PDA

View Full Version : Paladins "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" but what counts?



hamishspence
2010-10-27, 06:31 AM
This is inspired by arguments that to be a good paladin you must be willing to commit acts that lead to innocents being harmed- and the counterargument that this does not actually qualify as "harming innocents"

Some examples:


You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

In all these cases, innocents die as a result of your actions. But do any count as "harming or threatening the innocent" which, as a paladin, you must punish?

If so, then it would seem a paladin has to punish themselves for every serious decision- even if none qualify as strictly evil acts- which is a bit harsh.

faceroll
2010-10-27, 06:40 AM
1. Your actions aren't causing harm. They are trying to mitigate the disaster a mad druid or a plague god stirred up. You aren't killing the peasants that aren't receiving food; you're saving the ones you feed.

2. Send volunteers. Volunteer yourself. SPARTAAAA!!!

3. This is D&D. You can be more creative. First, you're a paladin. You should be using both hands on a melee weapon. They only get a +2 cover bonus with their human shields, and you should be dealing non-lethal damage just incase (maybe get a merciful weapon).

If you're firing into melee, you're using precise shot and/or improved precise shot, so are at no risk of shooting allies and may even get to ignore the cover they grant.

And that's not even touching on using diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, or magic.

4. Use a merciful weapon. If they can be dominated, they're not innately immune to being bludgeoned unconscious. May need some master specialist abjurer dispels to strip them of any buffs that grant it, though.

5. Simple. You give them your food. Your god will provide.


In my opinion, a Paladin should always try and take the most just route, even if it is doomed to failure. Lawful Good might mean tilting windmills or hopeless battles. Leave the utilitarian bean counting to neutral good.

ScionOfBlades
2010-10-27, 06:44 AM
Ways around everything:

You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

During a famine you feed the poor first, then the rich. The noble thing to do is feed those who can't feed themselves. The rich can either move or choose to aid the poor as well. So even if some die, you've tried your hardest (a good act)


You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

You ask for volunteers to raise to heights of bravery and noble ends. A good act. Sending them yourself is evil.


You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

Non lethal damage. Paladins best friend. There's also a magical weapon property that causes a weapon to deal non lethal damage. (Mercy?) Mercy + Great Axe= Save the human shields.

You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

Same here.

You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

You don't defend your goods. You give them your food, willingly.

EDIT: Slightly Swordsage'd

Jacque
2010-10-27, 06:55 AM
Ways around everything:

you've tried your hardest (a good act)



If 'tried your hardest' is enough, then there's no point in discussing this. Every example the OP uses already more or less provides the solution of trying your hardest.

faceroll
2010-10-27, 07:05 AM
If 'tried your hardest' is enough, then there's no point in discussing this. Every example the OP uses already more or less provides the solution of trying your hardest.

I think the OP is trying to subvert what "harm innocents" means.

Say there's an evil guy killin' dudes. You could either go and try to kill him, but maybe die trying, or you could go kill boars in the forest until you have enough levels on him that the encounter is trivial. You could probably preform some statistical analysis to determine the threshold of boar killing vs. heroic deeds such that you minimize total theoretical commoner deaths (accounting for those you could save in the short run vs. those that die if you fail). But I don't think that's what a paladin is about.

It's kind of like the argument that is sometimes advanced against the "goodness" of VoP on these boards. Keeping loot from your adventures so you can go on even more adventures is missing the point. It smacks of the sort of justification that the corrupt use to continue on their path to damnation.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 07:34 AM
You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

You don't defend your goods. You give them your food, willingly.

Why? Self-sacrifice is normally a good act- but that doesn't mean failure to sacrifice yourself qualifies as "harming the innocent".

And if a third party were to come upon the same situation, what would they be obliged to do?

Do nothing- and an innocent person is killed by a robber, through starvation.
Do something- and the robber's children die of starvation.



The point to be made is that "harming the innocent" is a slightly different thing from "committing an act that leads to the death of innocents".

Unless you choose to take the view that only harming innocents "for profit or pleasure" is automatically evil- and harming innocents for other reasons is not.

But the paladin's code doesn't make that distinction when it comes to behaviour that the paladin must punish- it simply says "those who harm or threaten innocents" and doesn't specify reasons.



You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

You ask for volunteers to raise to heights of bravery and noble ends. A good act. Sending them yourself is evil.

Sometimes there isn't time to "ask for volunteers"- the battle may already be engaged- and you simply have to send a signal order to one unit to enter the dangerous situation.

As to the "always use merciful weapons when battling innocents"- it's worth remember that they are not cheap, and a low level paladin may not have access to them. Plus, if they don't attack at range (which can't be done nonlethally without a merciful weapon) they may have a high chance of losing.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 09:03 AM
In the "human shields" case, one solution (I think used in real life) is for the moral responsibility for any injury to the human shield, being placed on the person using them.

For example, if criminals use human shields- and some of the human shields die in the resulting fight, even though the cops are the ones who actually shot them, the criminals are the ones held responsible for the deaths and charged with murder- even though they did not personally kill them.

In this case "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" might mean "punish those who are morally responsible for harm coming to innocents"

ToySoldierCPlus
2010-10-27, 09:34 AM
So far, I agree with what's been posted.

Situation 1: You save as many as you can. One of the first lessons any would-be hero (especially a paladin) needs to learn is that it is not always possible to save them all. Sometimes, you need to cut your losses and save as many as you can. If you can save 50%, you do it. 60%, even better. But you don't have to feel bad because you don't have the resources to feed everyone. You do the best you can with the resources you have.

Situation 2: I second the volunteers option, and cite the song "The General" by Dispatch, as an example of what a paladin should do in this situation. If he can find no willing volunteers, he goes himself. If, for some reason, such as he is the king of his nation, not just a general in the army, he can't go on the suicide run, or he doesn't have time to find volunteers for it (which he should, in almost all cases) he may have to make the order, but it should not be a decision made lightly.

Situation 3: Assuming the villain has one person in his square held as a literal shield, and several others forming a wall around him, so no-one can get to him without harming some innocent, then yes, non-lethal damage is the way to go. If that is not an option, such as if the paladin is forced to engage from range and doesn't have a merciful bow, then he does his best to not hit the hostages, or he has someone who is a better shot than he is make the shot, and he remembers that he is not the one who placed an innocent in harm's way, and is not morally responsible for any unavoidable harm.

Situation 4: As above, assuming that the paladin can't do anything to get the mind-controlled out of the way. He may want to stop to lay on hands for each of them once they go down, if he can't deal non-lethal for whatever reason.

Situation 5: Share the food, as much as he can. Even a paladin has a right to survival, so he doesn't have to give up all of his food, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. My great uncle once did something like that. Gave his coat to a fellow prisoner in the dead of winter. He didn't survive. Two weeks later the camp was liberated. The other guy lived because of my great-uncle's sacrifice. A paladin would do the same thing, though they wouldn't be obligated to.

MightyTim
2010-10-27, 09:36 AM
I think most of these boil down to the fact that as a paladin, your goal is to take the path of action which leads to the least amount of innocent suffering.

For the first example, it's basically analogous to a triage situation. You help (feed) everyone that you can help. Trying to minimize losses does not equal causing harm.

In the second example, if all you're worried about is "your actions cause some innocents to die" then you don't have any place being a general in a battle in the first place. Barring divine intervention, any action you take as a general is going to lead to someone dying, whether you want it to or not. In the specific example, you can't be sure that sending the order will result in the death of everyone on the squad, but you can be sure that it is the best way to end the battle.

For the third example, well meh. :smalltongue: It would be a lot more interesting moral dilemma if the bad guys were, say, strapping bombs to innocent people and using them a weapons. As it stands, they're just taking a defensive measure, and you always have the option of not attacking until the situation is more favorable.

For the last two, one of the main qualities of being a paladin is selflessness. You give the thief your food so they can feed their family and then do what you can to survive. You don't take an offensive action against the dominated innocents and go straight for the mage.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 09:41 AM
I think most of these boil down to the fact that as a paladin, your goal is to take the path of action which leads to the least amount of innocent suffering. Of course, you can't actually omnisciently know what this path will be.


In the second example, if all you're worried about is "your actions cause some innocents to die" then you don't have any place being a general in a battle in the first place. Barring divine intervention, any action you take as a general is going to lead to someone dying, whether you want it to or not. Damn straight.


In the specific example, you can't be sure that sending the order will result in the death of everyone on the squad, but you can be sure that it is the best way to end the battle. You can't actually be sure. There are all kinds of unforeseen circumstances that can creep up on a battlefield, and whatever you chose to do could in fact be just about the worst choice you could have made.

And a paladin that isn't intellectually dishonest or shortsighted will realize that actions have both positive and negative outcomes. The thing is, the negative side racks up higher and higher as she gets more actual responsibility, simply because consequences are more wide-ranging, and making higher level decisions in society will necessarily cause tragic results for some. Something as simple as changing the king's tax code can shift the group of people who get stricken with crippling poverty.

But this shouldn't scare off the paladin from her duties or make her fall. A hero doesn't sit on their hands. A hero doesn't shirk responsibility. A hero doesn't pass the buck of decision-making to a substitute. A hero doesn't pretend that her hands are clean if she didn't personally behead somebody, bur rather just turned the prisoner over to the king's courts and a headsman did it instead.

A hero gets out there and does what she thinks is right to the best of her abilities.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 09:53 AM
For the last two, one of the main qualities of being a paladin is selflessness. You give the thief your food so they can feed their family and then do what you can to survive.

Here. we're talking about a situation where there is so little food that if the paladin gives his up, or lets himself be robbed, he is almost certain to die, barring miracles

Are the paladins "morally obliged" to be the first to die in any starvation situation- to the point of being required to let others rob them?

I think that might be taking "selflessness" as a Good requirement, a bit too far.



You don't take an offensive action against the dominated innocents and go straight for the mage.

And what if the mage is not on the battlefield at the time- has stayed away and simply sent an army of dominated innocents led by his minions?

If you're heavily outnumbered, and low level, and you have many soldiers beside you, giving the order to use non-lethal damage can lose you the battle- and allow more innocents to be harmed.

The "you don't bear moral responsibility for killing dominated enemies, when it's the only way to win, and choosing to lose would be morally unacceptable", view I think makes more sense.

MightyTim
2010-10-27, 09:56 AM
You can't actually be sure. There are all kinds of unforeseen circumstances that can creep up on a battlefield, and whatever you chose to do could in fact be just about the worst choice you could have made.

True, and I'm sure this conversation has been had before, I think what's most important is the intent, rather than the outcome. You can't really be faulted if the truly best course of action required knowledge which you had no way of knowing. Say in the example above you believe that making the diversion will be a decisive end to the battle. It's possible that it will be. But if the opposing force had a spy within your leadership camp and was able to warn them about the feint. The opposing general is able to counter your maneuver by not falling for your bluff and you lose the battle. Obviously the best thing would have been to not make the move, but you couldn't have known that in the first place.

It's not a perfect example, but the point I want to make is that it's virtually impossible to know which course of action minimizes innocent death, but you still have to act on what knowledge you have. It seems to me to be very un-paladin-like to say "I don't know which way is best, so I won't do anything at all."

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 10:01 AM
True, and I'm sure this conversation has been had before, I think what's most important is the intent, rather than the outcome. You can't really be faulted if the truly best course of action required knowledge which you had no way of knowing.

Often, people do have a way of finding out things, but don't find out anyways. This seriously happens all the time. Sometimes the difference can be as slight as just taking an extra second to look. But that extra second could have cost you your life.

"You couldn't have possibly done better" is a really unrealistic standard. Hindsight may be 20/20, but we're talking about paladins here. They're in do or die situations all the time.

MightyTim
2010-10-27, 10:02 AM
The "you don't bear moral responsibility for killing dominated enemies, when it's the only way to win, and choosing to lose would be morally unacceptable", view I think makes more sense.

I don't disagree that if people die in that situation, you aren't the one to blame, I just want to make sure there is a distinction that we're exhausting all other options first. If in the example, the paladin started killing these people right away, and afterward explained that he shouldn't be morally responsible, that sounds to me dangerously close to him trying to excuse his actions.

MightyTim
2010-10-27, 10:03 AM
Often, people do have a way of finding out things, but don't find out anyways. Like, seriously, this happens all the time.

"You couldn't have possibly done better" is a really unrealistic standard. Hindsight may be 20/20, but we're talking about paladins here. They're in do or die situations all the time.

That's the thing about these questions. It may be fun to discuss, but it's so situationally dependent that you can't make a blanket statement.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 10:04 AM
I just want to make sure there is a distinction that we're exhausting all other options first. This goes further with the unrealistic expectations. Exhausting all other options first just doesn't work out in reality. Often those other options have an opportunity cost, and you can't just try everything to see if it works.

Consider the City Nuke question in the thread the OP is basing his examples on. One option would have been to merely threaten the other side by revealing that you have the bomb and were prepared to use it. The possible consequences of that could be... not being able to deliver the bomb.


That's the thing about these questions. It may be fun to discuss, but it's so situationally dependent that you can't make a blanket statement. I disagree. You can make generalizations.

They just can't be things like "well, you have to exhaust all other options first, and you're only excused if it was impossible for you to have known better" and so on and so forth. Because those are not realistic standards, even for someone held as a paragon of law and good.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 10:04 AM
How far is a Paladin required to go in order to punish those that harm or threaten the innocent? If he sees someone murder a shopkeeper in cold blood, is he required to hound the killer to the ends of the multiverse? Is he required to commit any action necessary to execute that punishment, or does the Code require that he stick to a semblance of justice instead of vengeance?

The Big Dice
2010-10-27, 10:14 AM
You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)
Guilt, angst, emo agonizing over hard choices. These are all part and parcel of what it means to be a Paladin. While choosing between two evils is still choosing evil, a Paladin sometimes has to decide who lives and who dies. Sometimes it becomes nothing more than a numbers game.


You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.
War means hard choices have to be made. Sending your own men into certain death isn't easy. You have to make sure their deaths have meaning and that only volunteers take part in the mission.


You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.
Find another way. Adventuring parties can be very good at bypassing defenses like human shields. Killing innocents because they are being used as defences by one who would exploit them is becoming as bad your enemy. So don't do it.

You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.
Use minimum necessary force. Kill only when you have no other option, the rest of the time, when you're up against mind controlled innocents, use subdual damage.

You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.
This is a good one. Yay for moral dilemmas!

Put the parent to work doing unpleasant tasks that need to be done but that nobody really wants. Like digging latrines and filling in the old ones. Desperate people don't need to be killed for acting in a desperate way, and their punishment should be something that serves the community at large.

The thing with playing a Paladin is, tough choices and moral dilemmas should come with the Smites and the mount. Sometimes that means there's no right or wrong answer, which is even better.

Paladins can range from near fascism in their tyrannical interpretation of what's lawful and good, all the way to being incredibly liberal and tolerant of flaws in other people. The difference really comes down to, do they hold other people to the same standard that they hold themselves to?

gbprime
2010-10-27, 10:24 AM
You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to many innocents surviving.

Not saving EVERYONE isn't something you get punished for. It just leads to angst, or a possible plot line involving a powerful person whose relative died, both of which build character. =)


You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

That's a non-sequitor. There are no "innocent troops". Unless you conscripted them and are sending them out with spears to their backs, they're doing their part for this war the same as you. They have a job to do and they're here by choice. Yes, yours is a tough choice, and it may wrack your conscience later, but the lives of thousands and the entire war depend on this.


You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

Unacceptable. You're a Paladin. You'll lead that fight personally so you can circumvent those human shields, no matter the cost. And if some should fall, you'll be on hand to personally and instantly smite those who cowered behind them.


You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

Justice provides a way. Magic Circle vs Evil. For a few minutes, they cannot be controlled. You then escort them to a prison cell where they can wait for the mage to be killed, or walk right through them and assault the mage.


You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

You're a Paladin, you share what you have, and then go search for more food for yourself.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 10:40 AM
That's a non-sequitor. There are no "innocent troops". Unless you conscripted them and are sending them out with spears to their backs, they're doing their part for this war the same as you.

Innocent in a moral sense- they are lower-level paladins- who have never committed evil acts.

To say that a Good person who does not do evil is not innocent, seems like an odd definition of innocent.



You're a Paladin, you share what you have, and then go search for more food for yourself.

In this case (thanks to carefully eking out what you have), you are a point or so of nonlethal starvation damage (which cannot be healed without food) away from unconsciousness. The nearby area is already stripped bare- the winter has some time to go. You've already been eating the minimum food to survive- if you stop at this point, you will almost certainly die.

"share what you have" does not extend to "give away all you have, to a robber who is threatening to take it by force."

Paladins are supposed to be self-sacrificing, but not to the point of being suicidal, when they have already given all they can spare to survive.


Something as simple as changing the king's tax code can shift the group of people who get stricken with crippling poverty.

But this shouldn't scare off the paladin from her duties or make her fall. A hero doesn't sit on their hands. A hero doesn't shirk responsibility.

Thing is though- in the context of "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" this leads to a conundrum.

If "making a decision that lead to the deaths of some particular innocents" can ever be a morally correct act- then there is the issue:

Either it's equivalent to "harming or threatening innocents" or it's not equivalent.

If it is, then it follows that the paladin's code demands that they punish people who have made morally correct decisions. A bit absurd.

If it's not equivalent, then that means you can do something that leads to innocents dying, maybe even killing them yourself (or morally equivalent to that) and yet, not have "harmed or threatened innocents"- morally speaking.

Also a bit odd.

Tankadin
2010-10-27, 10:53 AM
Innocent in a moral sense- they are lower-level paladins- who have never committed evil acts.

Then they're probably insisting that they be the ones to go out and save the day/war. They are, after all, paladins.


In this case (thanks to carefully eking out what you have), you are a point or so of nonlethal starvation damage (which cannot be healed without food) away from unconsciousness. The nearby area is already stripped bare- the winter has some time to go. You've already been eating the minimum food to survive- if you stop at this point, you will almost certainly die.

"share what you have" does not extend to "give away all you have, to a robber who is threatening to take it by force."

Paladins are supposed to be self-sacrificing, but not to the point of being suicidal, when they have already given all they can spare to survive.

How did the situation come to this? Was there a severe famine before winter set in? Why didn't the paladin go on a quest to find food/resources for his charges?

gbprime
2010-10-27, 10:53 AM
Innocent in a moral sense- they are lower-level paladins- who have never committed evil acts.

To say that a Good person who does not do evil is not innocent, seems like an odd definition of innocent.

Not really. You're using the context of war. An "innocent" in this definition is a non-combative person who is not here by choice. A Paladin is not an "innocent", he is a devout soldier in a war against evil. As their commander, you cannot be expected to shelter your soldiers from harm. They're soldiers, not conscripts, use them for the good of others.



In this case (thanks to carefully eking out what you have), you are a point or so of nonlethal starvation damage (which cannot be healed without food) away from unconsciousness. The nearby area is already stripped bare- the winter has some time to go. You've already been eating the minimum food to survive- if you stop at this point, you will almost certainly die.

"share what you have" does not extend to "give away all you have, to a robber who is threatening to take it by force."

Paladins are supposed to be self-sacrificing, but not to the point of being suicidal, when they have already given all they can spare to survive.

My answer is still the same. You did your duty, you did what you had to do, but the greater good is now asking you to do even more. Give them what food they need, eat a bit yourself, and set out to find more. You're devout, so have faith. You will find what you need. The result may not be comfortable, but tests of faith rarely are.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 10:56 AM
Not really. You're using the context of war. An "innocent" in this definition is a non-combative person who is not here by choice. A Paladin is not an "innocent", he is a devout soldier in a war against evil.

I'm using the basic context of "a paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

I don't think that means that "harming or threatening paladins" does not qualify for this. To say that harming a paladin is not an act that a paladin should feel deserves punishment, seems a bit absurd.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-27, 11:00 AM
Innocent in a moral sense- they are lower-level paladins- who have never committed evil acts.

To say that a Good person who does not do evil is not innocent, seems like an odd definition of innocent.



Wait so evil is never innocent?

gbprime
2010-10-27, 11:00 AM
I'm using the basic context of "a paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

I don't think that means that "harming or threatening paladins" does not qualify for this. To say that harming a paladin is not an act that a paladin should feel deserves punishment, seems a bit absurd.

The flip side of that is you saying that you cannot ask your soldiers to fight when the chips are down. If there is no other way, if the lives of thousands depend on this, then you give the order. If you cannot, then either go do it yourself, or give command over to someone who is willing to make the tough choices.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 11:03 AM
The flip side of that is you saying that you cannot ask your soldiers to fight when the chips are down. If there is no other way, if the lives of thousands depend on this, then you give the order. If you cannot, then either go do it yourself, or give command over to someone who is willing to make the tough choices.

Or, ordering a soldier to go to their death, does not actually qualify as "harming or threatening innocents"- the act which a paladin is obliged to punish.

gbprime
2010-10-27, 11:05 AM
Or, ordering a soldier to go to their death, does not actually qualify as "harming or threatening innocents"- the act which a paladin is obliged to punish.

The sin, and thus the atonement, is in the WHY of it. Everything has a justification. Otherwise, a Paladin could never take a life.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 11:13 AM
Some examples:

You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)
There was nothing more you could do. At that point it become more "how many can I save" and less "how many will die becaus of my actions." Sure, you'll suffer from guilt, as would most people put in this situation, you'll probably just feel it more sharply, and go atone, even though it's not required.


You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.
The answer here is to give a rousing "St Crispin's Day" speech, and hope you get some volunteers. If there isn't enough time, you have to pursue "the good of the many over the needs of the few". Again, not requiring atonement, but you probably will anyways.


You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.
You have to weigh the options carefully here. This is a "how many will I save" vs. "how many will die" struggle. But again, the "good of the many" prevails.


You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.
Need more data. Define "others," please. If, by "others" you mean your adventuring party, no killing of innocents. If you mean "many multitudes of innocents," do what you have to do, and shed a thousand tears for each innocent slain to save 10 or 100 or 1000 others. Again, you will probably atone afterwards, and perhaps get all emo for a while, but the greater goo must be served.


You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.
This is self sacrifice time, if I ever saw it. No god could deny you entrance into some Lawful Good afterlife if you gave up your food stores to save these people. Paladins need to think of longer term consequences. "Will my death save these people and their children, and their children's children (and so on, and so forth)?" is a perfectly valid question here. If yes, save them, and suffer yourself. If not, disarm them, and share your food as you make your way to the next town. If some of them die, this was outside of your ability to affect the situation.

Just my opinions, mind you. To me it boils down to "the good of the many over the needs of the few." It always has, for every Paladin I've ever played.

Tankadin
2010-10-27, 11:32 AM
Or, ordering a soldier to go to their death, does not actually qualify as "harming or threatening innocents"- the act which a paladin is obliged to punish.

The paladin could, however, attempt to punish the parties that started the war, especially if those parties caused all kinds of harm to innocents and other protected people. Nuremburg comes to mind.

Engine
2010-10-27, 11:34 AM
I answer just to say:

You're a Paladin. For you there's no "only way". If you get stuck with the "only way" nonsense you're not doing your job or your DM is not a good one.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 11:50 AM
Need more data. Define "others," please. If, by "others" you mean your adventuring party, no killing of innocents. If you mean "many multitudes of innocents," do what you have to do, and shed a thousand tears for each innocent slain to save 10 or 100 or 1000 others. Again, you will probably atone afterwards, and perhaps get all emo for a while, but the greater good must be served.

"Others" in this case, means the town you and your army are trying to defend from the dominated horde. You are sufficiently outnumbered that if you give the army the order "Use non-lethal force" you will significantly increase the chance that the battle will be lost and the town (and probably other towns) destroyed (it's inhabitants dominated by the mage who is scrying the battle and used to replenish the ranks).




This is self sacrifice time, if I ever saw it. No god could deny you entrance into some Lawful Good afterlife if you gave up your food stores to save these people. Paladins need to think of longer term consequences. "Will my death save these people and their children, and their children's children (and so on, and so forth)?" is a perfectly valid question here. If yes, save them, and suffer yourself. If not, disarm them, and share your food as you make your way to the next town. If some of them die, this was outside of your ability to affect the situation.

The situation here was- at the start of the winter everyone, including the paladin, was allocated just enough food that they would be alive (though at most a few meals away from death) at the end of it- and all the rest put into emergency reserve to help anyone whose food store got destroyed by animals, weather, theft, and so on.

The winter was so harsh that all the emergency reserve was depleted, and people are beginning to die. The paladin was lucky enough that their food bin never got damaged. The paladin is still at most a meal or so away from death- but they have been working to prevent the people from robbing each other. As a result, the community has not yet descended into anarchy.

This is an Eberron-type world- the gods do not do miracles. At this point, saying "Fate will provide" is insanely foolhardy.

The attacker is desperate, but the paladin armed (with a cocked hand crossbow). It has come down to "fight or give in and almost certainly die".

For the paladin to give in now- could be said to be severely neglecting his duty to defend innocents.


I answer just to say:

You're a Paladin. For you there's no "only way". If you get stuck with the "only way" nonsense you're not doing your job or your DM is not a good one.

Sometimes "no-win" scenarios do crop up- the Kobyashi Maru, or Troi's command test in The Next Generation- where (on the holodeck) she has to order an engineer to certain death in order to save the ship (she does not have the engineering skills herself, sacrificing her own life won't help.

My view is that, should such happen, the act the paladin takes does not qualify as "harming or threatening the innocent"- something paladins are expected to punish- since the idea of paladins punishing morally right decisions seems a bit absurd.


Wait so evil is never innocent?

The example I gave was intended to be an upper bound- a point at which the phrase "these people are not innocent" becomes hard to justify.

The lower bound is harder to define- but certainly Neutral people can be people who "a paladin should punish others who harm or threaten"

And potentially (depending on your definition) even Evil people might qualify- if the evil acts they have done are minimal.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 12:06 PM
"Others" in this case, means the town you and your army are trying to defend from the dominated horde. You are sufficiently outnumbered that if you give the army the order "Use non-lethal force" you will significantly increase the chance that the battle will be lost and the town (and probably other towns) destroyed (it's inhabitants dominated by the mage who is scrying the battle and used to replenish the ranks).
Got it. Still, "For the greater good!" is the answer here. Of course, "For the greater good!" is always my answer.


The situation here was- at the start of the winter everyone, including the paladin, was allocated just enough food that they would be alive (though at most a few meals away from death) at the end of it- and all the rest put into emergency reserve to help anyone whose food store got destroyed by animals, weather, theft, and so on.

The winter was so harsh that all the emergency reserve was depleted, and people are beginning to die. The paladin was lucky enough that their food bin never got damaged. The paladin is still at most a meal or so away from death- but they have been working to prevent the people from robbing each other. As a result, the community has not yet descended into anarchy.

This is an Eberron-type world- the gods do not do miracles. At this point, saying "Fate will provide" is insanely foolhardy.

The attacker is desperate, but the paladin armed (with a cocked hand crossbow). It has come down to "fight or give in and almost certainly die".

For the paladin to give in now- could be said to be severely neglecting his duty to defend innocents.
In that case, this is the toughest one for me. I think the "greater good" will prevail here. Atonement will end up being a must a must here, preferably through some sort of epic quest, and yes, I mean the spell. In order to protect innocent lives, you may have to commit what I would consider to be an evil act. If this family dies, will everyone else survive, or are they in just as bad off as these people are? If so, your higher duty is to protect those innocent lives that will be spared by this family's death.

I never believe that fate will provide, though. I do, as a paladin, believe that there is an LG afterlife awaiting me. This is often enough for me to go on that 'suicide mission.' The kind where, even if successful, I will probably die in the process of saving hundreds or thousands of innocents.

Engine
2010-10-27, 12:07 PM
Sometimes "no-win" scenarios do crop up- the Kobyashi Maru, or Troi's command test in The Next Generation- where (on the holodeck) she has to order an engineer to certain death in order to save the ship (she does not have the engineering skills herself, sacrificing her own life won't help.

I agree.
But...
Troi's not a Paladin. In my book a Paladin should go with the engineer to certain death. Of course her death won't help, but I think a Paladin should be willing to do what she orders others to do

And the Kobayashi Maru. No-win, of course. But as the captain you die with the rest of your crew.

I'm not against no-win scenarios, but against scenarios when as a Paladin your only option is: sacrifice others.

Frosty
2010-10-27, 12:10 PM
I agree.
But...
Troi's not a Paladin. In my book a Paladin should go with the engineer to certain death. Of course her death won't help, but I think a Paladin should be willing to do what she orders others to do

And the Kobayashi Maru. No-win, of course. But as the captain you die with the rest of your crew.

I'm not against no-win scenarios, but against scenarios when as a Paladin your only option is: sacrifice others.

Actually wasn't it Doctor Crusher who was in the holodeck situation? She was practicing before an evaluation for Command I believe, and Riker told her (after she sent the virtual crewman to a certain death) that if she wasn't ready to send good people under her to their deaths in order to complete the objective then she won't ever pass the test,

Engine
2010-10-27, 12:13 PM
Actually wasn't it Doctor Crusher who was in the holodeck situation? She was practicing before an evaluation for Command I believe, and Riker told her (after she sent the virtual crewman to a certain death) that if she wasn't ready to send good people under her to their deaths in order to complete the objective then she won't ever pass the test,

Don't remember, but I'm not a huge fan of Star Trek.=P
Anyway, a Starfleet officer is not a Paladin.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 12:16 PM
Also, hamishpence, I'm obviously kind of hard on myself as a paladin. I tend to make it a little easier on my players, though. I give them choices that even a paladin with a 3 INT and 3 WIS could see. But then again, I was brought up on AD&D, not DnD, where being a paladin was a privilege, not a right. Especially after the 1e UA came out where you basically had to go through three levels of 0-level hell to earn it.

Goudaa
2010-10-27, 12:17 PM
Paladin : If sacrificing innocents is the "only way" - you're doing it wrong =)

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 12:19 PM
In order to protect innocent lives, you may have to commit what I would consider to be an evil act.


What evil act? An armed person is confronting you with the intention of robbing you to feed their children.

Anyone- even a paladin- has the right to "choose to not be robbed"

The children are not dying because of the paladin's actions- but because they had the bad luck for their food store to run out early.

"Refusing to sacrifice your own life to save some innocents" is not necessarily an evil act- though it might skirt on breaking the normal Code trait of "Help people in need". But the paladin can point out- they're only able to help so many people.

Goudaa
2010-10-27, 12:22 PM
What evil act? An armed person is confronting you with the intention of robbing you to feed their children.

Anyone- even a paladin- has the right to "choose to not be robbed"

The children are not dying because of the paladin's actions- but because they had the bad luck for their food store to run out early.

"Refusing to sacrifice your own life to save some innocents" is not necessarily an evil act- though it might skirt on breaking the normal Code trait of "Help people in need". But the paladin can point out- they're only able to help so many people.


I agree, but i'd argue if the paladin was aware of the circumstances he may choose to willingly give to the would-be robber food/money and a few kind words in efforts to sway him from his ways to the side of good.

Often a paladin's best weapon is diplomacy and generosity.

Often the path to wrongdoing is paved with desperation.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 12:24 PM
Actually wasn't it Doctor Crusher who was in the holodeck situation? She was practicing before an evaluation for Command I believe, and Riker told her (after she sent the virtual crewman to a certain death) that if she wasn't ready to send good people under her to their deaths in order to complete the objective then she won't ever pass the test,

I've checked, it was definitely Troi in season seven:

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

A separate plot during these events follows Deanna Troi's efforts to become a bridge officer by undergoing a holodeck test of her command abilities under Riker's oversight. Though initially she struggles to save a failing Enterprise from being destroyed by avoiding placing anyone at risk, Riker gives her a subtle hint on a proper outcome, and Troi manages to pass the test when she orders Geordi to sacrifice himself to save the rest of the crew. Troi is promoted to Commander after successfully passing the test.




I agree, but i'd argue if the paladin was aware of the circumstances he may choose to willingly give to the would-be robber food/money and a few kind words in efforts to sway him from his ways to the side of good.

Often a paladin's best weapon is diplomacy and generosity.

Often the path to wrongdoing is paved with desperation.

True- but in this case the the robber is a member of the community- who has, when confronted with the issue "Should I die, and let my children die too", or murder somebody else to save them?" made the decision to murder.

Turning them aside, or convincing them that "Fate will provide" would be next to impossible.

gbprime
2010-10-27, 12:28 PM
What evil act? An armed person is confronting you with the intention of robbing you to feed their children.

Anyone- even a paladin- has the right to "choose to not be robbed"

The children are not dying because of the paladin's actions- but because they had the bad luck for their food store to run out early.

"Refusing to sacrifice your own life to save some innocents" is not necessarily an evil act- though it might skirt on breaking the normal Code trait of "Help people in need". But the paladin can point out- they're only able to help so many people.

You're missing a key point here. A Paladin is a devout and faithful worshipper of a diety or cause that is PROVEN to exist by the candy it hands out in the form of spells and extraplanar foo. He has CERTAINTY about such things.

He knows he'll go to the afterlife when he dies, it's just a question of when. And when he gets there, he will have to explain how he let a mother and child starve to death so he could spend a few more years as a mortal. For one so faithful and so sure, would it not be a better choice to save that mother and child and risk death yourself?

After all, you're a Paladin. Risking death on behalf of mothers and children is what you do. Failing to give them food is a betrayal of that ideal. The greater good calls upon you to sacrifice. Whether is in battle with the enemy or starvation makes no difference.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 12:30 PM
You're missing a key point here. A Paladin is a devout and faithful worshipper of a diety or cause that is PROVEN to exist by the candy it hands out in the form of spells and extraplanar foo. He has CERTAINTY about such things.

Not in Eberron. Even if the deity exists, Eberron characters know they don't just hand out miracles willy-nilly.


After all, you're a Paladin. Risking death on behalf of mothers and children is what you do. Failing to give them food is a betrayal of that ideal. The greater good calls upon you to sacrifice.

Here, the paladin does not know they are in danger, until the armed robber comes on him with the words "My food store got damaged yesterday- I'm killing you and taking yours to feed my family".

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 12:31 PM
What evil act? An armed person is confronting you with the intention of robbing you to feed their children.

Anyone- even a paladin- has the right to "choose to not be robbed"

The children are not dying because of the paladin's actions- but because they had the bad luck for their food store to run out early.

"Refusing to sacrifice your own life to save some innocents" is not necessarily an evil act- though it might skirt on breaking the normal Code trait of "Help people in need". But the paladin can point out- they're only able to help so many people.

Alright, not evil then, but against the code, at least. Knowing that children will suffer because of my inability to hunt/eat tree bark/whatever. I would see that as my own failing, were I playing a paladin. (My normal characters, however, may go so far as to secure them for meat, saving the town through cannibalization. But then again, my normal characters clearly aren't paladins. Also, they are clearly not right in the head! :smalltongue:)

EDIT: @gbprime: Paladins don't necessarily serve a deity. They can also serve a cause, if I remember the PHB correctly (at least they could in 1e/2e). The SRD left out a crapton of stuff when they put up their site.

gbprime
2010-10-27, 12:33 PM
Not in Eberron. Even if the deity exists, Eberron characters know they don't just hand out miracles willy-nilly.

No, they hand out spells and abilities to people like YOU. Those are miracles in their own right. That's all the certainty a faithful person needs.

His job is to face death so others do not have to. If he's going to nit-pick over which kinds of death that applies to, then he might as well turn in his paladin decoder ring right now. :smallamused:

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 12:38 PM
The paladin has already been sacrificing everything but their life to protect the community as a whole- they are already close to the brink of death- so why are they obliged to die now to succour the children of an aggressor?

The principle here is that if the paladin surrenders, he's effectively condoning the idea that people are allowed to resort to murder and theft if it's the only way to keep themselves and their families alive.

Goudaa
2010-10-27, 12:39 PM
True- but in this case the the robber is a member of the community- who has, when confronted with the issue "Should I die, and let my children die too", or murder somebody else to save them?" made the decision to murder.

Turning them aside, or convincing them that "Fate will provide" would be next to impossible.


I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. It's more often than not that you have a few gold to spare and a commoner needs not much to live comfortably.

Surely the paladin could spare 10gp and dissuade said murderer from damning his soul.

This is also assuming said paladin understands/knows all the variables in place.

The next question would be is the man already evil? Has he already killed? Are the children's whereabouts known?

I'd honestly say if the paladin chooses to simply slay the man without trying he has failed as a paladin and needs atonement.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 12:42 PM
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. It's more often than not that you have a few gold to spare and a commoner needs not much to live comfortably.

Gold is irrelevant here- everyone- including the paladin- is on their last reserves of food- and gold won't buy more food in this case- since there is no food left to buy.

The paladin has a hand crossbow, the robber another weapon (knife) the robber is about to rush the paladin- and he has the choice of firing, or dropping the weapon.

He knows the would-be robber- they're a member of the community.

gbprime
2010-10-27, 12:43 PM
The paladin has already been sacrificing everything but their life to protect the community as a whole- they are already close to the brink of death- so why are they obliged to die now to succour the children of an aggressor?

Because the alternative is to let a child starve.

He has been called upon to sacrifice, his code says he should do so. Escort the man back to his family and hand them the food personally. Lecture them a little and let them know the COST of the man's actions. Then leave to go find food.

Whether you're likely to succeed or not is not the question. Tests of faith are never convenient.

And who knows... your actions and subsequent speech might leave an impression. What if the man changes his ways as a result? What if one of his children grows up to serve the Faith as you have? Good is accomplished more often without a sword than with one.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 12:52 PM
I prefer this viewpoint:


Even a paladin has a right to survival, so he doesn't have to give up all of his food, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. My great uncle once did something like that. Gave his coat to a fellow prisoner in the dead of winter. He didn't survive. Two weeks later the camp was liberated. The other guy lived because of my great-uncle's sacrifice. A paladin would do the same thing, though they wouldn't be obligated to.

Tankadin
2010-10-27, 12:54 PM
The paladin has already been sacrificing everything but their life to protect the community as a whole- they are already close to the brink of death- so why are they obliged to die now to succour the children of an aggressor?

The principle here is that if the paladin surrenders, he's effectively condoning the idea that people are allowed to resort to murder and theft if it's the only way to keep themselves and their families alive.

The paladin arrests the person who just threatened murder, brings the starving children into either her care or someone else in the community, and ensures that the children receive some food. Maybe the paladin gives up her daily meal and splits it between the children.

The conceit here is getting more than a little crazy. How long until winter breaks/a caravan/a wizard can arrive? If the paladin has a month's worth of famine rations, they can share that.

Goudaa
2010-10-27, 12:57 PM
Gold is irrelevant here- everyone- including the paladin- is on their last reserves of food- and gold won't buy more food in this case- since there is no food left to buy.

The paladin has a hand crossbow, the robber another weapon (knife) the robber is about to rush the paladin- and he has the choice of firing, or dropping the weapon.

He knows the would-be robber- they're a member of the community.

I'm liking this scenario more and more for it's intrigue. A very emotional scene it could be.

Personally, my pally would drop his xbow and engage the robber hand to hand (again considering diplomacy fails and giving gold is not an option). Non lethal damage and grappling would be the route I chose.

I'd be trying to talk him down the whole way and even entreat him to bring himself and children to the temple where priests can create food/water.

If the man was not evil, had not already murdered - killing him would be out of the question. At the very worst i'd arrest him and place him in jail and again find the children and bring them to the local temple.

What happens to them through circumstance and extremes can't always be helped but when directly concerning the paladin, your life is already forfeit. You asked "why" and the answer is as simple as the question. Because you believe in righteous sacrifice and everlasting patience/generosity.

gbprime
2010-10-27, 01:01 PM
I'd be trying to talk him down the whole way and even entreat him to bring himself and children to the temple where priests can create food/water.

I'm thinking if that's an option then it's already being used, and the soup kitchen lines are so long that the temple is running out before the end of the line.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 01:01 PM
It's intended to bring up the question of what happens when saving some innocents, will kill others.

For a parallel- a starving goblin party have just come to attack the hungry village to get food for their children.

The villagers realize that there are innocent goblin children out there who will die if not fed- but, to feed them they'd have to sacrifice their own lives. The villagers are Lawful Good- and led by a paladin.

Are they obliged to act the same way in order to fairly consider themselves Good?

If not, what makes the difference? Is it a moral requirement to sacrifice themselves to save innocent human children- but not to save innocent goblin children?

gbprime
2010-10-27, 01:03 PM
It's intended to bring up the question of what happens when saving some innocents, will kill others.

For a parallel- a starving goblin party have just come to attack the hungry village to get food for their children.

The villagers realize that there are innocent goblin children out there who will die if not fed- but, to feed them they'd have to sacrifice their own lives. The villagers are Lawful Good- and led by a paladin.

Are they obliged to act the same way in order to fairly consider themselves Good?

If not, what makes the difference? Is it a moral requirement to sacrifice themselves to save innocent human children- but not to save innocent goblin children?

That entirely depends on if the goblins attack or not. If they parley, then the situation gets complicated. Very likely the village will turn them away because they have none to spare. The paladin can sacrifice of himself, but he can't tell the other villagers to do the same (except by example).

Goudaa
2010-10-27, 01:05 PM
It's intended to bring up the question of what happens when saving some innocents, will kill others.

For a parallel- a starving goblin party have just come to attack the hungry village to get food for their children.

The villagers realize that there are innocent goblin children out there who will die if not fed- but, to feed them they'd have to sacrifice their own lives. The villagers are Lawful Good- and led by a paladin.

Are they obliged to act the same way in order to fairly consider themselves Good?

If not, what makes the difference? Is it a moral requirement to sacrifice themselves to save innocent human children- but not to save innocent goblin children?


Goblins by their very nature are rarely "innocent" and again this scenario assumes all variables are known to the paladin - which is not likely.

Moreso likely is the goblins raid the village and the paladin defends his charges only to find out later the true circumstances of the encounter and feels badly about the goblin children starving.

But keeping on with the scenario you presented and assuming all variables are known - yes, the paladin would have to make a choice. The villagers are his first charge and goblins tend to be evil (although not naturally, usually) and sparing known good humans > sparing "maybe" neutral goblins.

Would that choice make the paladin need to atone...i'd say no.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 01:07 PM
In the Lawful & Chaotic Save My Game article at WoTC- it points out that a paladin should only sacrifice themselves if there's a meaningful benefit: their own life has value:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a


Should a paladin sacrifice herself to save others? In the broadest sense, yes, since doing so is the ultimate act of good. However, she must also have enough respect for her own life and ability to make sure that her sacrifice brings about a significant benefit for others. A paladin who holds the only key to saving the world should not sacrifice herself needlessly against an orc horde. As long as the paladin keeps the greater good in mind, she is adhering to her code.

The question is- must they sacrifice themselves, in order to avoid committing an evil act, or in order for the paladin to be abiding fully by his code?

Frosty
2010-10-27, 01:09 PM
Giving up the food to the robber is evil (or at least a bad idea) for several reasons.

First of all, the paladin would be condoning violent and selfish behavior. By allowing this to happen and showing the community that yeah, threatening to kill and steal pays off, more of the same will happen in the future. The paladin must make an example to the community of what is NOT accepted, and then try to take care of the children afterwards if he can.

Secondly, more than JUST that one family depends on you. Let's say the other people in the village depend on you all-year-round to hold off rampaging trolls and savage raiders. By willingly letting yourself starve, you're setting up a scenario where many other villagers will VERY LIKELY be much, much worse off. A paladin has a duty to protect MANY people, not just one family. The paladin is likely to do more Good by staying alive.

Goudaa
2010-10-27, 01:11 PM
In the Lawful & Chaotic Save My Game article at WoTC- it points out that a paladin should only sacrifice themselves if there's a meaningful benefit: their own life has value:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a



The question is- must they sacrifice themselves, in order to avoid committing an evil act, or in order for the paladin to be abiding fully by his code?

Too many possible variables and circumstances to give a blanket yes/no. It'd have to be on case by case basis imho.

If in the above scenario with the goblins the adventure also entailed the paladin having "the key to save the world" then he would most definitely help the villagers as best as he could without needless sacrifice. Then again, any combat can mean death and avoiding all combat just for that sake would be futile and selfish in a paladin's mind.

Juhn
2010-10-27, 01:14 PM
I think the general consensus re: the food thing is that the Paladin is not obliged to let himself starve to death to feed somebody else, but that he'd probably do it anyway of his own free will, because those are the kind of people who become Paladins.

Tankadin
2010-10-27, 01:14 PM
In the Lawful & Chaotic Save My Game article at WoTC- it points out that a paladin should only sacrifice themselves if there's a meaningful benefit: their own life has value:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a



The question is- must they sacrifice themselves, in order to avoid committing an evil act, or in order for the paladin to be abiding fully by his code?

The thing is the moral calculus here is imperfect. How can the paladin know if her sacrifice does any lasting or meaningful good? It could just be that one of those goblin children would grow up to be a master statesman, overcoming centuries of prejudice and paranoia to create a lasting peace with the surrounding communities. That could translate into saving hundreds or thousands of lives--not to mention an improved quality of life and maybe even some kind of cultural flourishing. Or, maybe the goblins are turned away and one of the human children who survives as a result becomes a genocidal maniac of a wizard.

The paladin has no way of knowing and as such has to make decisions up front. Paladins read Kant. They don't read Mill or Bentham. That's one of the reasons there aren't a lot of them about.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 01:19 PM
from the paladin & cleric splatbook Defenders of the Faith:


Then again, your higher calling to help those in need may seem distracting to others, drawing them away from cleaning out and looting the nearest dungeon. Your allies may feel reduced to the role of sidekicks if they must always follow your desire to help those in need and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. This can be a knotty problem for you if you have a mission that won't wait and innocents are at risk.
Fortunately, you aren't personally obligated to right every wrong, no matter how small. That way lies madness.

Sometimes a wrong "innocents starving" simply can't be righted. Not without worse consequences happening.


I think the general consensus re: the food thing is that the Paladin is not obliged to let himself starve to death to feed somebody else, but that he'd probably do it anyway of his own free will, because those are the kind of people who become Paladins.

maybe the general consensus might be- but there are some suggestions that it is an obligation:



He has been called upon to sacrifice, his code says he should do so.

gbprime
2010-10-27, 01:40 PM
maybe the general consensus might be- but there are some suggestions that it is an obligation:

Obviously, I think it is. :smallamused: That's the functional difference between a Paladin and a Lawful Good fighter.

But neither does he have to resign himself to death, sitting there next to an empty pantry. When he's out of food, the choice is pretty clear... he can't serve the village by staying there and succumbing to starvation, so he should sally forth and look for food (or a villain with food :smalltongue: ).

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 02:06 PM
Sometimes a wrong "innocents starving" simply can't be righted. Not without worse consequences happening.

This is why I prefer a rights-based approach to Good/Evil. "Letting" innocents starve is a Neutral act, not Evil. Feeding them is a Good act. Paladins *can* do Neutral acts, just not Evil.



maybe the general consensus might be- but there are some suggestions that it is an obligation:

It's not an obligation - it's a compulsion. Doing Good and helping others is not the price a Paladin pays for their powers - it's who they are. Not helping people should make a Paladin extremely uncomfortable, as that drive should be part of their innermost, core personality.

A Paladin does not follow their code in order to gain powers - they gain powers because they follow their code. A real Paladin would follow their code even if they were stripped of their powers.

When a Paladin starts looking at Good acts as a burden, they have already fallen.


Got it. Still, "For the greater good!" is the answer here. Of course, "For the greater good!" is always my answer.

So says the guy with the Tau avatar.

dsmiles
2010-10-27, 02:08 PM
So says the guy with the Tau avatar.

Would you honestly expect otherwise?

Chen
2010-10-27, 02:09 PM
You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

Here you have no real choice. You're doing triage. You should be trying your best every day to secure MORE food so that less will starve. Going out hunting, foraging whatever. If you've done everything possible and people are still going to die, well there's nothing more you can do. Its not YOUR fault. Giving up all your food to help SOME could be justified unless you not being there in the immediate future will almost certainly lead to more death/problems.



You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

Find another way. Or do it yourself. There's very rarely only ONE solution to a problem.



You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

Again find another way. Subdue the aggressors in some other manner. Negotiate with them. Surrender to them and rescue the villagers later (unless of course they are going to immediately kill/harm them).



You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

Flee. Find the wizard and defeat them later. Surrender to them and try and escape later. Knock them unconscious and capture them. Plenty of solutions here that don't requiring killing innocents.



You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

Offer to share your food (after subduing the attacker). Or kill the attacker but take in the children and support them in whatever way you can. Convince others to share their food with them or whatever.

The lesser of two evils can still be evil enough that a paladin should not do it. Sure DMs shouldn't put completely unwinnable situations in front of a paladin and expect them not to fall. Or understand that the campaign is a gritty realistic type campaign where there are no-win situations and that as a paladin you will almost certainly fall if you're put in a situation where its evil 1 vs evil 2, as your ONLY choices.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 02:11 PM
Sure DMs shouldn't put completely unwinnable situations in front of a paladin and expect them not to fall. Sure they should.



The thing with playing a Paladin is, tough choices and moral dilemmas should come with the Smites and the mount. Sometimes that means there's no right or wrong answer, which is even better.

Big Dice puts it nicely. When I played a Paladin, this was my bread and butter.

When moral dilemmas get hard, the Paladin should be the person you turn to in order to save the day, not the person you try to keep out of the loop.


Or understand that the campaign is a gritty realistic type campaign where there are no-win situations and that as a paladin you will almost certainly fall if you're put in a situation where its evil 1 vs evil 2, as your ONLY choices.

If they fall the second they're given a hard decision, there is something very seriously wrong.


Here you have no real choice.

No, you have a very real choice. As real as it gets. And that's what it means to be responsible for other people's lives.


You should be trying your best every day to secure MORE food so that less will starve. Proper logistical management of a nation's resources will do far more good than going out for a day of hunting.


Its not YOUR fault If you refuse to do your job in a time of crisis because it's hard? Yes, yes it is your fault.

It's also your fault if you commit suicide to evade responsibility.

All of those things fall under the category of "shirking responsibility in order to maintain the illusion to yourself of keeping your hands clean."

It may not be your fault that the situation exists, but it sure as heck is your fault how you react to it.


There's very rarely only ONE solution to a problem. It's even more rare that there's a perfect solution that ends in all roses for everyone to meaningful, large-scale problems. If you live in a perfect world, one might wonder why you bother with Paladins anyways.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 02:43 PM
It should be noted that a starving paladin has a gruesome, if effective, method of feeding themselves; lay on hands. A good sharp knife or rock can carve pieces off of themselves which the power of their righteousness heals, at which point they cook up some own-thigh steaks and chow down. The various problems with eating human flesh (of any kind, from any source) don't apply to beings that are immune to disease, and it's not like they're harming anyone but themselves.

Juhn
2010-10-27, 02:47 PM
maybe the general consensus might be- but there are some suggestions that it is an obligation:

Notice the presence of "should" and lack of "must". There is a difference between an expectation and an obligation present in that sentence.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:03 PM
Failing to help others in need might be "a violation of the code" but is it a "gross violation" or an evil act?

If the paladin, the moment the robber charges him, fires, and the robber dies, and the paladin chooses to live, rather than to die helping others at this time- does he Fall?

Does he fall the moment he fires on the robber- with the only "non-evil" choice being to drop the weapon and let the robber do what they like, before going out to try and feed himself (and almost certainly die)?

Or has he committed only a minor violation of the Code, and so will remain a paladin unless he keeps refusing to sacrifice his own life when the opportunity comes up?

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 03:05 PM
It should be noted that a starving paladin has a gruesome, if effective, method of feeding themselves; lay on hands. A good sharp knife or rock can carve pieces off of themselves which the power of their righteousness heals, at which point they cook up some own-thigh steaks and chow down. The various problems with eating human flesh (of any kind, from any source) don't apply to beings that are immune to disease, and it's not like they're harming anyone but themselves.

Cutting off chunks would require a Regeneration. Cure seems to only work if you're simply punctured, sliced, or bruised.

Further, this doesn't solve the problem for reasons already stated. Great, you gave up food for one person, then shirked responsibility in providing for a nation?

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 03:07 PM
Cutting off chunks would require a Regeneration. Cure seems to only work if you're simply punctured, sliced, or bruised.

Huh. Odd, that. Still, immunity to disease gives a paladin a lot of options other thinking beings don't have when it comes to feeding oneself. Days-old animal corpses? Perfectly fine. Stagnant water? Golden. Own blood? Sure, why not. For that matter, a paladin could recycle his own waste products if he could keep 'em down until they run out of actual nutrients. That particular case is one in which I, as a paladin, would allow the robber to take my stores and trust in my near-total invulnerability to natural death to see me through.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 03:10 PM
Huh. Odd, that. Still, immunity to disease gives a paladin a lot of options other thinking beings don't have when it comes to feeding oneself. Days-old animal corpses? Perfectly fine. Stagnant water? Golden. Own blood? Sure, why not. For that matter, a paladin could recycle his own waste products if he could keep 'em down until they run out of actual nutrients.

None of this actually addresses the larger problem.

Even in the goblin case, it wouldn't work for the original form of the question posed, rather than the oversimplified paraphrasing in the OP.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 03:13 PM
None of this actually addresses the larger problem. So I don't see what you think you're getting at.

Nothing, really. Just that the one particular situation DOES have a third option (though it's a pretty nasty one and my paladin will be needing some therapy when he's done).

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:14 PM
What about when a person is a fighter, but is exalted Lawful Good- and thus is effectively expected to act like a paladin, only without any magical powers?

The same sort of principles apply.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-27, 03:14 PM
Gold is irrelevant here- everyone- including the paladin- is on their last reserves of food- and gold won't buy more food in this case- since there is no food left to buy.

The paladin has a hand crossbow, the robber another weapon (knife) the robber is about to rush the paladin- and he has the choice of firing, or dropping the weapon.

He knows the would-be robber- they're a member of the community.

Why are we using insane end of the world examples? The chances of any of these coming up is low, and in an apocalypse of the scale it would take for there not to be any game to find the Pally is dead anyway. Its a tree falls in the forest question.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 03:15 PM
Why are we using insane end of the world examples? The chances of any of these coming up is low, and in an apocalypse of the scale it would take for there not to be any game to find the Pally is dead anyway. Its a tree falls in the forest question.

Medieval Europe would like a word with you, my friend, as represented by countless peasants and villagers that died in situations exactly like this. Or, worse, in the middle of seasons of plenty when wandering armies requisitioned all their food, left useless money behind, and abandoned them to starve.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 03:16 PM
It's simple derailment, is what it is. Every time people want to make up special perfect cases (which often are not as functional as they seem to think they are) for one particular example just to evade thinking about the larger philosophical issues.

It is not possible to take all of the world's pains onto yourself, or if it is, one would wonder what you need all those Paladins for anyways.

Many of these arguments don't help to define what is right, they simply dodge the larger question, often through enforcing perfect conditions, omniscience, or shortsightedness on the paladin's part.

Shortsightedness: If someone's not in the same room as you, or if a headsman does your work for you (because, say, you trussed up someone and threw him into the court system) rather than you manning up like Eddard Stark, then all's well and you're not responsible. (...Just... no)

Passing the buck: Put the burden on someone else! Get a deceitful aristocrat to run things for the paladins. Rely on Asmodeus for saving the world, because you're too busy keeping your hands appearing clean. (Argh)

Omniscience: You can, in an instant, pick the best possible situation. (You cannot know in any absolute sense what option will provide the best outcome ahead of time)

Perfect Conditions: Well, I'm overwhelmingly powerful and have exactly the right spells/magic items/time/allies to make this happen. (Your resources will not always allow)

Impossible solutions: Well, I could exhaust all possible options first (options generally have an opportunity cost, and you cannot implement all of them). Well, I could always be ready at the perfect moment! (See the Chief Wiggum below)

Martyrdom: Like many suicides, you off yourself to evade responsibility and pretend your hands are clean. And hey, who's going to speak ill of the dead? (Killing yourself doesn't solve everything. It doesn't even represent trying your best)

The Chief Wiggum: You can only attack someone who's actively in the process of violence (You don't wait for the person activate the eldritch machine to blow up the planet before you smite them) or act in self defense (Heroes protect people).

I've even seen people outright saying "Paladins just punish people, they don't protect them." This makes them into the Chief Wiggum ("The law is powerless to help you, not punish you")

Blame the DM: The DM shouldn't face you with moral dilemmas! (Argh. If a paladin can't face a moral dilemma, then he's not much of a paragon of heroic good to look at as a role model, now is he? Not only should you attack your DM for creating an interesting situation, but you should probably expect moral conundrums to come with the smites and the mount)




Really, all of these seem like cruel jokes to me. They're all just ways to dodge the larger question.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 03:20 PM
Personally, I've got a pragmatic point of view. I'd stop the robber if I was the Exalted LG Fighter. Why? Those children are going to suffer, yes. They may starve, and while I'll do everything I can to help them, it unfortunately boils down to this: I am already a powerful, proven resource for good. I protect the innocent and improve the world I live in, and society has already invested significant resources into me. Those children, as sad as it may seem, are none of these things, and while they are undeserving of death, allowing myself to die in this instance is (while not unacceptable) depriving others of the protection I offer them freely.

Sorry kids, but at least you get to go to heaven. I've got work to do on earth.

gbprime
2010-10-27, 03:24 PM
What about when a person is a fighter, but is exalted Lawful Good- and thus is effectively expected to act like a paladin, only without any magical powers?

The same sort of principles apply.

Same deal then. You sign up for exalted feats, you're signing on for restrictions to your personal conduct.


Why are we using insane end of the world examples? The chances of any of these coming up is low, and in an apocalypse of the scale it would take for there not to be any game to find the Pally is dead anyway. Its a tree falls in the forest question.

Well Eberron is a better campaign world to FIND these kind of scenarios, so I see the validity of the question. High level magic is really rare. Were this Forgotten Realms, the Paladin in question would ride out, find a high level wizard, teleport back with them, demolish an old barn, and Polymorph Any Object the giant pile of wood into a giant pile of turnips. Problem solved.

The fact that this isn't a readily available option in the campaign world makes it a BETTER campaign world, IMO. Using magic to solve a moral dilemma is a dodge. (Who needs ethics? I have magic!)

Callista
2010-10-27, 03:29 PM
Something we should remember is that a person can only be held accountable for things he is actually capable of doing. If he's not strong enough, or smart enough, or if he doesn't have the right resources, and he fails to protect the innocent, then that wasn't something he could be blamed for. No-win situations are one of the scenarios where your fallible character simply mightn't be able to find a way out without passively or actively committing an evil act. Atonement in these situations should involve little more than an afternoon of studying their faith's scriptures or discussing it with a cleric; because in some cases, part of the burden of being a paladin (or similar character) is having to see the evil that you can't prevent.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:29 PM
It's simple derailment, is what it is. Every time people want to make up special perfect cases (which often are not as functional as they seem to think they are) for one particular example just to evade thinking about the larger philosophical issues.

It is not possible to take all of the world's pains onto yourself, or if it is, one would wonder what you need all those Paladins for anyways.

What's your solution to the problem mentioned earlier:



If "making a decision that lead to the deaths of some particular innocents" can ever be a morally correct act- then there is the issue:

Either it's equivalent to "harming or threatening innocents" or it's not equivalent.

If it is, then it follows that the paladin's code demands that they punish people who have made morally correct decisions.

If it's not equivalent, then that means you can do something that leads to innocents dying, maybe even killing them yourself (or morally equivalent to that) and yet, not have "harmed or threatened innocents"- morally speaking.


Does the act of "harming or threatening innocents" get redefined?

Or is the paladin obliged by the code to punish himself for morally justifiable decisions?

Chen
2010-10-27, 03:30 PM
If they fall the second they're given a hard decision, there is something very seriously wrong.

This is exactly why I said DMs should not put a paladin in a situation where the only solutions are both evil. And there are plenty of DMs that can do that and will justify not making the paladin fall, despite the rules being fairly clear on them not being allowed to do any evil. The better way around this is to ensure there are other options even if they are self-sacrificing ones. A paladin will almost certainly sacrifice themselves to solve the problem if the other options are evil and the sacrifice will result in the problem being resolved.



No, you have a very real choice. As real as it gets. And that's what it means to be responsible for other people's lives.

The point in that statement was that if there was no way to obtain more food, you have no choice but to let people die. There simply is not another option if there is no way to obtain more food. Sure you're making a choice about WHO dies, but if everyone is innocent it hardly makes a difference with respect to "letting innocents die".



Proper logistical management of a nation's resources will do far more good than going out for a day of hunting.

I just said securing food. I didn't say you HAD to go hunt. But hell barring anything else, you COULD go hunt to save that one or two more people if you couldn't do anything else.



If you refuse to do your job in a time of crisis because it's hard? Yes, yes it is your fault.

It's also your fault if you commit suicide to evade responsibility.

All of those things fall under the category of "shirking responsibility in order to maintain the illusion to yourself of keeping your hands clean."

It may not be your fault that the situation exists, but it sure as heck is your fault how you react to it.

The not your fault was exactly directed towards the situation existing and the people starving. If you're in a place where no food can be obtained and you have X amount of food which only lets some people survive, how can it be your fault if they die? I specifically said if everything was done and STILL people were going to die, you cannot be held at fault (unless of course you sat around and did nothing).



It's even more rare that there's a perfect solution that ends in all roses for everyone to meaningful, large-scale problems. If you live in a perfect world, one might wonder why you bother with Paladins anyways.

Sure but if all the imperfect solutions that come up involve doing some evil, well then your paladin's are screwed. Greater good is still never an excuse for them to do evil.

Also sniping single sentences without the rest of the context makes replying extremely annoying. Just FYI.

Callista
2010-10-27, 03:32 PM
I think it should actually be possible for a paladin to fall without being morally culpable. In cases where he killed an innocent while under magical control, or couldn't find a way out of a moral dilemma that didn't involve letting someone die, he may easily lose his powers while still being morally blameless. This is what "Atonement" spells are for.

Being forced into most somewhat-questionable actions shouldn't cause him to lose his powers; but in the extreme cases, where the evil is obvious but unavoidable, that should be an option. And remember there's a deity behind all of this--if the paladin's far from home, with no cleric available to help him deal with the likely mental torture that resulted from the act, he may keep his powers simply because his deity knows he will need them. Sometimes the knowledge that you couldn't prevent evil is punishment enough in itself.

(Actually, people don't take the paladin's deity into account nearly enough. They all have different values; and a paladin of St. Cuthbert would be quite different from one who followed Pelor.)

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-27, 03:33 PM
A paladin will almost certainly sacrifice themselves to solve the problem if the other options are evil and the sacrifice will result in the problem being resolved.

A noble conceit that does not survive exposure to an intelligent villain.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 03:35 PM
This is exactly why I said DMs should not put a paladin in a situation where the only solutions are both evil.

And I'm saying your definition of Evil is misguided, and that moral dilemmas come with the smites and mount. If a paladin can't deal with difficult decisions, then he's not much of a paragon of heroic virtue.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:36 PM
I think it should actually be possible for a paladin to fall without being morally culpable. In cases where he killed an innocent while under magical control, or couldn't find a way out of a moral dilemma that didn't involve letting someone die, he may easily lose his powers while still being morally blameless. This is what "Atonement" spells are for.

The way the Atonement spell is phrased does seem to imply that an act can be "an evil act" even when committed under magical compulsion.

But the descriptions of Falling for evil acts, in the paladin class, use the term "willingly" at one point, and "willfully" at another.

So it depends which you consider overrides the other.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 03:36 PM
I prefer a "rights-based" approach to Good and Evil. So, my answers will be colored by that.

A Good act involves self-sacrifice.
A Neutral act is self-interested, without infringing on the rights of others.
An Evil act is self-interested, including infringement of the rights of others.

Also, my understanding of the Paladin code is:
1. Punishes Evil
2. Is Lawful Good
3. Does not commit an Evil act

2 and 3 are not, in my mind, the same. A Good character can commit an Evil act, and still be Good (if they perform a vast number of Good acts). Similarly, alignment can shift from Good to Neutral simply by an abundance of Neutral acts and a lack of Good ones, without ever performing an Evil act.

In all scenarios, I assume the extreme version of the scenario and that there is no "third way." Assume appropriate caveats about trying to find another way around the situation, etc. Also assume for all answers that appropriate hand-wringing is done after the fact - as in all of these cases, hand-wringing would be appropriate for the Paladin involved. Emo Paladin is emo.

That being said...



You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

Reality bites. If there's not enough food to go around, there's not enough food to go around. There's no way this could fall on the Paladin's head.


You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

War bites, too. Preference should be to use volunteers, and hopefully the army is volunteer/mercenary.


You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

Kill if necessary. The onus of this falls on the ones using the innocents as human shields.


You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

This is just another version of the human shield problem.


You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

Again, I'm going to argue that defending your food store is acceptable, presuming it was acquired in a "reasonable" way. The rights violation, and the moral onus of the consequences, was initiated by the person stealing your food.

This is arguably the most interesting of the scenarios, as it really only deals with *self* preservation.

At any rate, all of these acts are things that are certainly not good, but where the Paladin is forced, by another individual performing an initial rights violation, into executing the *consequence* of that rights violation.

These acts are, essentially, Neutral. They are not Good by any stretch of the imagination - fortunately the Paladin code does not prohibit Neutral acts! I cannot see any of these acts causing the Paladin to fall.

However, repeated acts of this nature without appropriate hand-wringing about the results, especially with a corresponding lack of Good actions, would certainly indicate that the Paladin was not thinking in a "Paladin-like" way, and has probably fallen.


The way the Atonement spell is phrased does seem to imply that an act can be "an evil act" even when committed under magical compulsion.


I don't know if it's "evil". However someone with the mindset of a Paladin would feel guilt about such acts, even if performed under compulsion. To me, *that* is what Atonement models. Also note that magical compulsion is a pretty different beast that "normal" compulsion (gun at your head).

Callista
2010-10-27, 03:37 PM
So is everybody actually working from the assumption that a paladin should always be able to avoid evil? Because... well, he can't. Nobody can. They're fallible creatures, you know.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 03:38 PM
So is everybody actually working from the assumption that a paladin should always be able to avoid evil? Because... well, he can't. Nobody can. They're fallible creatures, you know.

Exactly.

Pretending that the Paladin can always (or arguably ever) avoid negative consequences is not reasonable. Hence my comments above about dodging the question.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:41 PM
The atonement spell says you can atone for "unknowingly committing an Evil act"

But does this actually make sense as a concept? Or does it at least imply that the character should have known- that there was an element of wilful negligence?

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 03:42 PM
Exactly.

Pretending that the Paladin can always (or arguably ever) avoid negative consequences is not reasonable. Hence my comments above about dodging the question.

Exactly, which is I prefer the rights-based model of Good and Evil, and the way of assigning moral culpability based on initial breach of rights.

"Will this action cause someone harm" is a question that, in almost all cases, yields an answer of "yes."

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 03:43 PM
"Will this action cause someone harm" is a question that, in almost all cases, yields an answer of "yes."

Precisely my point.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:46 PM
"will this act cause harm to innocent life" was answerable with "yes" for all of them.

The second question, which I was more interested in, was "does this act count as something a paladin is obliged to punish?"

(Because paladins "punish those that harm or threaten innocents")

And if not, why not?

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 03:54 PM
The atonement spell says you can atone for "unknowingly committing an Evil act"

But does this actually make sense as a concept? Or does it at least imply that the character should have known- that there was an element of wilful negligence?

I think so. Consider manslaughter vs. murder.

I'd also argue that something like sealing up a mine, not realizing there are miners still inside, is an evil act - you're taking away the rights of the miners to life, effectively killing them (presuming there'd be a reasonable way, even if inconvenient, to determine if miners were inside).

These are the types of things that a Paladin *should* seek atonement for, regardless of RAW. And if the Paladin doesn't, they're not really playing a Paladin IMHO.


"will this act cause harm to innocent life" was answerable with "yes" for all of them.

The second question, which I was more interested in, was "does this act count as something a paladin is obliged to punish?"

(Because paladins "punish those that harm or threaten innocents")

And if not, why not?

I don't think so. I believe that RAI is closer to "must punish those who infringe upon the rights of others." As nearly any act can cause harm to an innocent (given a sufficiently wide definition of "harm"), to take RAW to an extreme would require the Paladin to smite, well, everyone. Farmer's family starves because they don't grow enough food? Smite everyone that could have given them food!

It just doesn't make sense. This is, again, why I like the rights-based approach. It provides reasonable behaviors, even when taken to extreme scenarios, and the areas where it gets fuzzy/debatable are exactly areas that *are* very debatable.

Callista
2010-10-27, 03:54 PM
The atonement spell says you can atone for "unknowingly committing an Evil act"

But does this actually make sense as a concept? Or does it at least imply that the character should have known- that there was an element of wilful negligence?Well, think about it. You're a paladin; you care so deeply about helping people and upholding justice that it's part of who you are. One day you're out fighting the Generic Evil Wizard when said wizard drops a Confusion on the lot of you, and you kill the innocent prisoner you just rescued from the wizard's dungeon with one blow from your Holy Avenger.

How would that make you feel? You've just been forced to do something that's inimical to everything you stand for. You tried to fight the spell and you still can't convince yourself that you couldn't somehow have fought harder. You're still trying to get your mind around the fact that you used a holy weapon granted to you by your deity to do something that's in direct opposition to every virtue that deity upholds. In short, you are well into Blue Screen of Death. How are you supposed to serve your deity when you're still frozen in horror at what you just did?

Atonement isn't just when you knowingly did something wrong and you're sorry. It's also for those cases when you get exposed to evil in a very personal way, when you couldn't get out of it and your own brain won't let you forgive yourself. It's for when you weren't smart enough to plan ahead, weren't strong enough to resist, or weren't powerful enough to overcome whatever obstacle got thrown at you. It's not just reconnecting with your deity; in a very real sense, it's a form of therapy. Remember that these guys are Lawful--they're not going to be easy on themselves. And knowing intellectually that you didn't have a way out isn't exactly helpful.

In the case of the paladin's killing an innocent under a Confusion effect, your basic cleric would probably get the paladin to pay for the guy's funeral (or resurrection) and then talk to his party and find an anti-Confusion strategy to prevent this from happening again.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 03:55 PM
The second question, which I was more interested in, was "does this act count as something a paladin is obliged to punish?" I believe one of your earlier examples was whether or not the paladin was obliged to chase a robber to the ends of the earth to mete out punishment. I would say no, because that falls under shortsightedness and impossible solutions. Either the Paladin sees no evil but the guy in front of her... or she just cannot actually meet her obligations. It has to be logically possible for a moderately aware Paladin (enough Wisdom to cast her spells, even) to uphold her end of the deal.

That said, a paladin, being such a swell gal, likely bears the heavy burden of conscience. She may ask forgiveness (even go on an Atonement quest or something) in her prayers for having to kill that villain instead of being able to redeem him. Or she might not. But she's not going to fall because she didn't take the best possible option (say, turning the Mind Flayer into the Redeemed Villain (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75028.jpg) instead of smiting him).

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 03:59 PM
I think so. Consider manslaughter vs. murder.

I'd also argue that something like sealing up a mine, not realizing there are miners still inside, is an evil act - you're taking away the rights of the miners to life, effectively killing them (presuming there'd be a reasonable way, even if inconvenient, to determine if miners were inside).

These are the types of things that a Paladin *should* seek atonement for, regardless of RAW. And if the Paladin doesn't, they're not really playing a Paladin IMHO.


BoVD gave "accident" "reckless/negligent" and "intentional" as the three levels, concerning acts that cause death to others.

"Accident"- does not cause a Fall or require atonement.

"Reckless/Negligent"- "a paladin should probably Fall until they have made atonement"

"Intentional"- the act is "clearly evil" and the paladin automatically Falls.



That said, a paladin, being such a swell gal, bears the heavy burden of conscience. She may ask forgiveness (even go on an Atonement quest or something) in her prayers for having to kill that villain instead of being able to redeem him. Or she might not. But she's not going to fall because she didn't take the best possible option (say, turning the Mind Flayer into the Redeemed Villain (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75028.jpg) instead of smiting him).

I was thinking more:

"the villain's innocent children are now dead. Has the paladin "harmed the innocent" by doing what they did- and if so, must they punish themselves because the code demands it, even though they did not Fall?"

Tankadin
2010-10-27, 04:05 PM
The second question, which I was more interested in, was "does this act count as something a paladin is obliged to punish?"

(Because paladins "punish those that harm or threaten innocents")

And if not, why not?

Punish in what way?

The issue here is that the paladin can't think some utilitarian calculus justifies their actions or makes their eventual decision beyond reproach.

A decision is made which saves more lives than any other possible decision but still costs some lives is probably the best one. However, this doesn't make it justified as interpreted by the rigorous morality of paladins. It is the decision they have to make, but they still have to face the consequences.

I think I've mentioned this before, but there was German theologian named Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Dude was as pious, earnest, and humble as they come. At one point in his career he wrote that a murderer has no place in the community of believers because of the implications of such an act. And yet, he participated in the 20 July plot to kill Hitler. Writing from prison, he never tried to justify his participation, instead focusing on prayer and repentance. It was the best choice, but it was still attempted murder.

Does the paladin fall? Well, that would depend on their approach. If any of these situations are approached with humility and repentance and the paladin is worshiping a merciful deity, well...hopefully not.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:10 PM
I was thinking of when the paladin themselves is the one doing it. Are they required to "punish themselves" whenever they do an act that the code implies they should punish"?

"punish those that harm or threaten innocents" may need to be heavily redefined- if a paladin is held responsible every time his actions lead to innocents coming to harm.

If it is redefined, what phrasing would make more sense, and ensure that the paladin dealing with big, serious issues, is not required to punish themselves every time they make a decision?

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 04:10 PM
The atonement spell says you can atone for "unknowingly committing an Evil act"

But does this actually make sense as a concept? Or does it at least imply that the character should have known- that there was an element of wilful negligence?

See Callista's comment above.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:14 PM
The comment seemed to apply better to acts committed under magical effects.

Miko is a classic example of someone who "unknowingly committed an evil act" in the sense that she was unaware the act was evil when she committed it.

The idea that it was "guilt" that deprived her of her powers, doesn't really make sense in this context.

For another example- if a villain disguises an innocent as him, the paladin kills the innocent- but the disguise remains- and the paladin walks away believing they have killed the villain- and only finds out they have fallen after they try and use their powers-

that might qualify as "unknowingly committing an evil act"- again though- it can't be guilt that takes away the power.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 04:18 PM
The comment seemed to apply better to acts committed under magical effects.

Miko is a classic example of someone who "unknowingly committed an evil act" in the sense that she was unaware the act was evil when she committed.

The idea that it was "guilt" that deprived her of her powers, doesn't really make sense in this context.

Uhm, no one said anything about guilt depriving her of her powers. The Gods just got angry because... apparently because they didn't feel like answering the prayers for guidance of their most powerful follower accurately and there were consequences. The will of the Gods is also a reason for, you know, the Gods ever taking away a paladin or cleric's powers.

If you're going to talk about paladins in the OotS-verse, you also have to consider things like "O-Chul knowingly lies."

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:19 PM
the point being, that when someone "unknowingly commits an evil act" they aren't always going to be aware of the act being evil immediately afterward.

And that Callista's comment:



How would that make you feel? You've just been forced to do something that's inimical to everything you stand for. You tried to fight the spell and you still can't convince yourself that you couldn't somehow have fought harder. You're still trying to get your mind around the fact that you used a holy weapon granted to you by your deity to do something that's in direct opposition to every virtue that deity upholds. In short, you are well into Blue Screen of Death. How are you supposed to serve your deity when you're still frozen in horror at what you just did?

isn't going to apply to a lot of cases of "unknowingly committing an evil act".

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 04:21 PM
The comment seemed to apply better to acts committed under magical effects.

Miko is a classic example of someone who "unknowingly committed an evil act" in the sense that she was unaware the act was evil when she committed it.

The idea that it was "guilt" that deprived her of her powers, doesn't really make sense in this context.

For another example- if a villain disguises an innocent as him, the paladin kills the innocent- but the disguise remains- and the paladin walks away believing they have killed the villain- and only finds out they have fallen after they try and use their powers-

that might qualify as "unknowingly committing an evil act"- again though- it can't be guilt that takes away the power.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's actually guilt that takes away power. If anything, I'm arguing that guilt (or remorse) is a necessary component of an Atonement, and that Atonement provides a mechanical aspect of the process of remorse and atonement (note lack of capitals) that a Paladin *should* feel after unintentionally performing an Evil act.

In the Miko case (please don't let this turn into a Miko defense thread!) the problem is that she was so assured that her path was just that she did not even consider any other alternative. Had she actually reflected on what had happened, and accepted that she had done an Evil act, she could have Atoned and been reinstated as a Paladin.


the point being, that when someone "unknowingly commits an evil act" they aren't always going to be aware of the act being evil immediately afterward.

Nope. However, they should, when presented with evidence that the act was Evil, accept responsibility for their actions.

IOW, the correct response is not "what, he was innocent? Looked guilty to me!" It's also not "No, he wasn't innocent, you're absolutely wrong." Nor is it, "great. Killed an innocent. Now I have to go Atone so I can keep my goodies." The appropriate response is "What? I did *WHAT*? I'm horrible, I'm nothing, I'm a sham, a lie. I must seek forgiveness, even though what I've done is unforgiveable."

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:25 PM
Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's actually guilt that takes away power. If anything, I'm arguing that guilt (or remorse) is a necessary component of an Atonement, and that Atonement provides a mechanical aspect of the process of remorse and atonement (note lack of capitals) that a Paladin *should* feel after unintentionally performing an Evil act.

Champions of Valor emphasises that the mechanical component is not actually required- it's a convenient shorthand- and there is nothing that special about a cleric with the spell.

So if you have the time to roleplay it, you can regain your powers without ever having to have the spell cast on you.

it does suggest that the spell might be done anyway to reassure the rest of society that you have, in fact, been forgiven.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 04:27 PM
As a side note, I actually find the whole concept of the way the gods treat paladins in many people's worlds rather dickish.

This always seemed like a strange instance of doublethink to me.

Why do people so easily accept the idea that gods hold their Paladins to such a higher standard than their Clerics in a world where the God rewards greater favor with greater divine power? After all, the Clerics are the ones getting the greater boons from the deity. So what the hell, gods? :smallconfused:

If the Gods weren't rather dickish in exactly this sense in, say, the Sapphire Guard's case... they would have given the boon of actual divination spells to Paladins and when Miko basically asked the gods whether she should kill Shojo they might have said "Oh, you know, maybe that's not such a great idea." In fact, from her perspective, she got a pretty clear message saying the exact opposite, straight from the Gods, since she's taught that they're known to speak in portents.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:32 PM
One possible solution is that it has nothing to do with the gods-

a god cannot take away a paladin's powers, only grossly breaching the basic code or committing evil acts, can do that, even if the paladin is in a setting like Faerun where they must have a patron.

From the way the rules are written in the PHB, this appears to be how it works. Nothing is said about what happens if a paladin does something their deity objects to that is not a gross code violation or evil act.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 04:39 PM
One possible solution is that it has nothing to do with the gods- I didn't say that all worlds worked that way. I said that a lot of people's do and yet they don't seem to have any problem with the idea that Paladins get the short end of the divine power stic compared to the notably less devoted (in their mind) Clerics.

I don't treat Clerics and Paladins this way, but other people do. So why do people seem to think this is okay?

As I said, this always seemed like doublethink to me.

In fact, Clerics get a Code of Conduct, but people always seem to forget this.

"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features." The only difference is that since not all Clerics are Lawful Good cutouts they expect you to make up your own code.

Why does no one remember that Clerics get the Code of Conduct too?

Tankadin
2010-10-27, 04:43 PM
I don't think there was a lot of complex thought that went into the creation of the class, honestly. Gygax and company were smart and creative but as far as I know none of them were schooled in ethics or casuistry. The "paladins" we have from legend didn't have to confront virtually any of these issues in their respective legends. Gawain, Galahad, Roland--they were holy and heroic but they aren't famous for sorting out moral dilemmas. I think their courage and faith are bigger parts of the myth than anything else.

Similarly, the reason the paladins seem to get the raw deal vis-a-vis clerics again goes back to earlier editions where the paladin's abilities were a little bit nicer and clerics weren't so obviously terrifying. This could lead to an interesting inversion--the clerics have to maintain the rigorous code or lose their formidable abilities whereas the paladins get some decent powers in exchange for doing their best and wearing the right tabard.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 04:44 PM
I didn't say that all worlds worked that way. I said that a lot of people's do and yet they don't seem to have any problem with the idea that Paladins get the short end of the divine power stic compared to the notably less devoted (in their mind) Clerics.

I don't treat Clerics and Paladins this way, but other people do. So why do people seem to think this is okay?

As I said, this always seemed like doublethink to me.

In fact, Clerics get a Code of Conduct, but people always seem to forget this.

"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features."

Blame Lancelot. The Paladin class is heavily patterned after the Lancelot myth. They're supposed to be the ultimate paragons of virtue and examples to the world, and the whole falling thing has obvious parallels in the Lancelot myth as well.


In fact, Clerics get a Code of Conduct, but people always seem to forget this.

"A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features." The only difference is that since not all Clerics are Lawful Good cutouts they expect you to make up your own code.

Why does no one remember that Clerics get the Code of Conduct too?

If a cleric acted out of line with his god's code of conduct and or portfolio, you'd better bet I'd strip them of their powers post-haste, at least until atonement/etc.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 04:46 PM
Blame Lancelot. The Paladin class is heavily patterned after the Lancelot myth. They're supposed to be the ultimate paragons of virtue and examples to the world, and the whole falling thing has obvious parallels in the Lancelot myth as well.

It's not Lancelot's fault though. There aren't people running around getting better gifts from the gods who aren't shot down for things Lancelot would be shot down for. And Lancelot actually had some moral turpitude going on.


If a cleric acted out of line with his god's code of conduct and or portfolio, you'd better bet I'd strip them of their powers post-haste, at least until atonement/etc.

Likewise.

In fact, this is why I mention to people making paladin fixes with the stated goal of making the class "become more competitive with CoDzilla" should probably just, you know, actually play a warrior Cleric build. It has all the trappings of the Paladin (You can trivially get Detect Evil at will, Smites, a celestial horse, near-full BAB, and proficiency with swords) and it even has the Code of Conduct / fall mechanic.

And yet some people act like this is some crazy suggestion. They just can't imagine that you could just call a Cleric a Paladin and it would be the same thing except with better mechanics. Kinda like how some people have trouble getting around concepts like "Miko's a Samurai without any levels in a class with Samurai in the name? Wha?"

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 04:49 PM
The hero of Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions might be another major candidate-

whenever he's thinking naughty thoughts, or acting bad-tempered, he becomes vulnerable to the magic of various evil creatures- which might be an approximate equivalent of Falling.

It's sometimes cited as the inspiration for the D&D paladin, and the D&D style troll (green, warty, taller than a man, very long nose, regenerates and can only be killed by fire).

Ragitsu
2010-10-27, 04:49 PM
Is it just me, or, in quite a few cases, people love coming up with ways to make players that chose the Paladin class for their PC to fail?

Frosty
2010-10-27, 04:50 PM
The "paladins" we have from legend didn't have to confront virtually any of these issues in their respective legends. Gawain, Galahad, Roland--they were holy and heroic but they aren't famous for sorting out moral dilemmas.Weren't they (at least one of them iirc) famous for sleeping with each others' wives instead?

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 04:56 PM
It's not Lancelot's fault though. There aren't people running around getting better gifts from the gods who aren't shot down for things Lancelot would be shot down for. And Lancelot actually had some moral turpitude going on.

Right. I'm just saying that Lancelot was the template for the Paladin, and that wasn't really a factor when the Cleric class was designed.

Also, Clerics got a *lot* better in later editions than in 1e. So you're looking at a ton of design drift over 30 years or so. In 1e, Paladins were pretty freakin' awesome.


Weren't they (at least one of them iirc) famous for sleeping with each others' wives instead?

Lancelot. Slept with Arthur's wife, which was a major cause of the fall of Camelot.

Hence the "fall" mechanic and theme of Paladins.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 04:59 PM
Right. I'm just saying that Lancelot was the template for the Paladin, and that wasn't really a factor when the Cleric class was designed.

Also, Clerics got a *lot* better in later editions than in 1e. So you're looking at a ton of design drift over 30 years or so. In 1e, Paladins were pretty freakin' awesome. That's great and all, but that doesn't excuse doublethink.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 05:02 PM
Don't seem to recall Lancelot losing his powers. :smallconfused:

He didn't have any powers. :smallfurious: He did, however, go and life his life in penitence, so I guess if he had any powers he didn't use them afterwards...

"Why do you keep going on about Paladins, Stan?"
"I want to be one."
"What? Why do you want to be a Paladin, Stan?"
"I want to have holy powers."
"Where are the holy powers going to gestate, in a box?"

Ah, never mind, got nothin'.


That's great and all, but that doesn't excuse doublethink.

Not saying it's an excuse - it's lazy design.

hamishspence
2010-10-27, 05:02 PM
Right. I'm just saying that Lancelot was the template for the Paladin, and that wasn't really a factor when the Cleric class was designed.

What about the theory that Poul Anderson's work contributed a lot to it?

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

There's probably other sources that mention this theory.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 05:03 PM
He didn't have any powers. Paladins do. And they lose them when they fall. So... yeah. I'm not sure where you're going with this whole Lancelot comparison.


Not saying it's an excuse - it's lazy design.

I'm not talking about the designers. The designers actually gave the Code of Conduct / falling mechanic to Clerics too. It's players that seem to ignore this entirely and pull out all the discussions about the Paladin falling no matter what and being held to higher standards than the Cleric.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 05:04 PM
What about the theory that Poul Anderson's work contributed a lot to it?

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

There's probably other sources that mention this theory.

Yeah, there's that too.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 05:08 PM
Anyways, my position can be summarized as:

"If you can't play a Paladin in a world like that of Deus Ex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0af2wvSdwwI&feature=channel) without automatically falling, you're doing it wrong."

Well lookie here, we got us a boy scout. (http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=P7tpuRVZ0Nc&feature=related)

If you wanna make enemies... try to change something. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsMQ1AklPe0&feature=related)

For those unfamiliar, that means a setting where it's very difficult to tell whose side you or anyone else is actually on or whether actually smiting (or hesitating to smite) that Evil guy over there would be a good thing to do for innumerable innocent people at stake. I actually play Eberron like this regularly.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-27, 07:18 PM
Paladins do. And they lose them when they fall. So... yeah. I'm not sure where you're going with this whole Lancelot comparison.



I'm not talking about the designers. The designers actually gave the Code of Conduct / falling mechanic to Clerics too. It's players that seem to ignore this entirely and pull out all the discussions about the Paladin falling no matter what and being held to higher standards than the Cleric.

Clerics don't have a written code. This means they are treated less strict. Meaningy ou can argue you are still following your god (because sadly Alignment is not what you think it is more than not).

With Paladins: DMs read a strict code and treat it as strict as much as it was written.

Callista
2010-10-27, 07:41 PM
Clerics aren't more flexible than paladins; they're more diverse. So, in general, a player who creates a cleric will choose a deity that's mostly in line with how they plan to play the character.

Still, it's true that clerics don't have near the notoriety that paladins do; and that's regrettable, since they should in general be held to a similarly stringent standard--again, depending on the god they're serving.

kyoryu
2010-10-27, 07:46 PM
Clerics aren't more flexible than paladins; they're more diverse. So, in general, a player who creates a cleric will choose a deity that's mostly in line with how they plan to play the character.

Still, it's true that clerics don't have near the notoriety that paladins do; and that's regrettable, since they should in general be held to a similarly stringent standard--again, depending on the god they're serving.

A lot of it still just leftovers from 1st ed, where fighters were actually viable and a Paladin was a Better Fighter - in all ways, with no downsides *apart* from the code.

As I've said, design drift and legacy decisions, basically.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-27, 07:50 PM
A lot of it still just leftovers from 1st ed, where fighters were actually viable and a Paladin was a Better Fighter - in all ways, with no downsides *apart* from the code.

As I've said, design drift and legacy decisions, basically.

"Player behavior and interpretations" isn't a design legacy, kyoryu. That, at least, is entirely on the players.

Dragonus45
2010-10-27, 09:26 PM
I would posit that in a situation like those op mentioned, when there is no true good choice or when people will suffer no matter what a paladin should default to the laws of that land. Also he should make sure he is the first person in line for the pain train, always.

Pyrite
2010-10-27, 10:23 PM
Regarding Clerics, it's easier for a player to accept the moral code of conduct a cleric has to follow because it's basically nothing more than the laws of the particular man-in-the-sky they picked when they made their character. If these laws are arbitrary, that's ok, because gods are arbitrary sometimes, and you're the one who chose to follow one. If it's the great Zagzabar's law that no children must ever come to harm, then no children must ever come to harm.

With paladins it's a lot dicier because the implication by RAW is that paladins aren't really servants of the gods at all, but of Good itself, and people have a hard time with Good seeming arbitrary. People have opinions about what Good is.

Of the proposed challenges to the paladin's alignment, the responsibility is only on the paladin at all in the cases where innocent people are being used against him. It may be in these situations that the paladin's only option within his code is to lose the battle, or to retreat. A lot of people seem to find that completely unacceptable.

I do feel that alignment in D&D has nothing to do with consequences, but everything to do with deeds and intent. It's not the effort as a whole that's measured and the deeds justified by the end result, but each deed is evaluated separately and at the end the universe tells you where your moral alignment is. Paladins are held to such a high standard that they cannot abide even one evil deed. Lawful good fighters can commit to an evil deed or two in order to serve the greater good, but the whole concept of a paladin is he is expected to be as nearly perfect as a mortal can be.

Sometimes that means losing the battle. Sometimes that means losing the war. Sometimes that means dying for nothing except your principles. If these consequences are unacceptable, then maybe you aren't cut out to be a paladin.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-27, 11:06 PM
Medieval Europe would like a word with you, my friend, as represented by countless peasants and villagers that died in situations exactly like this. Or, worse, in the middle of seasons of plenty when wandering armies requisitioned all their food, left useless money behind, and abandoned them to starve.

That proves my point entirely. A human adult is almost immune to starvation without another human being as part of the equation. Aborigines can survive in the Outback just fine, people can survive being stranded for long periods of time, etc. What is being suggested are all cases of civilization collapsing amidst a dense population; which is fine as long as you realize the Paladin could always requisition food from the rampaging army that caused it. Medieval famine are almost exclusively caused by a bad year in a densely populated area, and the state does not allow migration to other places.

Medieval France used to have frequent famines caused by the immobility of the feudal system. You could not leave, and the food simply did not exist. Same thing happens in Africa; other states do not allow migration and so the freakishly overpopulated areas starve (Ethiopia for instance, which is hemmed in by hostile states).

So yes, the situation could happen, but not in isolation. And in a none-isolated area the Paladin would have the greater responsibility of opening borders rather then simply giving up his food.

bondpirate
2010-10-27, 11:07 PM
Hamishspense, concerning the defend the food store situation in winter:
1)
You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.
2)Then adjusted the scenario to be a point of non-lethal damage from unconsciousness with a good portion of the winter to go.
3)
The situation here was- at the start of the winter everyone, including the paladin, was allocated just enough food that they would be alive (though at most a few meals away from death) at the end of it- and all the rest put into emergency reserve to help anyone whose food store got destroyed by animals, weather, theft, and so on.

The winter was so harsh that all the emergency reserve was depleted, and people are beginning to die. The paladin was lucky enough that their food bin never got damaged. The paladin is still at most a meal or so away from death- but they have been working to prevent the people from robbing each other. As a result, the community has not yet descended into anarchy.

This is an Eberron-type world- the gods do not do miracles. At this point, saying "Fate will provide" is insanely foolhardy.

The attacker is desperate, but the paladin armed (with a cocked hand crossbow). It has come down to "fight or give in and almost certainly die".

For the paladin to give in now- could be said to be severely neglecting his duty to defend innocents.
4)Reaffirm that the attempted murderer has a family, which we know of, he is desperate to provide for.
5)Then, that the Paladin has been sacrificing all along. How much? Not specified. I'll assume everything but one pound of food the Paladin intends to eat since she only has one effective hit point before uselessness.
6)Next, it's determined food is the only resource that's important, and the desperate father attacks with his knife, and your hand-crossbow is cocked and readied. You give us an option of firing or be a martyr.

Firstly, this Paladin has failed, hard, to let the situation end up this bad.

And now my rebuttal:
The moment that the Paladin learned there was to be food rationing and that it would be a hard winter, would have been the moment she would have kicked into high gear. First, she could easily handle not eating for a week or two at a time as long as she had some water every day. Starvation doesn't penalize you till the fourth day and then you can make make a constitution check or take 1d6 non-lethal (3.5 avg) damage. After a couple levels this is easy. If she's level four or higher and has twelve wisdom, then casting endure elements and create water everyday gives serious staying power. With Immunity to Disease: old, moldy or diseased food is what she would choose to live off of to extend the reserves. During this time, she would use her charisma to improve morale and set an example, to show strength when others are weak. She would identify every evil person in the community and keep an eye on them, attempting to mitigate any shenanigans and reform them. She would allow her aura of courage to sweep over every person she meets to give them the strength to conquer their fear of the uncertain, bleak future. To quote the player's handbook on the Paladin's introduction,

The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the
power to defeat evil—these are the three weapons of the paladin.
Few have the purity and devotion that it takes to walk the paladin’s
path, but those few are rewarded with the power to protect, to heal,
and to smite. In a land of scheming wizards, unholy priests,
bloodthirsty dragons, and infernal fiends, the paladin is the final
hope that cannot be extinguished. (Player's Handbook version 3.5, page 42)
When others have eaten and it is her turn, she stays her hunger. When others huddle for warmth just to delay the chill in their bones, she stands alone in the frozen winds. When others fall to desperation, she shows compassion in the face of their weakness, to fight despair with hope. Not to smite the fallen. She is their strength. She is their hope. She is the coming dawn. When the snow melts, it does not become water, but Spring!

Perfection is not a Paladin's call. It's about being strong when others are weak. When there are no acceptable options, then she creates a new choice. A choice is, after all, a genuine act of freedom. True freedom is an act of creation. Creation is both good and just. To make your own way, when there is no other path. Not the bindings of limited options. Options are easy, choices are hard. As a Paladin, she accepts the strength within herself, and chooses a path few can burden and fewer burden long. To quote Aurther Shopenhauer:

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. With people with only modest ability, modesty is mere honesty; but with those who possess great talent, it is hypocrisy.
Being a Paladin does not require her to be a genius, but it does require a talent for virtue. But to possess either of these traits and fail to use them, to deny them is where the majority of falls have occurred. To say 'I had no choice!' when there was one. To pick hypocrisy over conviction. Paladins are expected to go through hell. In D&D it just happens to be literally. This requires one of the hardest virtues to master and the first performed to transcend to an exalted individual of faith, honor and conviction. This virtue is acceptance. To accept how sad that she can't save everyone. To have eyes wider than those right in front of her, but to never look away. To balance what is good or what is just. To walk the right path or the best path to a solution. That sometimes these choices walk together, and that sometimes they split from each other. To accept the war with evil, wherever and however it may show itself, and to fight, and to win.

Who she is. Who she has been. Who she will become. The choices she makes. The path she must accept. And she accepts, that she is a Paladin to the core. Even in Eberron.

The Paladin you have huddled by her last bit of food, is not contemplating sacrifice or murder, but whether the oath of being a Paladin and burden of her conviction was the right choice. She is questioning whether her life was worth living this way. Even with all the bad decisions so far, she would drop the crossbow and use her head. Or her fists to stop him. To save him from his weakness. To be above his weakness. To create a path they can take together to get through the winter. To have hope which can't be extinguished. She is a Paladin after all.

It's hard being a Paladin at times, but damn do I love the ride.:smallbiggrin:

Ragitsu
2010-10-27, 11:27 PM
Sometimes that means losing the battle. Sometimes that means losing the war. Sometimes that means dying for nothing except your principles. If these consequences are unacceptable, then maybe you aren't cut out to be a paladin.

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! I am getting too much of a "it's hard being a Paladin, so here are ways to loosen them up nearly to the point of not being one anymore" vibe from some posts in this thread.

Pyrite
2010-10-27, 11:36 PM
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! I am getting too much of a "it's hard being a Paladin, so here are ways to loosen them up nearly to the point of not being one anymore" vibe from some posts in this thread.

I wonder sometimes if these debates would be so vitriolic if ex-paladins who didn't want to atone (because they don't believe what they did was wrong) could convert their paladin levels into fighter levels over time.

Knaight
2010-10-28, 12:02 AM
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! I am getting too much of a "it's hard being a Paladin, so here are ways to loosen them up nearly to the point of not being one anymore" vibe from some posts in this thread.

Said examples can also be taken as idiocy more than failing due to principles. Particularly as said failing screws up a bunch of other people as well. If failing due to the principles means that nothing is accomplished and a situation deteriorates for other people, then said principles are somewhat questionable.

WinWin
2010-10-28, 01:25 AM
How would I RP?

Allow a thief to prosper in a time of famine? Never. People have been executed for less.

Conscript the thief. Put them on a foraging work detail instead of allowing them to prey on society for their own benefit. I don't care if they have kids...That does not make them a saint. Nor are someone elses children the resposibility of the paladin.

In fact, rounding up all criminals and making them work for the benefit of the community would be a decent course of action. They would learn a valuable lesson in cooperation and be working together for the greater good of society.

A paladin should always be ready to assist those who ask for aid. They are not an easy mark for some sloppy thief to take advantage of. Not the way I play them, anyway.

hamishspence
2010-10-28, 01:54 AM
That proves my point entirely. A human adult is almost immune to starvation without another human being as part of the equation. Aborigines can survive in the Outback just fine, people can survive being stranded for long periods of time, etc.

It's a Very Cold Winter.

In winter, you need a lot more food- the ravages of cold make a huge difference. Though the rules don't entirely take this into account.




Firstly, this Paladin has failed, hard, to let the situation end up this bad.

And now my rebuttal:
The moment that the Paladin learned there was to be food rationing and that it would be a hard winter, would have been the moment she would have kicked into high gear. First, she could easily handle not eating for a week or two at a time as long as she had some water every day. Starvation doesn't penalize you till the fourth day and then you can make make a constitution check or take 1d6 non-lethal (3.5 avg) damage. After a couple levels this is easy. If she's level four or higher and has twelve wisdom, then casting endure elements and create water everyday gives serious staying power. With Immunity to Disease: old, moldy or diseased food is what she would choose to live off of to extend the reserves. During this time, she would use her charisma to improve morale and set an example, to show strength when others are weak. She would identify every evil person in the community and keep an eye on them, attempting to mitigate any shenanigans and reform them. She would allow her aura of courage to sweep over every person she meets to give them the strength to conquer their fear of the uncertain, bleak future. To quote the player's handbook on the Paladin's introduction,

When others have eaten and it is her turn, she stays her hunger. When others huddle for warmth just to delay the chill in their bones, she stands alone in the frozen winds. When others fall to desperation, she shows compassion in the face of their weakness, to fight despair with hope. Not to smite the fallen. She is their strength. She is their hope. She is the coming dawn. When the snow melts, it does not become water, but Spring!:

Which player's handbook was that?

In communities all the way up to Small Town size, it's entirely possible for the highest level paladin to be 1st level- they don't have aura of courage, lay-on-hands, spells, immunity to disease, etc. All they have is their code, detect evil, and smite evil.

Sometimes it's not a case of "failing hard"- sometimes situations really do deteriorate that far without any neglect on the part of the paladin.

And suppose the paladin did have a way of surviving without food- and it's not his food the thief is after, but his body, to chop up and feed to the innocent children?

Does "make sacrifices to help others" go so far as to demand that, if your death will prolong the lives of innocents, you must always choose to let people kill you?

Pyrite
2010-10-28, 02:08 AM
Said examples can also be taken as idiocy more than failing due to principles. Particularly as said failing screws up a bunch of other people as well. If failing due to the principles means that nothing is accomplished and a situation deteriorates for other people, then said principles are somewhat questionable.

What about the word "Principle" suggests that adhering to them always works out in the most convenient and comfortable way for everyone involved?

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-28, 02:08 AM
Sometimes that means losing the battle. Sometimes that means losing the war. Sometimes that means dying for nothing except your principles. If these consequences are unacceptable, then maybe you aren't cut out to be a paladin.

Y'know, this is all well and good when it's only your life on the line, but it's not acceptable to condemn innocent people to death simply because you wouldn't compromise on your ideals. Altruism is the first word in defining Good in the PHB, and that means defending the innocent, the weak, and the helpless against those that would harm and oppress them. A paladin's first duty is to those that can't help themselves, and it's morally irresponsible - I daresay wrong - to simply lose the battle, retain your class features, and permit gods-only-know how many innocent people to get hurt because you were too much of a coward to make the tough choice.

Honestly man, do you read the arguments you post?

Pyrite
2010-10-28, 02:34 AM
Y'know, this is all well and good when it's only your life on the line, but it's not acceptable to condemn innocent people to death simply because you wouldn't compromise on your ideals. Altruism is the first word in defining Good in the PHB, and that means defending the innocent, the weak, and the helpless against those that would harm and oppress them. A paladin's first duty is to those that can't help themselves, and it's morally irresponsible - I daresay wrong - to simply lose the battle, retain your class features, and permit gods-only-know how many innocent people to get hurt because you were too much of a coward to make the tough choice.

Honestly man, do you read the arguments you post?

Yes. Very thoroughly.

The Paladin could, alternatively, choose to accept the stain on his soul, fall, and stop calling himself a paladin. Hell, I'd let him convert paladin levels to Grey Guard levels if he goes that path.

But maybe the drive to find a third solution in the face of seemingly impossible situations that the Paladin's code imposes causes more good resolutions than bad ones, in the big picture? y'know, outside of the realm of specially baked scenarios like these?

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-28, 02:44 AM
But maybe the drive to find a third solution in the face of seemingly impossible situations that the Paladin's code imposes causes more good resolutions than bad ones, in the big picture? y'know, outside of the realm of specially baked scenarios like these?

Specially baked? Using mind-controlled innocents is practically required for a lot of villain types. How about those that were simply deceived? What happens to the orc women and children when you crush their army beneath your heel? What happens when you've got to order a squad of green recruits into the breach so you can hold the walls, knowing they're going to take heavy losses?

Mature gaming means making mature choices, and somebody's gonna die when that happens. The paladin's job does not mean washing his hands clean of that. He's supposed to be a righteous example and champion, and that means it's his job, as the morally superior (we hope) party to make that tough choice as best he can. A whole lot of people don't deserve to die, but a paladin may be forced to choose between one person that should live and another. Black-and-white morality only works in games with shallow morals, and those games are not what this thread is about.

The level of irresponsibility you're demanding that paladins portray isn't just bad - it's downright Evil, reminding me much of the BoVD example of the teacher that is bribed to ignore disappearances from his classroom. he didn't do anything, he tells himself, so it's not his fault.

Except it is. It's still evil. He's allowing innocents to get hurt, and that kind of action is not one a real paladin can abide.

hamishspence
2010-10-28, 02:45 AM
it's morally irresponsible - I daresay wrong - to simply lose the battle, retain your class features, and permit gods-only-know how many innocent people to get hurt because you were too much of a coward to make the tough choice.

BoVD provides an example of where killing someone (in this case, considered the only way to stop them) who is about to commit mass murder

(and the would-be mass murderer not technically committing an evil act- because they had good grounds to believe it was necessary- they are merely in error rather than actually "committing an evil act")

is considered not evil- and "standing by and doing nothing" is considered to be the evil choice.

So sometimes, doing nothing and letting innocent people die, can be an evil act- even if the "doing nothing" doesn't literally stain your hands.

Harsh winters in a medieval world, where one day of starvation can make the difference between being alive, and falling unconscious and dying of cold in the night because you couldn't light a fire, aren't "half-baked" either- plenty of medieval/Dark Age places really were that cold. Siberia, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, northern Scotland, and so on.

Pyrite
2010-10-28, 03:18 AM
Re: Paladins "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" but what counts?
Quote:
Specially baked? Using mind-controlled innocents is practically required for a lot of villain types. How about those that were simply deceived? What happens to the orc women and children when you crush their army beneath your heel? What happens when you've got to order a squad of green recruits into the breach so you can hold the walls, knowing they're going to take heavy losses?

I'm calling them specially baked because when people started proposing third options, the scenarios were revised specifically to remove them and make any other options impossible. The paladin who shrugs his shoulders and accepts that his ideal is impossible may miss better solutions he would have considered otherwise.

The green recruits are, I have to assume, Volunteers. They already offered up their lives for whatever reasons they did (presumably to protect their families.) You have a responsibility to use those lives wisely, but as a military commander, they are your lives to use.

What happens to the orc women and children depends pretty heavily on the nature of orcs in your campaign world. If they are redeemable, then you occupy their camps, as you would any other conquered city.




The level of irresponsibility you're demanding that paladins portray isn't just bad - it's downright Evil, reminding me much of the BoVD example of the teacher that is bribed to ignore disappearances from his classroom. he didn't do anything, he tells himself, so it's not his fault.


The paladin has an equal duty to the mind controlled civilians and the people their bodies would be forced to harm. It's his charge to find a way to save both, no matter how impossible that might seem. To do otherwise is to accept a moral defeat, something a paladin cannot abide.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-28, 03:24 AM
The paladin has an equal duty to the mind controlled civilians and the people their bodies would be forced to harm. It's his charge to find a way to save both, no matter how impossible that might seem. To do otherwise is to accept a moral defeat, something a paladin cannot abide.

You don't always have time to find another way. If nonlethal damage will work without endangering the innocent, great. If you can break the enchantment, great. But at lower levels, or in the absence of friendly spellcasters, or even straight-up during an ambush, the paladin is going to need to choose who to save and who to harm. It's a hard choice, yes. But it's his to make.

Likewise, if a city is under attack by a red dragon, the paladin has an equal duty to those dying in their burning homes and those the dragon is continuing to harm, but his duty in this case is absolutely to stand against the dragon. Yes, that means leaving innocents to die, but it also means preventing any further deaths caused by the dragon in question.

A paladin should always be mindful of the greater good; getting bogged down in the tiny, individual cases of good vs. evil when lives are at stake only causes harm and pain.

Pyrite
2010-10-28, 03:38 AM
You don't always have time to find another way. If nonlethal damage will work without endangering the innocent, great. If you can break the enchantment, great. But at lower levels, or in the absence of friendly spellcasters, or even straight-up during an ambush, the paladin is going to need to choose who to save and who to harm. It's a hard choice, yes. But it's his to make.

Likewise, if a city is under attack by a red dragon, the paladin has an equal duty to those dying in their burning homes and those the dragon is continuing to harm, but his duty in this case is absolutely to stand against the dragon. Yes, that means leaving innocents to die, but it also means preventing any further deaths caused by the dragon in question.

A paladin should always be mindful of the greater good; getting bogged down in the tiny, individual cases of good vs. evil when lives are at stake only causes harm and pain.

I agree with you about the dragon, but for different reasons. "harming" someone is different from "not saving" them. If it's a choice between not saving one group of people or another, then the paladin has to figure out how to best allocate himself as a resource.

When the choice is between not saving one person and harming an innocent, it becomes a different matter entirely.

It's his choice to make, yes, and he has to live with the consequences.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-28, 03:40 AM
Allowing an innocent to come to harm when you could have saved them is just as morally reprehensible as harming them yourself. Or do you think the folks that observed the rape and murder of a New York City woman and did nothing but watch are clean of all blame?

Pyrite
2010-10-28, 03:45 AM
Allowing an innocent to come to harm when you could have saved them is just as morally reprehensible as harming them yourself. Or do you think the folks that observed the rape and murder of a New York City woman and did nothing but watch are clean of all blame?

I'm pretty sure I can't respond to this without breaking forum rules.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-28, 03:47 AM
I'm pretty sure I can't respond to this without breaking forum rules.

And yet, your choice of inaction with one group of innocents attacking another is similar. No, neither group deserves to die. But standing by and doing nothing is morally unacceptable, and seeking a bad option because it MIGHT work is just as bad. If your duty is to save people, you save as many as you can, even if some have to die in the process. It's regrettable. The mage that caused the situation certainly deserves a smiting or three. But here, and now, someone is in danger and it's the paladin's job to protect them.

hamishspence
2010-10-28, 03:48 AM
A distinction might need to be made between

"allowing a violation of somebody's rights (that kills them) to happen"

and

"allowing somebody to die of something that is not a violation of their rights"

(if you take the view that only a moral entity can violate somebody's rights)

Examples might be a natural disaster, a heart attack, and so on.

If in a modernistic campaign, the paladin's identical twin brother is dying of a heart failure, that cannot be cured by magic, and he can only be saved by a heart transplant- is the paladin (or person who abides by the paladin's code) obliged to sacrifice their own life? And if the paladin does nothing- have they acted in a morally reprehensible manner?

Or- a paladin with wings of flying, near a volcanic eruption, sees a person (assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise) near a rapidly moving flow.

They are not a physically very strong paladin- and know that the only way to save the person is to swoop down and give them the wings- and die in the flow.

If they do not do so- was that morally reprehensible?

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-28, 03:57 AM
An interesting point, Hamish. I'd say that they aren't required to die, but they are required to do everything they can to help. The paladin might choose to lay down their life anyway, but they're obligated, at the barest minimum, to give comfort and succor to the dying and not to simply ignore them unless something much, MUCH more important is pressing upon their time.

hamishspence
2010-10-28, 04:46 AM
Could work. A person could be willing to sacrifice everything but their life under most normal circumstances, but take the view that the longer they live, the more people they can help, and thus only lay down their own life when it would appear that it's overwhelmingly necessary for "the greater good".

As has been said before, there might be cases where a choice leads to a particular set of innocents dying (and another larger set of innocents living) but that doesn't mean making that choice violates anybody's rights.

If a paladin is in charge of disaster management, and one of their subordinates orders a cargo of relief support sent to a small village, and news comes in of a large town needing relief- the only resource available has been allocated elsewhere- and the paladin countemands the order- it can be said that:

"You gave an order knowing that because of that order many innocents would die as a result- you have harmed the innocent"

But it also could be said that:

"I did not violate their rights by allocating their relief away from them- they have no inherent right to be relieved- and I have a duty to allocate relief where it will do the most good"

WinWin
2010-10-28, 08:28 AM
A paladin is the hero class. A leader or at the very least an example to others. People have very different opinions on what that should entail.

A paladin is also a warrior. They make war. They are a protector...They are not a nursemaid.

People need to fight their own battles and resolve their own problems. Superman does not fly to the rescue when Little Timmy has a boo-boo. Heroes only get involved when things are beyond the scope of ordinary people to handle. This is what sets them apart.

You can make claims that a paladin should somehow be the whipping boy for all the moral quandries that may or may not come into play in a game. That doing so makes your game more sophisticated or special.

The paladin needs to take a big step back from these issues and tell all involved "Handle your own s***."

As a warrior, they can expect to have a considerably shortened lifespan. Especially with monsters and magic being as common as they are. When they die, who is going to protect their charges? If they have been coddling and spoonfeeding everyone, how they hell are they going to survive without the paladin around?

So they have to make tough choices. Deal with it. People make tough choices all of the time during war. Throwing an emo hissy fit because "people die and it isn't fair" is not maturity. The paladin is always at war with evil. A war that can not be won . The example that the paladin sets is not that their actions are futile, but that occasionally one can be victorious over evil.

Anything that distracts from their war against evil is meaningess.

You want a moral quandry from an actual game?

My DM read this forum (i think). In our catch-up game, the party encountered a redcap. It was singing "amazing grace" in the sylvan language. After making sure the encounter was not an ambush, the party approached. My character did not detect an evil alignment. RP and other hijinks ensue. The redcap starts following the group around. It attempts to eat all our food during camp and keeps making suggestions like "Make love, not war" as the party travels though a swamp on their way to an ancient ruin. It does not assist in combat and it's 'terrified' shrieking attracts more monsters whenever the group engages in combat.

I know it is a trap. I know it has a means of concealing it's alignment. It is only a matter of time before it becomes a big problem...Especially as it insists upon burying the remains of every monster the group slays. It's cap seems to be getting darker "though it could be a trick of the light" my DM says.

Only problem for my paladin is that killing a lost creature in the middle of the wilderness is not a very nice thing to do. The group (apparently) has no means of uncovering the recap's deception. Regardless of my metagame knowledge, my paladin only has the 'gut feeling' that 'something is amiss.'

Callista
2010-10-28, 09:58 AM
Seems to me a lot of these dilemmas are coming from people who are too cynical to believe good still exists in the real world.


Only problem for my paladin is that killing a lost creature in the middle of the wilderness is not a very nice thing to do. The group (apparently) has no means of uncovering the recap's deception. Regardless of my metagame knowledge, my paladin only has the 'gut feeling' that 'something is amiss.'There's nothing dishonorable about capturing and questioning it. A quick Dispel, and you should be able to figure out whether it's hiding its alignment. This could be a valuable opportunity; maybe this creature was hired by someone and will be willing to talk about what's going on if you give it a few good Diplomacy checks and/or a better offer. You might even be able to turn it to your side, if you can get it to Friendly and/or change its alignment (takes a week at least; requires seven Diplomacy checks in a row to succeed--BoED for rules.)

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 01:00 PM
Or- a paladin with wings of flying, near a volcanic eruption, sees a person (assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise) near a rapidly moving flow.

They are not a physically very strong paladin- and know that the only way to save the person is to swoop down and give them the wings- and die in the flow.

If they do not do so- was that morally reprehensible?

You've got Good, Neutral and Evil responses to this situation:

Good: give the person the Wings and die. Self-sacrifice is probably the prime indicator of a good act.
Neutral: fly away - you're not harming the individual, you're not responsible for the harm that befalls him
Evil: kick him into the lava and then take his stuff.

Paladins are not obligated to always do Good acts. They *are* obligated to not perform Evil acts, and to keep their alignment Good.

However, I'd typically expect the Paladin to go a little emo over an episode like this.

Callista
2010-10-28, 01:24 PM
Yeah, like the kind of person who becomes a paladin is the kind of person who'd ever leave the poor guy to die. It's just not in his nature; he'd never be able to live with himself.

Though, there is the option of dumping everything but his loincloth and trying it that way. Might be a bit undignified, but definitely better than the alternative!

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-28, 01:35 PM
How about you make it an actual choice?

-There are now two guys in the path of the lava flow.
-Since there's a major natural disaster going on, you probably do have something important to do, like go and warn people who can actually do something besides exchange one Paladin life for one Commoner life. Or organize a proper disaster response.

Callista
2010-10-28, 01:41 PM
Are we assuming that this guy is properly prepared? Because anyone who can afford wings of flying can also afford magical communication devices, fast transportation/teleportation, fire resistance, etc. and has many more choices than just that; not to mention allies who are capable of a lot more. Many of these dilemmas assume that the paladin in question is pretty irresponsible and thus utterly unprepared to tackle them.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-28, 01:51 PM
Are we assuming that this guy is properly prepared? Because anyone who can afford wings of flying can also afford magical communication devices, fast transportation/teleportation, fire resistance, etc. and has many more choices than just that; not to mention allies who are capable of a lot more. Many of these dilemmas assume that the paladin in question is pretty irresponsible and thus utterly unprepared to tackle them.

I see no need to make that assumption from hamish's original proposition, and I find that your assumption of irresponsibility is highly unfounded. It is trivial to come up with a case that could happen in a real game where a weak paladin is flying around without anything else other than Wings of Flying.

Say our Paladin just escaped from imprisonment in an epic evil lich sorcerer's lair where he was tortured to a point of weakness such that he couldn't carry anyone. He escaped because he was ever-so-immoral (according to some of the posts here) and, not only did he not suicidally face the lich alone and unarmed after heroically causing said lich to lose his phylactery but *gasp* stole the Wings of Flying from the lich's lair and fled. Somehow he managed not to fall and lose his status as a paladin because of this act of thievery (stealing Wings) and cowardice (fleeing to fight another day rather than "bravely" committing suicide by proxy), and is now flying over a natural disaster area where he sees a small group of people in need of aerial evacuation. :smallsigh:

kyoryu
2010-10-28, 02:03 PM
Yeah, like the kind of person who becomes a paladin is the kind of person who'd ever leave the poor guy to die. It's just not in his nature; he'd never be able to live with himself.


He might, he might not. Leaving the guy to die is certainly not the Good response. It's the Neutral one.

And yeah, he'd go through massive emotional angst, and maybe even an Atonement, over it. I'd expect that. I'd also expect him to do it if it was the necessary thing.

If leaving the guy to die meant he was able to save a whole village, I'd expect him to do that - regardless of how he felt about it. It's just another form of sacrifice - sacrificing his emotional happiness to do the right thing.

hamishspence
2010-11-03, 05:42 AM
On the subject of "Paladins and other LG-types who are willing to sacrifice innocents for the greater good":

There's a D&D splatbook (Complete Adventurer) that outlines a LG order with an alarming willingness to sacrifice the innocent- the Order of Illumination- served by Shadowbane Inquisitors.

Page 68

Along with their comrades, (as members of the order call themselves) the shadowbane stalkers, inquisitors find and confront evil wherever it hides. Unlike shadowbane stalkers, however, inquisitors purge evil rather than finding it. Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own righteousness allow shadowbane inquisitors to root out evil cleanly, even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral doubt that other knights might feel. The Order of Illumination expounds that it is better to sacrifice a village that hides a powerful demon than it is to risk letting the demon escape or the evil spread. Although inquisitors remain devoted to the cause of good, this conviction allows them to use their abilities against enemies regardless of their alignment.

The majority of members of the order are LG, the most common alignment after LG is LN- the Inquisitors and Stalkers have to be LG to take the PRCs- though they don't lose powers for changing alignment- they just can't advance in the PRCs any more. And normally, Inquisitors are paladin/rogues or cleric/rogues.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 07:39 AM
On the subject of "Paladins and other LG-types who are willing to sacrifice innocents for the greater good":

There's a D&D splatbook (Complete Adventurer) that outlines a LG order with an alarming willingness to sacrifice the innocent- the Order of Illumination- served by Shadowbane Inquisitors.
I have always maintained the opinion that the Order of Illumination (DnD) = Children of the Light (WoT)

JBento
2010-11-03, 08:45 AM
Huh. I thought tis week's Paladay had been merged with Alignment Sunday. Oh, well...

First off, my general idea of what a Paladin would do in a given situation (assuming I'd ever play that most retarded of classes) is: "What Would Captain America Do?" or WWCAD. Some people prefer Superman, but really, the Cleric is Superman. The Paladin just has a couple of tricks. Let's go through the OPs scenario list, shall we?


You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

Starvation in 3.X always strikes me as odd... are there no lvl5 clerics where you come from? :smallconfused: IF the situation poses itself, then you allocate as best you can, feeding as much people as possible. People die, but if it can't be avoided, then it can't.



You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.


Why is a Paladin the general? Paladins aren't supposed to BE generals. They lead by example, not by giving orders. Innocent troopers doesn't fly - soldiers know what they signed up for. As long as they know the odds, you're good - but why aren't you going yourself?


You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.


Time to take those -4 to hit and deal non-lethal damage...


You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

THIS is the tricky one (again, despite the incredible lack of lvl5+ clerics, or of ANYONE who can do teleport to cart food around, or of good planning - how did it get this bad?).
Obviously, the paladin CAN'T let the guy get away with the food. Not because the paladin would die, but because that'd encourage other people to steal others' food - and that just gets everyone killed. He CAN, however, stop the man and send him back home, and then donate his food to the village's stores, and then go out to find some. Unless he's required to stay there and protect the village... but what are the dangers to the village eating (unless they're undead)?

Callista
2010-11-03, 09:31 AM
These are just endless variations of the Trolley Problem. We don't need to reiterate, over and over, that sometimes it's impossible to save everyone, and that sometimes atonement is needed for something you couldn't help doing.

In a real-life situation as well as in a D&D game, there are usually third-choice options. In fact, I faced one very recently--not with a paladin, but there could have been one in the party easily enough:

OK, so this is going to be long, but bear with me.

The party consists of LG, LG, NG, CG, LN, CN, and CE. I think. Something like that. The CE fellow is basically a prisoner who's serving his sentence with us.

Our group is trying to Save The World (tm). We have information that is extremely important, which needs to get back to the higher-ups. Unfortunately, we get ourselves horribly killed. (Do not mess with things that are 20 CR above you. Seriously.) Someone, who is most probably a high-level vampire, re-routes our souls on the way to the afterlife and makes us an offer: We can work for him in exchange for a ticket back to the Prime Material. Only catch is, we'll be undead who survive by eating souls. And, of course, we'll be working for him, and our first mission will be to destroy a monastery full of innocent clerics who have apparently been a thorn in the vampire's side for a good while. We're desperate to get back and deliver our message--so what do we do?

So yeah, yet another version on the same old dilemma. Thankfully, we got the chance to talk about it privately first.

We told the vampire yes, we'll do it; our mission is too important not to agree. The fact that we were being sent to a different plane was apparently the thing that saved us (it stops many attempts at scrying and mind control); that, and my habit of slapping Protection from Evil up at the slightest hint of mind-control, which the DM knew about, so that instead of trying to geas us, the vampire sent us a babysitter--another soul that had made a deal just like ours.

We talk the vampire into getting us straight to the monastery, which he can't do because the thing's warded (as good as a neon sign saying "We have high level clerics here!"), but he does put us down only a few hundred feet outside it. A few negotiations later, our babysitter is on our side because he doesn't want to be controlled by Mister Vampire any more than we do. We've only got a few hours before we have to start eating people's souls to survive, something which none of us wants to do.

So we run up to the monastery and beg for help. This is obviously dangerous, since we're currently transparent and made of negative energy, but a bunch of high-Wisdom guys apparently made their Sense Motives to realize we were sincere. My thought was: At the very least, we'll have the opportunity to get our message through before we buy it. And maybe the clerics will be able to help us. Going back on our promise wasn't much of an issue for the two Lawful people, who would otherwise probably have died to keep their word; the LG character was much more influenced by her Good side, and the LN one was much more loyal to the monastery. Plus, oaths extracted under duress aren't exactly binding.

Turns out that, yes, the monastery can help. We're soon in the middle of a mental battle for our souls, with the entire monastery helping us out--that's a heck of a lot of Aid Anothers, and the vampire is far away on another plane, so he's getting heavy penalties.

What's interesting is what was happening during that time--after we started explaining things to the clerics and trying to get help, but before it looked like we might manage to come away with our souls. Two of our party--a selfish but quite kind-hearted rogue (selfish with cash, but seriously protective of kids and the innocent in general) and a wild barbarian who liked to drink and fight--decided that they weren't going to risk it; so they started boarding up the doors and windows of the monastery and gathering lamp oil, with the intent of burning it down. (The CE guy was actually not in on this.) Their reasoning: "We've got to survive, otherwise we can't save the world. A few lives for many is a good bargain." (Their alignments are CG and CN, but that doesn't really matter since their personalities are what mattered more at this point--both are pragmatic individuals.)

So we ended up in this mental battle for everyone's souls; and eventually we made it, what with the help of the entire monastery and a lot of us with good will saves (Wizard, Cleric, and Monk classes). We still don't know that two of our group nearly betrayed us; they told us they were securing the perimeter of the monastery in case anyone else had been sent to attack, and we had no reason to disbelieve them.

Interestingly, rather than ending up getting returned to our proper afterlives, we got slingshotted back through time to the round before we got ourselves killed, and it was only by sheer luck that we didn't die the second time around.

Incidentally: All of this was made up spur-of-the-moment. So I really have to give the DM props for setting up this scenario.

Point being, there's usually a third option--even if it does involve betraying very powerful (possibly epic) people and making ourselves enemies that will kill us later painfully. And probably eat our souls.

hamishspence
2010-11-03, 10:09 AM
I have always maintained the opinion that the Order of Illumination (DnD) = Children of the Light (WoT)

I'm not saying the Order are always right- but their existence might indicate that for some D&D writers, a certain amount of innocent-sacrificing, is compatible with the paladin class.

Why is the paladin a general? Maybe because his king appointed him to the job- trusting that his code will make him able to win the war, yet because of his concern for others, lose the minimum of troops in the process.

If using -4 to hit and nonlethal damage would increase the chances of the bad guys winning, killing you, then rampaging unopposed, it might in such cases be irresponsible to do so.

As to "protect the village" (which is small enough that neither the paladin, nor clerics (if any) are high enough in level to make much of a difference)- there's one notable thing the villagers need to be protected from....

Each other. When desperation is such that normally moral people have started to attack each other, it takes a firm hand to prevent the whole thing devolving into savage anarchy.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 10:17 AM
I'm not saying the Order are always right- but their existence might indicate that for some D&D writers, a certain amount of innocent-sacrificing, is compatible with the paladin class.

No, but (as I understand it) they always think they are, just like the Whitecloaks, and their methods are similar to the Inqisitors.

hamishspence
2010-11-03, 10:23 AM
The trope is called Knight Templar on TVtropes- but it's very common in media.

It's possible that the Whitecloaks and the Order of Illumination both come from the same basic root.

JBento
2010-11-03, 10:41 AM
Why is the paladin a general? Maybe because his king appointed him to the job- trusting that his code will make him able to win the war, yet because of his concern for others, lose the minimum of troops in the process.

If using -4 to hit and nonlethal damage would increase the chances of the bad guys winning, killing you, then rampaging unopposed, it might in such cases be irresponsible to do so.

As to "protect the village" (which is small enough that neither the paladin, nor clerics (if any) are high enough in level to make much of a difference)- there's one notable thing the villagers need to be protected from....

Each other. When desperation is such that normally moral people have started to attack each other, it takes a firm hand to prevent the whole thing devolving into savage anarchy.

The Paladin's code, if anything, HAMPERS him from winning a war. If what you want is winning, then no-holds barred is always better. EVERYTHING about the Paladin's code (and any other code, really) is a diminishing in efficiency - expediency for the sake of safety gets you Arthas...

Indeed about the villagers, which is why the paladin can't let the man get away with his food. Still, it's only a matter of 2 5th-level spells from a high-level caster to pop in with a bunch of food and then pop out again...

Frosty
2010-11-03, 10:51 AM
Arthas made the right decisions up until the time he betrayed the mercs he hired.

JBento
2010-11-03, 10:57 AM
Are you seriously advocating that it's Paladin-like to slaughter an entire capitol city because contaminated grain has made its way into its stores? Instead of, y'know, isolating the people and trying to find out:

a) if there's a cure

b) if there's someone who hasn't been contaminated yet?

:smallconfused:

Dude, *I*'m not Good-aligned, and even I went "wait, what?" when that sequence popped up

Callista
2010-11-03, 11:22 AM
The Paladin's code, if anything, HAMPERS him from winning a war. If what you want is winning, then no-holds barred is always better. EVERYTHING about the Paladin's code (and any other code, really) is a diminishing in efficiency - expediency for the sake of safety gets you Arthas...I think you may be forgetting the effects of morale. If your leader is some flavor of E and is willing to use every strategy possible to win, then he's probably willing to sacrifice troops whenever it's expedient, order you to do things that will haunt your dreams for years, or kill you just because your soul would power a spell that could take out the enemy. What kind of trust does such a leader inspire? Not much. When your basic troops are Warrior 1-3, morale bonuses are extremely important in swinging the fight to your side; and trusting a leader to care about you and your buddies is a huge morale bonus. If your leader is running the war under the assumption that you're expendable if it's convenient, chances are that when the chips are down you're going to run for it and save your own butt... whereas if you know that he would lay down his life for yours without a second thought, chances are you'll be encouraged to fight to the bitter end, especially if you also know that when you leave your family behind, he'll be the one helping them out when they're one breadwinner short.

I'll give you this: Evil individuals are more powerful. They have more resources, and fewer limits. But they're just that--individuals. One person, knowing he can't really trust anybody else, because anybody evil enough to back him up is also evil enough to stab him in the back if his orders demand it or if it's just convenient. But Good individuals make up for all of that by being able to lead others--inspire the Neutral majority to greatness, where Evil can only intimidate them into action by fear. The balance is kept because Good can sway Neutral to its side much more easily, and together they simply outnumber the sheer power of Evil.

Frosty
2010-11-03, 11:44 AM
Are you seriously advocating that it's Paladin-like to slaughter an entire capitol city because contaminated grain has made its way into its stores? Instead of, y'know, isolating the people and trying to find out:

a) if there's a cure

b) if there's someone who hasn't been contaminated yet?

:smallconfused:

Dude, *I*'m not Good-aligned, and even I went "wait, what?" when that sequence popped up
He didn't have time for a cure. He saw how quickly the grain turned the people or Andorhol (sp?) into undead, and at the big city Malganis was already on the way to collect the undead. When he bashed those doors down, I'm sure he would've spared any that had not been contaminated (you can easily tell, at least in-game, the difference between a normal villager and one about to uncroak).

He's stopping the enemy from forcefully turning his own people into mindless enemy expendable meat-soldiers. He gave them a comparatively dignified end.

hamishspence
2010-11-03, 11:47 AM
Indeed about the villagers, which is why the paladin can't let the man get away with his food. Still, it's only a matter of 2 5th-level spells from a high-level caster to pop in with a bunch of food and then pop out again...

If it's a grim, dark, Eberron-ish world where virtually everybody is low level, there might not be any high level casters available who the villagers are able to contact.

On shades of conflict- an unwillingness to sacrifice the innocent no matter what, might be closer to Exalted characters, than paladins in general. Especially the grimmer kind of paladin.

Could lead to an interesting conflict between Order of Illumination paladins and Exalted paladins over what to do during a period of demonic infestation.

"We don't care if you think it's necessary to sacrifice the innocent, there's always a third option- and we stand here to defend the innocent from you."

vs

"We don't care that you think innocents are sacrosant. In the war against evil, sometimes innocents must be sacrificed in the process- and by refusing to do so, you are defending evil- and we'll go through you to get to them"

gbprime
2010-11-03, 11:48 AM
He didn't have time for a cure. He saw how quickly the grain turned the people or Andorhol (sp?) into undead, and at the big city Malganis was already on the way to collect the undead. When he bashed those doors down, I'm sure he would've spared any that had not been contaminated (you can easily tell, at least in-game, the difference between a normal villager and one about to uncroak).

He's stopping the enemy from forcefully turning his own people into mindless enemy expendable meat-soldiers. He gave them a comparatively dignified end.

I'll grant you that stopping the threat is a Paladin thing to do. But doing so by eliminating the population of an entire city... that's not Paladin-esque. A Paladin would try to find a way to save them, no matter how unlikely the result.

Paladins are about principle not pragmatism.

Frosty
2010-11-03, 11:50 AM
He's the heir to the throne. As such, he has a responsibility not just to an impossible ideal of perfect solutions, but also to an entire nation. If he failed to stop the undead infestation at the big city (whatever it was called), Lordaeron would've fallen much sooner than otherwise.

He was Lawful Good right up until the point he betrayed the mercs.

hamishspence
2010-11-03, 11:51 AM
Paladins are about principle not pragmatism.

Exalted paladins, definitely. Typical paladins, sure.

But Grey Guard, and Shadowbane Inquisitors (both of which usually mix rogue levels with paladin levels) may be a bit more pragmatic than your usual paladin.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 11:52 AM
"We don't care if you think it's necessary to sacrifice the innocent, there's always a third option- and we stand here to defend the innocent from you."

vs

"We don't care that you think innocents are sacrosant. In the war against evil, sometimes innocents must be sacrificed in the process- and by refusing to do so, you are defending evil- and we'll go through you to get to them"

Swiped for the greater good of my campaign world.

gbprime
2010-11-03, 11:53 AM
But Grey Guard, and Shadowbane Inquisitors (both of which usually mix rogue levels with paladin levels) may be a bit more pragmatic than your usual paladin.

Granted. The whole POINT of Grey Guard is to allow your Paladin to be darker.

hamishspence
2010-11-03, 12:01 PM
Swiped for the greater good of my campaign world.

Good to know. I like the idea that a scenario I've come up with is interesting enough to be worth swiping.

Extra bonus points if you throw in Mr Protects-the-Innocent Blackguard, who they've allowed to team up with them on a strictly temporary basis, in order to help them protect the innocent during the demonic incursion.

The fact that the Exalted guys have an Evil guy on their team, would really annoy the Order of Illumination no end.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 02:35 PM
Good to know. I like the idea that a scenario I've come up with is interesting enough to be worth swiping.

Extra bonus points if you throw in Mr Protects-the-Innocent Blackguard, who they've allowed to team up with them on a strictly temporary basis, in order to help them protect the innocent during the demonic incursion.

The fact that the Exalted guys have an Evil guy on their team, would really annoy the Order of Illumination no end.

Oooo...bonus swiping. :smalltongue:

Callista
2010-11-03, 03:28 PM
Granted. The whole POINT of Grey Guard is to allow your Paladin to be darker.Darker, yes; but you can go too far with that--even a Grey Guard will never pick the evil option if there's a good option available; and he'll plan as well as possible to ensure he never has to make that choice. I think in many cases people think that Grey Guard and similar classes is to allow a good character to stay Good in name only and actually run roughshod over others' rights; when in reality it has more to do with allowing dishonorable tactics and pragmatic choices in extreme situations with XP-free Atonement. And remember that Atonement requires a person to truly regret what he did--he can't just use it as a get out of jail free card. That said, this is a useful PrC for worlds where things like mind control, specifically anti-Good enemies (the kind of people who will deliberately use hostages or use Trolley Problem-style dilemmas), and campaigns where characters are routinely in over their heads and unable to prevent most of the evil things they see.

Ragitsu
2010-11-03, 03:29 PM
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the light.