2010-10-25, 02:36 PM

*Facedesk* :smallsigh: I should read before going into full-rant mode next time.

Still, your rant served to summarize things rather clearly and I think it deserves its place int he thread.

As for my 'passing the buck' earlier, I had put the paladin's code of conduct before his duty to serve the kingdom (I still maintain my belief that a Paladin should not be in this position of power). Once I was informed that the city attacking him was evil, I also approved of dropping the bomd after all options were tried.

So, I agree with you 100%

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 02:37 PM

This is because creatures have Free Will.

Pretty much. Characters in D&D aren't necessarily aware of everything players might be- they might not even know their own alignments. A character could slide from Good to Evil while still sincerely and honestly believing themselves to be Good.

Michael Ambrose, the Witch Hunter in Tome of Magic, is a good example of this kind of character.

Frosty

2010-10-25, 02:44 PM

Still, your rant served to summarize things rather clearly and I think it deserves its place int he thread.

As for my 'passing the buck' earlier, I had put the paladin's code of conduct before his duty to serve the kingdom (I still maintain my belief that a Paladin should not be in this position of power). Once I was informed that the city attacking him was evil, I also approved of dropping the bomd after all options were tried.

So, I agree with you 100%
Well, the moral dilemma here is really how willing are you to kill the non-evil citizens of the evil empire. Your magic nuke can't just kill the evil citizens supporting the war.

Of course if the king refuses to drop the bomb, then he effectively sentences his own citizens (majority of whom are non-evil) to die.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 02:50 PM

Frosty

2010-10-25, 03:00 PM

Might depend on what counts as "innocent" or not, and whether, if there are innocents in the evil empire, the character's qualms about killing them are enough to fit the Neutral trait "The character has qualms about killing the innocent".

Does killing innocents "to save the kingdom" count as being in self-defense if there are no weapons that can save the kingdom without killing the innocent alongside the not-innocent attackers?
This is exactly what we're polling in this thread.

Is it more justifiable than, say, killing one innocent in order to get enough resources to save several other people?How evil is it if a bunch of people are stranded somewhere and they need to stretch the food rations and decide to kill some to reduce the number of mouths to feed?

Probably not Good, but if it means *some* will survive instead of *all* starving to death, then at least Neutral?

Avilan the Grey

2010-10-25, 03:09 PM

A paladin's code is first and foremost before ANY other vows he has taken. He may chose to use the weapon and accept the fall, that is his right. But Paladins don't (or shouldn't) fall willingly.

The best choice for a paladin-king in this situation is to lay down the title of king and give it to someone who can make that decision. The soon-to-be-nuked country is going to need a great and good new king to set it straight and have someone to set an example. That is where the paladin should go next.

Actually here is the difference between what the creators of D&D considers moral and personal morals. In this particular instance, it all boils down to something that we do not see enough of in roleplaying: Actual Roleplaying.

I would, and I think many players out there would, choose to Fall, since the act that causes me to Fall, actually is the less evil option. Of course I might have a DM that agrees with me, and my paladin will not fall.
And this is where I disagree with you: If the paladin considers the choice that makes him Fall the correct choice, the necessary choice, he might very well choose to fall.

As I said this is an excellent opportunity to role play.

Frosty

2010-10-25, 03:22 PM

And it is excellent RP opportunity because the Paladin is, in essence, disagreeing with the universe's or his deity's views on moral choices.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 03:37 PM

This is exactly what we're polling in this thread.
How evil is it if a bunch of people are stranded somewhere and they need to stretch the food rations and decide to kill some to reduce the number of mouths to feed?

Probably not Good, but if it means *some* will survive instead of *all* starving to death, then at least Neutral?

A person who did this in the original Star Trek era, is referred to in the episode Conscience of the King- Kodos the Executioner.

Because a rescue group turned up earlier than predicted, several thousand people died for nothing. So- was Kodos a villain- or a hero who was just very unlucky in timing?

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 04:07 PM

The fact that you were wrong due to unforeseeable circumstances doesn't make you a bad person. That's a ridiculous standard where fate, rather than the content of a person's character, decides whether you're a good or bad person.

As I explained before, no person can actually know what the "best possible decision" is. Such a theoretical perfect world does not exist, even in D&D-land.

In a perfect world, there would be no need for Paladins.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 04:10 PM

Might depend on how forseeable the circumstances were.

If you know rescuers are coming (but not how close they are) methods like massacring thousands of people based on the assumption that if you don't even more will die of starvation before the rescuers arrive, may be more than a little excessive.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 04:11 PM

I never watched the Star Trek material in question, so if you're looking for me to analyze that particular example, you'll be sorely disappointed.

But yes, I would also argue that rampant stupidity or willful ignorance is not an excuse to get off the hook. But there is a very real and important difference between being wrong and being an idiot who just doesn't care enough to give due consideration to the implications of his or her actions.

Everyone is wrong to one degree or another.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 04:17 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_the_King_(Star_Trek)

The fact that Kodos used his own personal eugenics theories to decide who should die and who shouldn't, might have been a part of it.

Suppose the standard response to major famine conditions, was to kill vast numbers of starving people, in order to minimise total deaths- might such responses create a society with a much lower value for life, if people know that they can be killed by their rulers "to save the many"?

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 04:19 PM

You see me arguing in favor of killing people in response to famine?

Well, I might as well step in on the issue. I'm not going to address the Star Trek issue though, as I said. I haven't watched it, and I don't really care to.

If you're a king, and your nation has a problem with famine, decisions you make about, say, wheat distribution or regulations on merchants or taxes or whatever actually do play a role in choosing who lives and who dies. Presuming you are a person intellectually qualified on any level to make those decisions, you understand in at least a vague general sense who you are choosing to live and let die... it is not a completely blind toss of the dice.

Sure, it might not be taking the sword to people (because that just kinda sounds stupid and impractical), but you're killing off people as a result of your decisions nonetheless.

By many of the arguments expressed in this thread, a paladin would fall by virtue of being a governmental figure who makes important choices with widespread ramifications, and would have to abdicate power to someone else.

I mean, really, you can't actually have a war involving human civilizations on both sides and not expect to have civilians die as a result of your orders unless all the fighting is happening actually way outside of places like "cities" or "castles" for some reason.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 04:22 PM

You see me arguing in favor of killing people in response to famine?

No- it's more directed at this post:

This is exactly what we're polling in this thread.
How evil is it if a bunch of people are stranded somewhere and they need to stretch the food rations and decide to kill some to reduce the number of mouths to feed?

Probably not Good, but if it means *some* will survive instead of *all* starving to death, then at least Neutral?

which suggests that killing people in response to famine, might be Neutral rather than Evil behaviour.

Though that might be predicated on the assumption that it's the starving people themselves who do the killing.

When the "right to life" of different people comes into conflict- at what point does it become "justified" to violate the right to life of others? And when is killing an innocent person not a violation of their right to life?

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 04:55 PM

When the "right to life" of different people comes into conflict- at what point does it become "justified" to violate the right to life of others? And when is killing an innocent person not a violation of their right to life?

But here's the important thing: There has to be a point where you can violate the right to life of others if you want to have Paladins who are Heroes who get down to business rather than cruel jokes in your campaign world. Paladins have Smite Evil not Hide From Decision Making.

And pretending that moral decisions will always be clear cut is just intellectually dishonest. As I described earlier, even smiting an Evil goblin raider is a morally ambiguous situation where you're clearly and directly causing unrelated innocent people to suffer.

You might not have wanted to leave that goblin raider's mate a widow and make his six children starve to death because the raiders couldn't bring back supplies for the village, but that raider was going to stab that woman over there and you used Smite Evil. And that's a burden that a genuinely conscientious person carries.

But you know what a Paladin doesn't do? They don't just sit there while the town burns because they were too afraid to press the button and hurt someone. They don't huddle in a corner and tell someone else to do it for them to maintain the illusion of keeping their own hands clean.

Atop the first wall at civilization's dawn, a paladin stood vigil.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 05:02 PM

That's the thing though- from some perspectives, it is not a violation of somebody's "right to life" if you kill them when they are committing unjustified attacks on others. Right to life is something that can be forfeited.

A paladin is someone who "punishes those who harm or threaten innocents" in the PHB- that doesn't give them a right to harm or threaten innocents themselves "to save other innocents".

If somebody is a "provider" and they are killed in defense of others- and as a result those they provide for go hungry- that doesn't mean you are "violating their rights" though. They don't automatically have a "right to be fed" which you are violating by killing the one that feeds them.

It may be a case of positive and negative rights- right to life may be classed as a negative one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 05:08 PM

That's the think though- from some perspectives, it is not a violation of somebody's "right to life" if you kill them when they are committing unjustified attacks on others. Right to life is something that can be forfeited. But those little goblin children just starved to death. How did they forfeit their right to life?

A paladin is someone who "punishes those who harm or threaten innocents" in the PHB- that doesn't give them a right to harm or threaten innocents themselves "to save other innocents".

But in the example I just gave, he did harm or threaten the lives of innocents. He denied children a father in a harsh society. He denied them food when it was scarce and the nation is plagued with famine and people fight for the last scrap of food. And so forth.

This is why that "think" is just silly. It goes into the territory of the Paladin shirking responsibility and hiding in a corner because of the reality that meaningful actions have collateral damage. When you're talking about the actions of kings or leaders pushing the button, you're just talking about the fact that as his sword of Smite Evil gets bigger, there's going to be even greater collateral damage done in the process of Smiting Evil.

And there are two choices: Either the Paladin is just blatantly dishonest with himself and pretends that there are never negative consequences to actions as serious (or more) as "killing a goblin raider," or he accepts that his actions will likely cause harm in one way or another to innocents, and deals with it.

And yes, pretending that it doesn't matter because those little goblin babies aren't in the same room with you falls into the first category of being blatantly dishonest with oneself. Those are results of your actions.

We're not even arguing about "ends justify the means" or anything like that. We're talking about the fact that serious actions have serious consequences and if the whole concept of a Paladin isn't a cruel joke, you have to be able to accept that.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 05:17 PM

But those little goblin children just starved to death. How did they forfeit their right to life?

they didn't- but there is a difference.

The fact that a person is a provider, is not considered relevant when determining if someone should be punished for a crime (or stopped with lethal force while committing a crime.)

The starvation is not an intended consequence- and it's not direct either. The first priority is to protect the innocent from attack. If the paladin later becomes aware that now other innocents are starving- they can choose to step in and feed them- but that doesn't mean they are "harming the innocent" by saving other innocents- the starving goblin children are an indirect, unintended consequence.

And yes, pretending that it doesn't matter because those little goblin babies aren't in the same room with you falls into the first category of being blatantly dishonest with oneself. Those are results of your actions.

But not intended results, nor direct results.

To say to a judge "By imprisoning thieves or executing murderers who are also parents, you personally are directly harming their innocent children" is perhaps a little excessive.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 05:20 PM

The starvation is not an intended consequence-

And blowing up civilians is not an intended consequence of dropping the bomb (or not doing so. Either way causes civilians to be blown up in the earlier example scenario). The intended consequence is actually saving civilians.

This is no more direct than reorganizing grain distribution in times of famine. You know that you're going to kill off people in that village if they have less supplies. You also know that you're going to kill off people in that other location if you don't.

Serious decisions have serious consequences, and heroes don't hide from serious decisions.

and it's not direct either.

I'd say this is either intellectual dishonesty or shortsightedness.

{Scrubbed}

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 05:24 PM

but that doesn't mean they are "harming the innocent" by saving other innocents- the starving goblin children are an indirect, unintended consequence.

Indirect != Irrelevent.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 05:26 PM

There are various ways in which the goblin children in question might not starve- the mother might take up with another goblin, for example.

The "drop the bomb" question is a different one, here, innocents are being directly killed by the weapon.

That said, it might be compared to attacking an army that uses human shields- the army cannot be stopped without killing innocents in the process.

and "intellectually dishonest" is being thrown around rather a lot. Is it "intellectually dishonest" to make a distinction between intended consequences and unintended consequences? Between direct results and indirect results? Between the reasonably forseeable, and the less forseeable?

A man shoots another man- murder.
A judge executes the murderer- the murderer's children starve to death since he was the only provider- the judge has not murdered those children though.

Sometimes indirect can be very relevant.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 05:28 PM

{Scrubbed}

That said, it might be compared to attacking an army that uses human shields- the army cannot be stopped without killing innocents in the process. I compared it to distributing grain, which had very direct consequences on innocents. You seem to have conveniently ignored responding to that.

It presents a situation where, by the Paladin's actions (or inaction), innocents will die. And he is in a position where he chooses who lives and who dies, if not specifically who (same as the bomb. For example, family X might be on vacation).

By the reasoning of some of the people posting in this thread, a paladin cannot be in a position of authority where he covers food distribution, because the direct result of not sending more food to settlement X is that Y% of the population dies off.

This reasoning that the Paladin will fall if placed in any position where he has to make important decisions regarding populations of people just can't be in place if you want to have a setting where paladins aren't a cruel joke.

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 05:29 PM

and "intellectually dishonest" is being thrown around rather a lot. Is it "intellectually dishonest" to make a distinction between intended consequences and unintended consequences? Between direct results and indirect results? Between the reasonably forseeable, and the less forseeable?

Yes.

Otherwise you could intentionally hire the stupidest, most shortsighted man on the planet as a Paladin and have him running around butchering anything that pings his evildar with impunity, because he can't think of the consequences beyond "this person is evil. After I kill him, there will be less evil in the world, and thus is a good thing to do."

Burner28

2010-10-25, 05:30 PM

But those little goblin children just starved to death. How did they forfeit their right to life?

Ummm... hello, it was not directly the paladin's fault, it was their father's fault for harming innocent people, and the paladin didn't intent on making the children starve. he intended to protect the innocent people, like the paladin should do, using good means (killing said evil goblin raider that deliberately endangers the life of innocent) for the right reasons(protecting innocent person). I don't see why the paladin has to feel guilty about killing the father- but I do see why said paladin should care about the children starving if he has any knowledge of said children starving. But as the paladin doesn't know, why should he care about some horrible goblin raider's concerns when he is being a complete and utter douche in this case? That's not Lawful Good. That's Stupid Good!

Do not forget that Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Nice.

kyoryu

2010-10-25, 05:34 PM

Still, your rant served to summarize things rather clearly and I think it deserves its place int he thread.

It's an excellent argument. And, it points out how one can come to the same conclusion (drop the bomb) via two different processes, and arguably with a different alignment.

The Utilitarian view is one way to get to the logic of "okay to drop the Bomb."

Another way is to argue that groups of people, in aggregate, have the same rights as their individuals. If a group attempts to deny other group their rights, the defending group has the right to defend themselves. That some members of either group do not agree is irrelevant - the group has to be treated in aggregate.

Well, the moral dilemma here is really how willing are you to kill the non-evil citizens of the evil empire. Your magic nuke can't just kill the evil citizens supporting the war.

Of course if the king refuses to drop the bomb, then he effectively sentences his own citizens (majority of whom are non-evil) to die.

Right, so you first have to ask the question of whether groups should be treated as aggregates for purposes of looking at rights (and the right to self-defense). I believe they *must*, as any other answer leads to outcomes that I consider worse.

IOW "just following orders" don't cut it. That is, however, simply my opinion, and one I'm willing to debate.

The fact that you were wrong due to unforeseeable circumstances doesn't make you a bad person. That's a ridiculous standard where fate, rather than the content of a person's character, decides whether you're a good or bad person.

This is an important point. Intent matters - lying is knowingly telling a falsehood. Telling a falsehood unknowingly is just ignorance.

The same act can have varying "alignments" attached to it, depending on the motivations for performing the act, let alone surrounding circumstances.

You might not have wanted to leave that goblin raider's mate a widow and make his six children starve to death because the raiders couldn't bring back supplies for the village, but that raider was going to stab that woman over there and you used Smite Evil. And that's a burden that a genuinely conscientious person carries.

But here's the thing - do people (or goblins) have a 'right' to food? I'd argue that they don't, they have a right to, basically, their bodies and their time. Since food is a product of, among other things, someone's body and time, you can't claim a 'right' to food without stepping on someone else's rights. The outcome of "starving goblin widow" could have been avoided by the raider choosing to, well, not raid. As he chose to infringe upon the rights of others by raiding, he must carry the weight of the consequences.

Now, if people just raided the goblin encampment unprovoked and stole their food, that would absolutely infringe upon their rights, and I'd argue that it is an evil act.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 05:36 PM

The difference is that not everything that "pings the evildar" has done anything that warrants death.

Quite apart from the issue that, if you're going to decide that someone has "forfeited their right to life" you need evidence- and "they detect as evil" is not necessarily enough.

If a murderer has one child- does that mean the judge should not imprison or execute them? How about five? Ten? At what point does "he's a provider" override the principle of "protecting others from a murderer?

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 05:36 PM

Ummm... hello, it was not directly the paladin's fault, it was their father's fault for harming innocent people No it wasn't. The father would have saved the children by harming the innocent people and taking their supplies. You have it exactly backwards.

Another way is to argue that groups of people, in aggregate, have the same rights as their individuals. If a group attempts to deny other group their rights, the defending group has the right to defend themselves. That some members of either group do not agree is irrelevant - the group has to be treated in aggregate. This is fairly reasonable.

Consider another example, since this is fantasy-land.

Consider there is an Evil monster rampaging across the countryside eating babies or whatever. We'll call the monster Fry, for the sake of reference. Inside many living organisms, there are parasites or symbiotes or whatever that are dependent on that creature's life in order to go on living. Since this is fantasyland, let's say there's a society of small intelligent, and not-at-all Evil creatures living in Fry's bowel or something. These creatures cannot be removed from the host without killing them (they just reproduce in such a way that spread to other hosts... or something). Killing the host will destroy their society entirely in the most direct way possible. Even the most shortsighted or intellectually dishonest person would realize that when you kill a pregnant mother you also are probably killing the baby.

The Paladin is aware of all of this. The giant Fry is going to eat the city. What does the Paladin do?

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 05:39 PM

If a murderer has one child- does that mean the judge should not imprison or execute them? How about five? Ten? At what point does "he's a provider" override the principle of "protecting others from a murderer?

Well, the solution is easy; simply find a new provider for those who needed providing.

That is, if you're intent is to resolve the situation without commiting a single even morally grey act. On the other hand if you're just shooting for Lawful Neutral, just throw the punk to the lions. The kids aren't your problem. But as long as those kids are without help, it's not going to be a righteous deed.

hamishspence

2010-10-25, 05:40 PM

No it wasn't. The father would have saved the children by harming the innocent people and taking their supplies. You have it exactly backwards.

The father goblin is only "saving the children" by violating the property rights (and right to life) of others.

"saving innocents" doesn't make theft and murder cease to be immoral.

"redistributing grain" might (if the grain is in fact owned by the people it's being "redistributed" from) become just a glorified version of this - "theft, to feed the needy".

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 05:43 PM

"saving innocents" doesn't make theft and murder cease to be immoral.

Similarly, "saving innocents" doesn't make leaving children to starve cease to be immoral.

The point is that you need to decide what's more important in the immeadiate sense. Given that the children could potentially get a new provider (hell, you could do it yourself if you were feeling particularly charitable), killing the raider is the better choice. But it's not a pure, unambiguously good act.

Consider there is an Evil monster rampaging across the countryside eating babies or whatever. We'll call the monster Fry, for the sake of reference. Inside many living organisms, there are parasites or symbiotes or whatever that are dependent on that creature's life in order to go on living. Since this is fantasyland, let's say there's a society of small intelligent, and not-at-all Evil creatures living in Fry's bowel or something. These creatures cannot be removed from the host without killing them (they just reproduce in such a way that spread to other hosts... or something). Killing the host will destroy their society entirely in the most direct way possible. Even the most shortsighted or intellectually dishonest person would realize that when you kill a pregnant mother you also are probably killing the baby.

The Paladin is aware of all of this. The giant Fry is going to eat the city. What does the Paladin do?

Nonfatally disable the monster, then relocate it very far away from anything even remotely resembling civilization. City lives, creatures inside the monster live. Monster lives off of local wildlife or something. Everyone lives happily ever after except the deer.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 05:44 PM

The father goblin is only "saving the children" by violating the property rights (and right to life) of others. The Paladin is only "saving the woman" by violating the property rights (and right to life) of the goblin. Because this is an adventurer and he loots the goblin's stuff after he kills him.

And before you say something utterly silly like "Well the goblin started it":
That's shortsightedness. It's trivial to iterate the pattern of reciprocation, both into the past and into the future. For example, the humans pushed the goblin population out of their lands (then screwed over the land with poor farming techniques or whatever else humans did this time to destroy the environment) so that they didn't have the necessary food resources.

Nonfatally disable the monster, then relocate it very far away from anything even remotely resembling civilization. City lives, creatures inside the monster live. Monster lives off of local wildlife or something. Everyone lives happily ever after except the deer.

This is fantasyland. The monster has to eat human souls. Without human souls the monster dies. Now what?

Alternatively, the monster is immune to any available form of nonfatal disabling.

Maybe it's a magic immune creature immune to subdual damage that can walk through walls and dispel magic or something.

You are just automatically assuming that there is some easily available third way that is practical to implement. That is not a rational expectation in a discussion of general moral principles.

"redistributing grain" might (if the grain is in fact owned by the people it's being "redistributed" from) become just a glorified version of this - "theft, to feed the needy".

No. It's in the king's granaries, and he's shipping it out to people. The people from either location do not own the grain. They're dwarven communities of miners or something.

There is no reason to assume that the grain was, at any point, owned by either community. So no, you don't get your cheap cop out. Does the Paladin fall because he's in charge of the granaries?

Frosty

2010-10-25, 05:57 PM

Y'know, since adventurers kind of, by convention (hell, almost by Definition), go around killing things and taking their stuff, doesn't it mean adventurers are evil as all heck? :smallbiggrin:

Another way is to argue that groups of people, in aggregate, have the same rights as their individuals. If a group attempts to deny other group their rights, the defending group has the right to defend themselves. That some members of either group do not agree is irrelevant - the group has to be treated in aggregate.
Well, we should *try* to separate the dissenting members if possible, but if not, then they are effectively unavoidable collateral damage.

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 05:59 PM

This is fantasyland. The monster has to eat human souls. Without human souls the monster dies. Now what?

Plane Shift the monster to an Evil-aligned plane, preferably one whose local outsiders have a lower average CR than the monster (so that it's less likely to get killed two minutes in). Let it feast on the tormented souls there. Said souls are not innocent by default; otherwise they wouldn't be on this plane in the first place. (If they would be, find a different plane where this is not the case. There are an infinite supply of them, you should be able to find one that fits the criteria.)

Alternatively, the monster is immune to any available form of nonfatal disabling.

Maybe it's a magic immune creature immune to subdual damage that can walk through walls and dispel magic or something.

Beat it into negative hit points, then stablize it. If it has Diehard, or is a Construct/Undead, transport it without disabling it. Get ghost touch or something and grapple it.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 05:59 PM

Y'know, since adventurers kind of, by convention (hell, almost by Definition), go around killing things and taking their stuff, doesn't it mean adventurers are evil as all heck? :smallbiggrin:

According to some of the arguers here, yes. But that, as I said before, creates a setting where paladins are a cruel joke.

If Paladins are not a cruel joke, you have to have a system where the above is not the case. It's pretty simple.

Plane Shift the monster to an Evil-aligned plane, preferably one whose local outsiders have a lower average CR than the monster (so that it's less likely to get killed two minutes in). Let it feast on the tormented souls there.
Completely ignoring that I said it was possibly magic immune, or that you may not in fact have the Plane Shift spell available to you because you're a Paladin and it's a giant monster staring you in the face right now, and assuming that there actually is an Evil-aligned plane that works like that because this isn't a setting like Eberron or Greek Mythology where everyone goes to the same afterlife...

:smallannoyed:

Frosty

2010-10-25, 06:02 PM

Wait, you mean Paladins AREN'T cruel jokes? :smalltongue:

kyoryu

2010-10-25, 06:03 PM

And before you say something utterly silly like "Well the goblin started it":
That's shortsightedness. It's trivial to iterate the pattern of reciprocation, both into the past and into the future. For example, the humans pushed the goblin population out of their lands (then screwed over the land with poor farming techniques or whatever else humans did this time to destroy the environment) so that they didn't have the necessary food resources.

Yeah, I'm not going to buy that argument. I'm not going to buy into a moral system where any action can be justified so long as you can find an ancestor of the person whose rights you're violating that did something bad to one of your ancestors. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that I don't see (to a certain extent) your point, but frankly I don't see it as being any better of a moral system than the alternative, and in most ways I see it as worse.

More to the point, it is not a moral system based upon individual rights, which seems to be what this topic is about.

That's my opinion, of course. Feel free to disagree.

Y'know, since adventurers kind of, by convention (hell, almost by Definition), go around killing things and taking their stuff, doesn't it mean adventurers are evil as all heck? :smallbiggrin:

Depends. Are the adventurers just raiding random goblin settlements? Then yep, evil. Are they defending settlements from goblin raids? Not evil.

I like the Knights of the Cross in the Dresden Files as the awesomest example of Paladins. Even though these guys are fighting literal demons, they will not kill them except in cases of self-defense. As far as I'm concerned, they're the best examples of Paladins anywhere - they're clearly Lawful Good, are constrained by honor (often in ways that do not work to their tactical advantage) and yet avoid being Lawful Stupid.

Well, we should *try* to separate the dissenting members if possible, but if not, then they are effectively unavoidable collateral damage.

Absolutely. While such an action may be unavoidable or even justifiable, one of the signs of Goodness should be that such decisions do weigh heavily on the conscience of the ones making them. Flippantly making a decision like this without regards to the consequences would clearly be a slip towards Neutral if not Evil.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:04 PM

Wait, you mean Paladins AREN'T cruel jokes? :smalltongue:

No. The above only occurs if dickish DMs have ridiculous interpretations and make their players fall because their Paladin was put in charge of the nation's granaries in a time that was not a time of plenty and surplus.

Yeah, I'm not going to buy that argument. I'm not going to buy into a moral system where any action can be justified so long as you can find an ancestor of the person whose rights you're violating that did something bad to one of your ancestors. Exactly. Hence, the refutation. I don't buy into such a system either... it's absurd in the extreme. I was pointing that out before someone repeated that same argument again.

I think you misread me. Read what I said again: I was refuting a claim by showing how it produced silly results, not supporting one.

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 06:05 PM

Completely ignoring that I said it was possibly magic immune

You made that edit after I posted that theory.

You are just automatically assuming that there is some easily available third way that is practical to implement. That is not a rational expectation in a discussion of general moral principles.

Nor is it rational to constantly move the goalposts whenever I implement a method to resolve the scenario in a win-win manner.

If this scenario occured in a campaign, I'd simply beat my DM into a coma with the Player's Handbook. :smallannoyed:

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:06 PM

You made that edit after I posted that theory.

You're assuming resources available that aren't necessarily available anyways for the sake of a cop-out argument.

The issue is that "I didn't directly harm an innocent because I didn't hit the innocent with a weapon in my hand" is not a particularly solid position.

Eldonauran

2010-10-25, 06:07 PM

Consider there is an Evil monster rampaging across the countryside eating babies or whatever. We'll call the monster Fry, for the sake of reference. Inside many living organisms, there are parasites or symbiotes or whatever that are dependent on that creature's life in order to go on living. Since this is fantasyland, let's say there's a society of small intelligent, and not-at-all Evil creatures living in Fry's bowel or something. These creatures cannot be removed from the host without killing them (they just reproduce in such a way that spread to other hosts... or something). Killing the host will destroy their society entirely in the most direct way possible. Even the most shortsighted or intellectually dishonest person would realize that when you kill a pregnant mother you also are probably killing the baby.

The Paladin is aware of all of this. The giant Fry is going to eat the city. What does the Paladin do?

This is ... getting needlessly complicated. :smallsigh:

You really want to know what happens? Player rips his sheet in half, closes his books and walks away from his jerk-off DM because he refuses to take part in an adventure specifically designed to make him fall.

Frosty

2010-10-25, 06:07 PM

{Scrubbed}

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:09 PM

This is ... getting needlessly complicated. :smallsigh:

You really want to know what happens? Player rips his sheet in half, closes his books and walks away from his jerk-off DM because he refuses to take part in an adventure specifically designed to make him fall.

{Scrubbed}

It is okay for a paladin to make the choice between dropping the bomb or invading. It is not okay for a Paladin to sit there and do nothing and pretend his hands are clean.

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 06:10 PM

You're assuming resources available that aren't necessarily available anyways for the sake of a cop-out argument.

I'm assuming that we're acting in a standard DnD environment. You need to specify otherwise beforehand, or it's impossible to make a counterarguement.

I'm assuming that this is a balanced CR encounter, and thus the Paladin has access to things you could expect him to have access to when fighting a giant soul-eating monster. If this is not the case, he's boned anyway and might as well just start stabbing uselessly at the thing's ankle before getting swatted like a bug. At least he tried.

The issue is that "I didn't directly harm an innocent because I didn't hit the innocent with a weapon in my hand" is not a particularly solid position.

Thing is, it's not a two-way street. I'm not arguing that the obvious choices are morally pure with either example, the goblin raider OR the soul-eating monster. What I'm saying is that unless you have a douchebag DM who's going to just move the goalposts every time you come up with an idea, there's almost always a third option that allows you to harm ZERO innocents.

With the monster, somehow provide it with a foodsource that harms no one that doesn't deserve it. Like a prision specifically designed for death-row inmates who have been proven guilty in an incredibly through (and probably magical) manner. Or an evil-aligned afterlife.

With the goblin, find his children and get them a new provider, or raise them yourself.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:11 PM

I'm assuming that we're acting in a standard DnD environment. You need to specify otherwise beforehand, or it's impossible to make a counterarguement. In a standard D&D environment a Paladin doesn't have immediate access to Plane Shift and some monsters can just Plane Shift the heck back.

So... no you aren't. In a standard D&D environment Paladins use Smite Evil on monsters, and there are ramifications that are not necessarily Good of doing that.

{Scrubbed}

The case of a Paladin in authority is actually the same thing on a larger scale. Dropping the bomb (or not) causes innocents to be harmed in the process of fighting Evil. Or in the granary example, causing innocents to be harmed in an attempt to save what you can.

To put it another way, if you were playing Shepard as a Paladin in Mass Effect's plotline, and your DM made you fall as a result of a certain mission where you are faced with two undesirable choices (one of your teammates will die. {Scrubbed}

That if a Paladin makes a hard choice, then the Paladin falls.

Starbuck_II

2010-10-25, 06:16 PM

So... no you aren't. In a standard D&D environment Paladins use Smite Evil on monsters, and there are ramifications that are not necessarily Good of doing that.

{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

The case of a Paladin in authority is actually the same thing on a larger scale. Dropping the bomb (or not) causes innocents to be harmed in the process of fighting Evil. Or in the granary example, causing innocents to be harmed in an attempt to save what you can.

Palains don't have AOE's. So he only hurts the the exact enemy attacking party.
In the bombing situation he blows up everyone else in the town. Even the puppies and kitties who are aren't evil. Not forgetting children (though puppies and kitties are more important).
So killing good when they haven't directly attacked = not good act, likely evil.

Frosty

2010-10-25, 06:18 PM

I like the Knights of the Cross in the Dresden Files as the awesomest example of Paladins. Even though these guys are fighting literal demons, they will not kill them except in cases of self-defense. As far as I'm concerned, they're the best examples of Paladins anywhere - they're clearly Lawful Good, are constrained by honor (often in ways that do not work to their tactical advantage) and yet avoid being Lawful Stupid.
Yeah Sanya and Shiro and Michael are great people.

However, let's say that by letting Cassius go (in book 5 I believe? Death Masks?) Harry Dresden actually gets killed in book 8 (Proven Guilty. The book where he reanimates Sue) by Cassius. In this case, were Michael Carpenter and the other Knights being Lawful Stupid? Through their decision (however motivated by mercy and honor), someone good was killed.

It's the equivalent of letting serial murderers go free after the murderers give up their weapons. If they go on to to do more killing, wouldn't the deaths be on your conscience?

With the goblin, find his children and get them a new provider, or raise them yourself.Given how many goblins an adventurer kills, this is completely and utterly unrealistic.

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 06:18 PM

In a standard D&D environment a Paladin doesn't have immediate access to Plane Shift and some monsters can just Plane Shift the heck back.

The standard DnD environment generally does have Paladins traveling with a party, however. Or y'know, WBL and a big enough supply of scrolls to solve any problem you can reasonably expect to come across.

Or again, the prison idea. Just make sure the prison only contains people who ding evil and have been proven guilty.

Frosty

2010-10-25, 06:20 PM

The standard DnD environment generally does have Paladins traveling with a party, however. Or y'know, WBL and a big enough supply of scrolls to solve any problem you can reasonably expect to come across.

Or again, the prison idea. Just make sure the prison only contains people who ding evil and have been proven guilty.
No one argues that an attempt should not be made to find a third solution. However, sometimes one just can't be found in time...so what do you do then?

kyoryu

2010-10-25, 06:21 PM

{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

I think we're on the same page here. There's a world of difference between immediate self-defense and retribution for past wrongs.

{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

It is okay for a paladin to make the choice between dropping the bomb or invading. It is not okay for a Paladin to sit there and do nothing and pretend his hands are clean.

Couldn't agree more. Further, either choice (bombing or invading) could conceivably result in falling or not falling depending on the rationale and process the Paladin used to come to that conclusion.

But simply deciding to not make the decision and hand it off to someone else, especially knowing what decision they will make, is exactly the same as making the decision yourself. And worse - it's cowardly. Drop the bomb and hand-wring over it, or invade and go emo over that. Do something, and accept responsibility for it. That's what makes Paladins cool - not playing them as brainless Miko clones.

I mean, seriously, what do they think that Arbitrary Paladin God would prefer?

1. "Yes, I dropped the Magic Bomb. It was a terrible thing to do, and the thought of the carnage released haunts my every nightmare. I could not in good conscience allow the people of my Kingdom to perish due to the unprovoked aggressions of an enemy, and after much searching, I saw no other way out of the dilemna. However, that does not excuse the suffering that it caused, and I stand before your judgement, ready to accept punishment for the wickedness I have wrought."

2. "Hey, *I* didn't do it. I mean, I abdicated responsibility for that decision, so blame my advisor. I mean, I knew what his plans were beforehand, but it was still him that did it, not me!"

Any scenario where Paladin 1 would fall, but Paladin 2 would not would be messed up beyond words.

Yeah Sanya and Shiro and Michael are great people.

However, let's say that by letting Cassius go (in book 5 I believe? Death Masks?) Harry Dresden actually gets killed in book 8 (Proven Guilty. The book where he reanimates Sue) by Cassius. In this case, were Michael Carpenter and the other Knights being Lawful Stupid? Through their decision (however motivated by mercy and honor), someone good was killed.

And that's why Lawful Good is *hard*. The *easy* way would be to just kill them. And I'm sure that such a death would weigh on them, but ultimately, they are not responsible for the actions of others, only their own.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the inner morality of the Dresden Files is relatively close to the basic system I described earlier - hence the Laws of Magic being so harsh on those who magically influence others (taking away their will), regardless of why it might be done. The argument "we had to take away their will for their own good" is explicitly refuted, and judging actions on their effects, rather than whether they violate rights, is also explicitly refuted.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:21 PM

Look at Mass Effect. That's a game that faces you with hard choices. Basically, you guys are telling me that a Paladin cannot exist as a policeman on a larger scale (like your character in Mass Effect is).

Seriously, all kinds of examples in there. Do you send your men to save the council that keeps peace in the galaxy's government, or do you let them die and dedicate those men to stopping an Elder Evil from destroying the galaxy?

What about when you have to choose which of your allies dies? People seem to be saying "Oh, no, it doesn't matter if he just makes a decision that will obviously kill them, as long as he doesn't actually fire the weapon at them." What?

According to what I'm hearing in this thread, what Shepard should have done, when the freakin' galaxy, the fate of the entirety of humankind and several other races to boot, was at stake RIGHT NOW and he has to make a decision RIGHT NOW, that if he was a Paladin he would either have to tell Wrex to make decisions for him... or fall.

And that's just terrible.

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 06:22 PM

Given how many goblins an adventurer kills, this is completely and utterly unrealistic.

You're assuming every goblin has children, and that the adventurer would be aware of this for every goblin he kills.

If the Paladin honestly has no idea, then he can't realistically be expected to account for it. Does this mean he's completely clean of wrongdoing? No. Does it mean he falls? Also no. It's morally neutral.

If he knows the goblin has kids and that he just killed their only provider, he does have a moral obligation to at least see to it that they are cared for. Failure to do so would be bad, but I don't think it would be fall-worthy either. On second thought, no. If you left those kids to die and knew you were doing so, you absolutely deserve to fall.

That still doesn't mean "don't kill the goblin." It means "after killing the goblin, make sure that the rammifications of doing so are dealt with in a moral manner."

No one argues that an attempt should not be made to find a third solution. However, sometimes one just can't be found in time...so what do you do then?

Suck it up, kill the monster, and pray for the unfortunate souls lost in the process. You'll lose sleep over it, but I don't think you should fall.

Eldonauran

2010-10-25, 06:23 PM

{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

It is okay for a paladin to make the choice between dropping the bomb or invading. It is not okay for a Paladin to sit there and do nothing and pretend his hands are clean.

I will agree with you. Passing the choice on would not be the best choice. However, I never stated the Paladin would sit there and do nothing, and I never said his hands would be clean of the decision.

Starbuck_II

2010-10-25, 06:25 PM

Any scenario where Paladin 1 would fall, but Paladin 2 would not would be messed up beyond words.

Um, D&D assumes that Pally 2 didn't do anything. You have to do something to change alignment/fall.

So yes, "it is messed" for you.

What about when you have to choose which of your allies dies? People seem to be saying "Oh, no, it doesn't matter if he just makes a decision that will obviously kill them, as long as he doesn't actually fire the weapon at them." What?

According to what I'm hearing in this thread, what Shepard should have done, when the freakin' galaxy, the fate of the entirety of humankind and several other races to boot, was at stake RIGHT NOW and he has to make a decision RIGHT NOW, that if he was a Paladin he would either have to tell Wrex to make decisions for him... or fall.

And that's just terrible.

Changing goal posts much?
Saving the Council wasa good act. That was why it gave paragon points.
You didn't think that made sense in Mass Effect?

Renegade isn't the Paladin path. Grey Guard maybe, but not Paladin.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:26 PM

I will agree with you. Passing the choice on would not be the best choice. However, I never stated the Paladin would sit there and do nothing, and I never said his hands would be clean of the decision.

Well there you go then. A Paladin can make a decision that causes innocents to come to harm as a directly foreseeable result of his decision.

You're assuming every goblin has children, and that the adventurer would be aware of this for every goblin he kills. No I'm not. The children were a specific example of this being a possibility. There is no assumption on my part... you assumed (wrongly) that I assumed that.

{Scrubbed}

Frosty

2010-10-25, 06:27 PM

That's what makes Paladins cool - not playing them as brainless Miko clones.Say what you will about Miko, but whatever else she was, emo hand-wringing and inability to make decisions does NOT describe her at all. She made some wrong choices, but she had the guts to make them.

About Cassius: I'm not sure I agree that letting Cassius go was the right thing to do. It might have been compassionate, but Cassius did commit many evils, and he probably committed many more between books 5 and 8. Should Michael not care about the deaths that Cassius caused after he let Cassius go?

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:31 PM

That's what makes Paladins cool - not playing them as brainless Miko clones.

. . .

Miko is about as far from an example of a brainless Paladin shirking responsibility as you can get. She is an example of a person who always tried their best to do the right thing, and acted, even when it was really hard.

What Miko are you imagining?

but whatever else she was, emo hand-wringing and inability to make decisions does NOT describe her at all. She made some wrong choices, but she had the guts to make them.

Damn straight.

Changing goal posts much? No, that was the original goal post when I entered the discussion. Whether a Paladin is allowed to make meaningful decisions without falling. Previous posters claimed that "no, they can't, they should sit on their hands or pass the buck" and I was disagreeing with those claims.

I don't know what you think the goalpost was. :smallconfused:

kyoryu

2010-10-25, 06:32 PM

Um, D&D assumes that Pally 2 didn't do anything. You have to do something to change alignment/fall.

So yes, "it is messed" for you.

Last I checked, there's a ton of DM judgement in there. While you might argue that Pally 2 shouldn't fall in that scenario, I'd question having Pally 1 fall. Pally 1 is *clearly* making more of an effort to actually live up to being a Paladin.

Say what you will about Miko, but whatever else she was, emo hand-wringing and inability to make decisions does NOT describe her at all. She made some wrong choices, but she had the guts to make them.

Yep, which is why she *didn't* fall until her anger, hate and arrogance got the best of her and drove her actions more than her desire to do Good.

Also, your thoughts about my post about Cassius?

Check the edit.

. . .

Miko is about as far from an example of a brainless Paladin shirking responsibility as you can get. She is an example of a person who always tried their best to do the right thing, and acted on her beliefs.

However, she stopped thinking about what was right, and instead started acting from a place of complete self-righteousness, preferring to follow a simple, easy rulebook rather than actually think and make judgement calls.

Acting may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 06:34 PM

No I'm not. The children were a specific example of this being a possibility. There is no assumption on my part... you assumed (wrongly) that I assumed that.

I was saying that to Frosty, saying that it's impractical to attempt making reparations when you know that you've left goblin children to starve, simply due to the sheer number of goblins the average adventurer kills.

Given that not all of them have children, and you'll know of the children of even less of them, it's not that impractical.

I'm saying that anyone who isn't intellectually dishonest or shortsighted will recognize that innocents can be and even are likely to suffer as a result of actions like killing a member of a community, even if it is an Evil person.

I'm not arguing against that point. I'm arguing that if they do so and they know a way they can reduce the impact of said suffering in any way, they have a moral obligation as Paladins to do so.

Frosty

2010-10-25, 06:35 PM

Hell, I'm of the camp that Miko was still Good (but shifted to Neutral on the law vs chaos axis) when she Fell. She just wasn't good Good enough to be a Paladin anymore.

Anyhoo, I also edited. Response?

I was saying that to Frosty, saying that it's impractical to attempt making reparations when you know that you've left goblin children to starve, simply due to the sheer number of goblins the average adventurer kills.

Given that not all of them have children, and you'll know of the children of even less of them, it's not that impractical.According to fluff, goblins reproduce EXTREMELY PROLIFICALLY due to a high mortality rate (probably due to adventurers). It is highly likely an adult goblin has children, ESPECIALLY so if the adult goblin is female.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:37 PM

I was saying that to Frosty Ah, fair enough.

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 06:38 PM

Um, D&D assumes that Pally 2 didn't do anything. You have to do something to change alignment/fall.

So yes, "it is messed" for you.

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

Cookie for source.

According to fluff, goblins reproduce EXTREMELY PROLIFICALLY due to a high mortality rate (probably due to adventurers). It is highly likely an adult goblin has children, ESPECIALLY so if the adult goblin is female.

Then after you've massacred a goblin warcamp, you have a moral obligation to find their home camp, and relocate the goblins to an allied tribe that can take care of them.

Especially since, if you do this enough, you'll probably have a good rep with the goblins. Maybe even make them less evil.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:39 PM

If you don't think Miko's Good, I can at least say that she is far and away better than the vast majority of the real people I know of. And if that's not good enough, then I think there's a problem with the scales.

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

Cookie for source.

Boondock Saints.

And yes, I think that the suggestion that the Paladin abdicate to keep his hands clean and avoid falling is heinous indeed. The implications of that statement are just staggering in terms of immorality.

Eldonauran

2010-10-25, 06:42 PM

Well there you go then. A Paladin can make a decision that causes innocents to come to harm as a directly foreseeable result of his decision.

:smallamused:

Sure, his job is to punish those that harm or threaten innocents. He can even be the one that CAUSES that harm as long as it is not a gross violation of his Code of Conduct and it is not an evil act*.

This is how a Paladin can ignore the children of the goblin raider he slew to save an innocent life (neutral). This is how a Paladin can ignore the minor evils he sees on a daily basis and NOT cave in the skulls of everyone that pings evil. Action or Inaction, a Paladin can choose to allow harm to happen or cause it himself. As long as his intent is not evil and his actions are not evil.

Oh, and to the person that commented on hiring an idiot to run around as a paladin, killing everything he can. You can't be a paladin and do stuff like that. Paladin's have training and very few actually pass it.

:smallbiggrin: I am quite pleased with this thread. I have learned something very, very important.

*EDIT: Don't get me wrong, he should not actively be doing this. He is a symbol of all that is good, after all.

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 06:43 PM

Boondock Saints.

*hands you a cookie.*

I love that movie. That is how Paladins should act, I say. :smallamused:

kyoryu

2010-10-25, 06:44 PM

Hell, I'm of the camp that Miko was still Good (but shifted to Neutral on the law vs chaos axis) when she Fell. She just wasn't good Good enough to be a Paladin anymore.

I think she was still Good. I think she committed an Evil act. Unfortunately, the bar for Paladins is "don't commit an Evil act," which is a higher bar than "be Good."

About Cassius: I'm not sure I agree that letting Cassius go was the right thing to do. It might have been compassionate, but Cassius did commit many evils, and he probably committed many more between books 5 and 8. Should Michael not care about the deaths that Cassius caused after he let Cassius go?

Of course. And I'm sure that weighs heavily on him. But the question is, is it right to kill someone for what they might do? Yes, it would be easier to kill him. In much the same way as it's easier to kill a prisoner that has surrendered - that way you know they won't come after you in the future.

Good is *hard*.

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

Cookie for source.

Now you will receive us.
We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry.
We do not want your tired and sick.
It is your corrupt we claim.
It is your evil that will be sought by us.
With every breath we shall hunt them down.
Each day, we will spill their blood till it rains down from the skies.
Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
There are varying degrees of evil, we urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over, into true corruption, into our domain.
For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three. And on that day, you will reap it.
And we will send you to whatever god you wish.
And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand.
That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In nomine Patri.
Et Fili.
Spiritus Sancti.

(Boom)

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 06:47 PM

Now you will receive us.
We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry.
We do not want your tired and sick.
It is your corrupt we claim.
It is your evil that will be sought by us.
With every breath we shall hunt them down.
Each day, we will spill their blood till it rains down from the skies.
Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
There are varying degrees of evil, we urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over, into true corruption, into our domain.
For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three. And on that day, you will reap it.
And we will send you to whatever god you wish.
And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand.
That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In nomine Patri.
Et Fili.
Spiritus Sancti.

(Boom)

You get two cookies for that. I love their prayer. :smallbiggrin:

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 06:51 PM

{Scrubbed}

I am quite pleased with this thread. I have learned something very, very important. Happy to help.

kyoryu

2010-10-25, 07:02 PM

Happy to help.

He didn't say he learned it from *you*

:smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:

Eldonauran

2010-10-25, 07:08 PM

{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

Yeah, well. That is only true if you are 'optimizing' to a certain extent. And besides, 8 INT isn't so bad. That's a ... IQ of 80 if you compare to real life (real life being 100 average around the world, yay for google). I am sure most people who have an IQ of 80 have a pretty good grasp on right vs wrong (in the basic sense, killing/stealing = bad).

YES. Now you get it.

Yeah, I guess I might have been stuck on 'harming innocents = always uber evil' for some reason. Hell, kids think adults are mean when we do things that are for their own good, why should it be any different for a paladin.

Citizen: You are causing suffering! You evil bastard!
Paladin: Be joyful that it is not as worse at it could have been. This minor suffering is the price we all pay to keep evil at bay.
Citizen: I hate you!
Paladin: Your hatred is expected, if misplaced. Good day, Citizen!

:smallamused:

EDIT: I still don't buy into the whole 'greater good' concept. Causing minor suffering to innocents = ok, but only once in a while if you mean well and the alternatives are quite horrid. Slaughtering innocents to save others (ie, non-innocents) = NOT OK regardless of the numbers!!!! (innocents infinitely greater than non-innocents)

Drakevarg

2010-10-25, 07:10 PM

Citizen: You are causing suffering! You evil bastard!
Paladin: Be joyful that it is not as worse at it could have been. This minor suffering is the price we all pay to keep evil at bay.
Citizen: I hate you!
Paladin: Your hatred is expected, if misplaced. Good day, Citizen!

I read that with the Paladin saying all his lines with the voice of the Imperial Guards from Oblivion.

I lol'd.

Frosty

2010-10-25, 07:17 PM

Of course. And I'm sure that weighs heavily on him. But the question is, is it right to kill someone for what they might do? Yes, it would be easier to kill him. In much the same way as it's easier to kill a prisoner that has surrendered - that way you know they won't come after you in the future.

Good is *hard*.Except normally, if someone has surrendered, we'd LOCK HIM UP and/or put him in rehabilitation. The knights just LET THOSE WITH A PROVEN EVIL TRACK RECORD walk free!

It's not "kill someone for what they might do" it's actually "kill someone for the 6666 evil acts he has ALREADY done before he surrendered the Coin."

It's the reason why we have the Death Penalty, folks.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-25, 07:21 PM

Re: Miko's Alignment

Miko made a singular (though epic) series of mistakes near the end of her career. Yes, she was self-righteous, almost laughably ignorant, and seriously lacking in personal skills, but she never stopped being Lawful Good. Miko, at all times, attempted to serve what she perceived of as her duty, and the fact that she was ignorant and overtly pious does not change that. Miko felt her duty to the Twelve Gods overrode her duty to the Sapphire Guard. The act that made her fall was dishonorable and, depending on how you spin it, evil, but that one evil action doesn't mean she was evil - just wrong.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 07:27 PM

Eldonauran

2010-10-25, 07:28 PM

The act that made her fall was dishonorable and, depending on how you spin it, evil, but that one evil action doesn't mean she was evil - just wrong.

How you spin it? She freaking killed a person innocent of what she perceived of a wrong doing! Definately an evil act. Did she use detect evil? Nope, so its her own fault she fell.

Sure, she wasn't evil, but that one little clause (willingly commits an evil act), even once, will cause a fall. She could still be lawful good, for all we know, but she fell hard and is no longer a paladin.

:smallannoyed: Stupid Miko. Should have used detect evil before you swung that last time. Or at the very least, used non-lethal force.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-25, 07:29 PM

Eldonauran

2010-10-25, 07:33 PM

Well, having just re-read every arc including Miko yesterday (inspired by our little conversation the other night), that's the conclusion I reached. Miko fell on an act which ranges from technicality to inexcusable ignorance depending on how you want to spin it, but she didn't stop being Good.

Yeah. I agree. She got started down a wrong road and didn't stop to ask for directions on the way to her final destination. Pride got the best of her and she was wrong.

Man, I liked Miko. :smallsigh:

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 07:42 PM

Yeah. I agree. She got started down a wrong road and didn't stop to ask for directions on the way to her final destination. Yes she did, actually.

To quote one of my friends on this site:

She only fell because the Order is full of @#$%s
She was trying to do the right thing, and everyone around her was a gigantic @#$%.
And instead of trying to help her and set her straight, they kicked her ass out of suspicious proceedings.

My problem is that instead of trying to set her straight, they patronized her and marginalized her efforts, and when she obviously began to get suspicious of things, they ignored it.

Nevermind that the relationship of some of the Sapphire Guard towards Miko was borderline abusive and exploitative, but they really did actively prevent her from asking questions and assuaging her suspicions.

And as for ignorance? I don't see why it's hard for anyone to see how the Order of the Stick could appear to be an order of villains. I mean, even Roy is guilty of some really, really heinous moral decisions. Like deciding to let his friends die just because he was annoyed at the moment.

And yet I don't see anyone harping on Roy.

Starbuck_II

2010-10-25, 07:48 PM

Nevermind that the relationship of some of the Sapphire Guard towards Miko was borderline abusive and exploitative, but they really did actively prevent her from asking questions and assuaging her suspicions.

True, Roy got a backbone too late. If he had got one later, tried to teach her how her companions aren't evil scum or earlier before when she was wrong: great, she may have been set on the better path.

But Roy did it wrong. Maybe she will be revived later: still possible (remember she has nothing going for her in death, if she redeems heself while alive, than she can see her horsie again)

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 08:08 PM

True, Roy got a backbone too late. If he had got one later, tried to teach her how her companions aren't evil scum or earlier before when she was wrong: great, she may have been set on the better path.

But Roy did it wrong. Maybe she will be revived later: still possible (remember she has nothing going for her in death, if she redeems heself while alive, than she can see her horsie again)

This is why it pains me to see people harping on Miko. To me, she is one of the most sympathetic characters in the series, and certainly the most tragic.

I mean, seriously, not only was Miko, at heart, a good person... but her life really sucked. She was an orphan. Her companions treated her poorly and actively excluded her by sending her on lonely, dangerous missions far, far away (because they're just such nice people). No one ever loved Miko. She was completely alone except for her horse and even if it's a celestial horse that's frankly pretty terrible.

She gave everything of herself and dedicated her life to becoming the best of the Sapphire Guard, the best of the Paladins, perhaps thinking that maybe if only she could prove herself, someone would care. And yet the world only continued its injustices towards Miko.

She always tried to do what she thought was right, even when it was hard, even when there was no one there to support her, even when she knew she would, at best, get absolutely nothing in return... not even gratitude. She would lay her life on the line for people who had nothing to offer. She fought for the world, even if the world cared not for her.

And then she found out the world was threatened. Powerful villains had destroyed one of the gates holding reality together for an unknown purpose, and she was tasked with capturing them.

Now, who were these people? Well, Roy, their leader, was the kind of jerk who would leave his friends to die if he was currently annoyed at them. And then this guy is working with an unrepentant incarnation of pure avarice, a psychotic spree killer who gets his jollies off of people suffering, a completely ignorant warrior who could hardly be expected to tell the difference between Good and Darth Vader, the very self-centered and power-driven (but actually more responsible than most of them) Vaarsuvius, and Durkon, who was inscrutably dwarvish. And the ignorant warrior was clearly manipulated and cajoled by his allies into doing whatever they wanted him to do.

Surely, they couldn't be villains, right? Anyways, she risks her life for the thankless task of transporting these dangerous criminals across the land, even going out of her way to right other wrongs in the process.

In Azure City itself... well, things get suspicious. When she tries to assuage her suspicions, her path is actively barred. She is kicked out of suspicious proceedings. When she prays to her gods, whom she has utmost faith in, for guidance, they do not correct her. Later, she actually finds out that her leader had deceived her, and was conspiring with the perceived villains who were charged with nothing too serious... just "trying to destroy the multiverse." This is no defenseless old man... this is a guy who can call in an army of people she would really rather not fight at a moment's notice and kill her, and stop her from saving the world. Nevermind that he could have all kinds of other capabilities she wasn't aware of... after all, he had been revealed as a deceiver, and in D&D-land unarmed old men can make things spontaneously combust. She feels she has to save everyone... so she strikes.

Then her gods, whom she had dedicated her entire life to, abandoned her. Callously cast off their most powerful champion.
Her companions, whom she had lived out her life with when they weren't sending her off on lonely missions to be rid of her, threw her in a cell next to demons.
Even after all of this, she prayed to the gods for guidance. She still trusted in them. She wanted to do the right thing. But her gods did not answer.
And then she fought to stop Xykon.

And then she died. And Soon himself did nothing but berate and patronize her in the end. And her memory is dishonored, she goes down as history as a fallen paladin. No one cried at Miko's funeral... not even one of the people whose lives she saved in all her time as the strongest of the Sapphire Guard.

And then I go onto the GitP forums, and I see certain vocal individuals rejoicing in her death, fantasizing about Tsukiko abusing her corpse, and so forth, and claiming a position of an unassailable moral high ground while doing so. I felt sick.

Reverent-One

2010-10-25, 08:17 PM

*Snip*

You neglect to mention that she was close-minded and arrogant, seemingly incapable of realizing that her interpertation of what is "good" could even possibly be slightly incorrect and taking every opportunity to berate others for not being "as good" as she was (which could easily be why she got sent out on solo assignements so much, not that the other Paladins were total meanies, but because no one could reason with her). This close mindedness leads to her jumping to conclusions like nobodies business, which in turn leads to her murdering an unarmed old man.

Godless_Paladin

2010-10-25, 08:19 PM

You neglect to mention that she was close-minded and arrogant, seemingly incapable of realizing that her interpertation of what is "good" could even possibly be slightly incorrect and taking every opportunity to berate others for not being "as good" as she was (which could easily be why she got sent out on solo assignements so much, not that the other Paladins were total meanies, but because no one could reason with her). This close mindedness leads to her jumping to conclusions like nobodies business, which in turn leads to her murdering an unarmed, old man.

Aha. And so being arrogant (because she knows she has earned her position the hard way), "closed-minded" (because no one ever gave her much of a reasonable explanation for anything ever), and "inferring that other people could be better" (you mean like everyone else did to her all the time?) makes her worse than... well, any of the Order of the Stick and a horrible person who deserves a fate worse than death?

As for the old man, wow, so many ways that could have been avoided if anyone wasn't a jerk. Including the Gods.

I'm not saying she wasn't wrong, but the way you treat her is ridiculous.

Her personality may have been abrasive to you. So what?

That is not an excuse to treat someone badly. This is especially meaningful to me because I have seen the damage that is done by such treatment. I had a friend with Aspergers, gentlest soul you'd ever meet, liked to draw. People treated him like he was terrible all the time because he just didn't get the social conventions. Eventually I wondered where he was, and heard that he was found dead in his room.

It is very difficult to control the rage I feel when I hear someone treating someone like a bad person for no more significant reason than finding their social skills lacking.

Lord_Gareth

2010-10-25, 08:20 PM

I personally sympathize with Miko, and personally interpret her fall as a breach of the part of the code-as-written which requires her to act honorably (sadly, honor very often precludes intelligent action, though one might hope that if she challenged Shojo to a duel that Hinjo might, at the very least, be able to countermand the kill order). However, some of her treatment I also think she brought upon herself. For example, Miko was a widely traveled individual, yet somehow remained utterly ignorant of normal, everyday social conventions. How? Likewise, she made herself few friends with her arrogant, self-righteous attitude. Yes, she was a much better person than most folks in real life, but she was also a jerk.

While I don't think it was fair for her to fall, the code-as-written does not actually deal in fair. I would have liked for her to have lived, though, perhaps to atone (as per the spell) for her action and develop more, or maybe to seek another, less restrictive means of protecting the world she so clearly cares for. Fighter, perhaps? Though Cleric would make a better fit for her obvious piety.

One last thing - not even the clerics in the comic so far have gotten a direct communication from their god - in fact, the closest that's happened was the result of Thor drunkenly throwing lightning bolts! We can't fathom why the gods failed to speak to Miko, but their silence towards her wasn't exactly special treatment.