Should a Paladin fall for killing mother + baby

[Frosty]

Relevant facts without all the nitty gritty details:

A mother with an unborn child comes up to a paladin and asks the paladin to kill her. The mother believes that she doesn't deserve to/has no reason to live. The mother also sincerely believes that the child would be born into a life of suffering, with no prospect for change for the better, so slaying the unborn child would be a mercy.

The paladin attempts diplomacy and fails to convince the mother to change her mind. If the paladin accedes to the request and kills the mother without pain or suffering, would this be an evil act? Which takes priority? Value of a life (or two) or the value of free agency in making choices?

[Ravens_cry]

Believing a lie is still an untruth.
He should probably get her restrained as a danger to herself while he works out why she thinks this horrifying idea.

[Medic!]

I would argue that it would be an evil act. Something I would expect from a Lawful Evil (I did your wife a favor, I ended her suffering.) There are too many alternative actions on the table for mercy-killing what is essentially a helpless person (two if you count the unborn child) just because of poverty or depression.

[Andreaz]

It takes some more context. If it was truly beyond his abilities, then whatever. I don't think I'd make a fall there. Do pick a solution that satifies you quickly, though, because this debate doesn't really end as much as it peters out. Everyone here will have a different idea.

[Frosty]

The paladin does not have enough information to know whether the mother's assessments are inaccurate, but the paladin does know that in terms of the culture in which the mother lives, the paladin knows very little and the mother knows quite a bit.

[Ravens_cry]

The paladin does not have enough information to know whether the mother's assessments are inaccurate, but the paladin does know that in terms of the culture in which the mother lives, the paladin knows very little and the mother knows quite a bit.
Then the paladin finds out.

[Frosty]

It takes some more context. If it was truly beyond his abilities, then whatever. I don't think I'd make a fall there. Do pick a solution that satifies you quickly, though, because this debate doesn't really end as much as it peters out. Everyone here will have a different idea.The paladin has every reason to believe that the mother will just go committ suicide elsewhere (and probably be in more pain than getting a coup-de-grace) if the paladin denies the request, and the paladin has exhausted all the ways that he knows of to try to convince the mother to change her mind (he has tried over multiple rounds).
Then the paladin finds out.
Not possible. THe decision needs to be made within minutes.

[Tyndmyr]

The paladin attempts diplomacy and fails to convince the mother to change her mind. If the paladin accedes to the request and kills the mother without pain or suffering, would this be an evil act? Which takes priority? Value of a life (or two) or the value of free agency in making choices?

This depends on a number of things. For one, how correct is the mother? Is this really a situation in which the outlook is that bleak, and the paladin can do nothing to change it? In that case, a mercy kill might be justified.

As for the whole "value of free agency", sure, choice absolutely does have value...but you need to cover your bases. Is the woman under a compulsion of some sorts? Is she in her right mind? There are circumstances under which this kind of act would result in clearly evil ends, and it's the paladins responsibility to find out the whys of the situation first.

[docnessuno]

First, considering things as described, the action would not be an evil act, but would fall in the 'grey area'. It would still violate a paladin code of conduct imho.
I think his fall should depend on the reasons that led him to commict such act:

If he tought the women would find a way to kill herself in one way or another and just wanted to avoid her as much suffering as possible (from her suicide, not from her life), after having done all he could to convince her to desist, he should not fall (but should be amonished by his god or his confessor / superiors).

If he believed the women and killed her for that reason, he should fall, counting the act as an unintantional wrongdoing.

If he killed her just because he was unable to convince her to desist and wanted to get rid of the annoyance, he should fall, counting the act as an intentional wrongdoing.

[INoKnowNames]

All Paladins should have the class ability to emulate the affect of the Phylactery of Faithfulness. These kinds of scenarios seem hardly fair double traps that screw with the class for little to no reason.

[Medic!]

Tossing out ideas: I'd say he could either leave her in the custody of the local authorities, or just walk away. It could be a good RP point for him that he tried to save her but failed, but kept his integrity and morals intact by not doing the dirty work for her.

[Andreaz]

The paladin has every reason to believe that the mother will just go committ suicide elsewhere (and probably be in more pain than getting a coup-de-grace) if the paladin denies the request, and the paladin has exhausted all the ways that he knows of to try to convince the mother to change her mind (he has tried over multiple rounds).
Not possible. THe decision needs to be made within minutes.

Thus why I say this won't really be solved. He has every reason to believe that will happen, but will he act against it?
And if he does, is restricting someone's freedom evil?
It will delve as deep into bitchery, ****ery and other censored words as we make them.

[pffh]

The paladin subdues and binds the woman and then takes his sweet time finding out what the **** is going on while taking care of the baby.

[Frosty]

This depends on a number of things. For one, how correct is the mother? Is this really a situation in which the outlook is that bleak, and the paladin can do nothing to change it? In that case, a mercy kill might be justified.

As for the whole "value of free agency", sure, choice absolutely does have value...but you need to cover your bases. Is the woman under a compulsion of some sorts? Is she in her right mind? There are circumstances under which this kind of act would result in clearly evil ends, and it's the paladins responsibility to find out the whys of the situation first.Assume that there is very high probability the mother is correct. The woman is not under a compulsion, but has just emerged from a very difficult situation.

[Namfuak]

The paladin's order may not see the child as a separate entity until it is actually born - in this case, it would be up to whether euthanasia is permissible regardless of the pregnancy.

Most likely, if he does see the baby as a separate entity from the mother, he would restrain the mother as Ravens_cry suggested at least until the baby was born (protecting the innocent, as it were). Then it would go back to the question of euthanasia (although you could argue that she is trying to harm an innocent, in which case he has to punish her).

It seems to me that euthanasia is a chaotic (not necessarily evil though) action, which is expressly forbidden, so he probably would not help her with that in the first place.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Not possible. THe decision needs to be made within minutes.Why? Is the paladin just too busy? Is the woman somehow not going to be around to kill in a few hours or a day or two?

My take: If the paladin doesn't have (and somehow can't get) enough information to make a reasonable and informed decision, he should default to his code and see that killing an unarmed civilian is a bad thing. I'm not certain if I'd make the paladin fall (it's something I'm really not a fan of doing when the situation isn't clear cut) but I'd certainly call killing her without enough information to justify it an evil act and maybe put the paladin on some kind of divine watch-list or something.

[Reluctance]

Fall in the "irretrievably barred from the path of good" definition? Abortion and euthanasia aren't really topics I want to get into now.

This is, however, totally a time for the powers of Goodness to arrange little moral lessons on the value of prudence and temperance. There's always hope, whether it's getting a clinically depressed person the help they need, or fixing the society to be less of a septic tank. Exemplars of goodness should know this.

(Then again, I've always been a fan of taking any fallworthy event into an extended test, to see if the character is capable of redemption. The powers of goodness should extend the same courtesies to the paladin that they expect him to show to others.)

[Andreaz]

I want to formally complain about the fact every damn time I see an alignment discussion it goes into babies, mothers and similar figures. Also soul traps and hitler.

Seriously...it's got old. Where's my petty evil peasant who largely hates everyone but is too afraid to do anything about it other than being a jerk? Where's the xenophobic with a perfectly fine reason to hate elves ever since the last invasion pretty much scarred him for life?

[Deepbluediver]

Allowing some one to kill themselves is not, by itself, an evil act, but a palading being "merciful" is not the same as a mercy-killing.
Freedom dictates than an individual has the right to choose how they want to live or die. That being said, no description I've heard of would encourage a paladin to facilitate such an act. The paladin should be doing everything he can to stop the women from killing herself, not trying to make it "quick and painless".

However, there is something else to consider here- the unborn baby. I have a feeling that this discussion can very rapidly get off track with real world debates about abortion, so I'm just going to say this: you need to decide if in your game world (NOT the real world) this would count as murder, in which case the paladin should do everything he can to prevent it, including restraining the woman until she can give birth, or if an unborn child is not considered "alive", and while tragic, is just a consequence of the woman's decision to kill herself. Either way, it should be on her (the woman's) soul, not the paladins.

[Frosty]

The woman is a troglodyte with a large number of fertilized and unhatched eggs. If the mother is subdued, then the eggs will die off in a matter of hours due to some sort of special caretaking that only the a troglodyte mother can perform (the paladin had already considered taking the eggs and fostering them somewhere). The paladin is not high level, and has very very few magic items (low magic, post-apocalyptic world. Not a lot of happiness to go around).

So yeah, she might be able to force the mother to live by binding her (if the woman doesn't just kill herself by biting her own tongue or something), but the eggs become unviable anyways even if not smashed like the mother requests. This is why there's not a lot of time.
Abortion and euthanasia aren't really topics I want to get into now.Yeah well the DM has kind of put my character into that situation.

[Alabenson]

Based on the information you've given me, were I the DM, the paladin would fall so hard for killing her he would leave a crater in the ground.

Killing an innocent, except in the rarest, most extreme circumstances, is an evil act. If the paladin can't convince the woman not to kill herself, and isn't willing to restrain her until he can convince her, than his option of last resort should be to leave her be. Not doing anything leaves the possiblity that she might live; killing her (obviously) ensures that she dies.

[Deepbluediver]

Edit: saw your more recent posts, want to say this.

This seems like it is being set up as one of those "no good choices" situation, where a DM is attempting to make a paladin fall by presenting him with 2 "evil" options, and saying "pick one". This is just the DM getting his jolies out of punishing a player for choosing a given class and alignment; a well-designed scenario should allow some possibility of a favorable outcome for all involved.

[Reluctance]

Yeah well the DM has kind of put my character into that situation.

If the DM is fond of fall-traps, enjoy your feeder levels for Blackguard. Much like DMs who make "low-magic" worlds where every enemy is somehow mystical, I'm well wary of DMs who make crapsack worlds but expect PCs to be incorruptible paragons of virtue. It feels too much like they're trying to justify their own cynicism more than anything else.

[Coidzor]

He should be smacked for being a mook.

The DM should also be smacked for being a mook.

This is an event that should be ignored and never spoken of again.

[Tyndmyr]

Assume that there is very high probability the mother is correct. The woman is not under a compulsion, but has just emerged from a very difficult situation.

Probability is probability. Does not matter. If the paladin didn't bother to check, he's on the hook for bad calls.

If he cannot do the necessary checking, simply killing someone is a very poor call. Even in D&D-verse, it's easier to make a living person dead than alive, and in any case, he should not fall for refusing to kill. If she wishes to die, in the end, he is not responsible for executing her will at the expense of his own, because that would infringe on HIS choice. There's no logically consistent philosophy that leads to him falling for refusing to kill. However, killing without doing the background check might well make you fall indeed.

[Frosty]

If the DM is fond of fall-traps, enjoy your feeder levels for Blackguard. Much like DMs who make "low-magic" worlds where every enemy is somehow mystical, I'm well wary of DMs who make crapsack worlds but expect PCs to be incorruptible paragons of virtue. It feels too much like they're trying to justify their own cynicism more than anything else.To be fair, the DM hasn't said anything about a possible Falling. This is just my own paranoia because of the enormity of the act. Also, there has been plenty of wins thus far for my paladin. My character has talked orc-bands into peacefully leaving and possibly living in better ways. My character has also even talked supposedly evil creatures into joining her group to try to do good (my character haaates discrimination and prejudice).

I guess it is possible my character *missed* some solution, but if there is one, my character isn't seeing it. THe troglodyte mother is basically asking for a dignified death, and for the entire campaign my paladin has been talking to others (and leading by example) about the virtues of free choice and carving one's own destiny and being able to make a difference in the world. For example my character was even able to get a goblin NPC to join the group to try to do good, much to the distaste of many other NPCs in the region.

If my character denies the free choice to this troglodyte, would it make my character a hypocrite then?

[Deepbluediver]

Frosty, I don't know what your relationship is with the DM, but if these feels to much like a punishment, and talking doesn't help (I always advise talking things out first), you can always go the vengeful-route.
Announce that meeting the woman has made your paladin rethink his life choices, and he now is on a mission to bring "mercy" to every creature in the entire world. Plot hooks? Dead. NPC hero-bait? Dead. Any creature or humanoid he encounters? Dead.


If my character denies the free choice to this troglodyte, would it make my character a hypocrite then?

No; refusing to help some one else with their choice of actions does not correlate to a problem for your paladin. Especially if he has been preaching about life and hope.
The troglodytes freedom of choice does not compel your paladin to any action (which would be curtailing HIS freedom).

[Malroth]

get the bard/sorcorer/beguiler/wizard to mind control her into living, problem solved.

[Frosty]

Ok. If the troglodyte asks to borrow the paladin's sword to kill her own eggs and then herself, and the paladin lends the sword to her, if the paladin still responsible? That may be the next step.

[OzzyKP]

Based on the information you've given me, were I the DM, the paladin would fall so hard for killing her he would leave a crater in the ground.

Killing an innocent, except in the rarest, most extreme circumstances, is an evil act. If the paladin can't convince the woman not to kill herself, and isn't willing to restrain her until he can convince her, than his option of last resort should be to leave her be. Not doing anything leaves the possiblity that she might live; killing her (obviously) ensures that she dies.


If the DM is fond of fall-traps, enjoy your feeder levels for Blackguard. Much like DMs who make "low-magic" worlds where every enemy is somehow mystical, I'm well wary of DMs who make crapsack worlds but expect PCs to be incorruptible paragons of virtue. It feels too much like they're trying to justify their own cynicism more than anything else.

Agreed with both of these.

[danzibr]

I actually like this scenario.

Put yourself in the pally's shoes. A woman (Torlodyte, human, whatevs) with an unborn child approaches you asking you to kill her. You however value the lives of innocents above all else. Of course you won't kill her. You won't let someone else do it. You won't even let her do it yourself. A true pally would follow her and ensure nothing bad happens I think. Find somewhere she can live, hopefully Alcindor some purpose for her to live. Maybe bring her to some local monastery or something.

It's against her will but... in her best interest. Ultimately.

[Alabenson]

Ok. If the troglodyte asks to borrow the paladin's sword to kill her own eggs and then herself, and the paladin lends the sword to her, if the paladin still responsible? That may be the next step.

If the paladin provides the mother with the means kill herself, knowing full well that she intends to kill herself, than yes, the paladin becomes responsible for her killing herself.

Your non-evil options essentially boil down to convincing her not to go through with it, continually trying to convince her not to go through with it, or doing nothing and walking away. The moment you do something that increases the odds that she kills herself, you cross the line into potentially falling.

[OzzyKP]

I actually like this scenario.

Put yourself in the pally's shoes. A woman (Torlodyte, human, whatevs) with an unborn child approaches you asking you to kill her. You however value the lives of innocents above all else. Of course you won't kill her. You won't let someone else do it. You won't even let her do it yourself. A true pally would follow her and ensure nothing bad happens I think. Find somewhere she can live, hopefully Alcindor some purpose for her to live. Maybe bring her to some local monastery or something.

It's against her will but... in her best interest. Ultimately.

Yea, in the real world this is what happens. If your roommate or sister or someone is about to kill themselves the last thing you do is help them. Some people might walk away and just let it happen, but I think most people would have them committed as a harm to themselves or others.

[Coidzor]

Ok. If the troglodyte asks to borrow the paladin's sword to kill her own eggs and then herself, and the paladin lends the sword to her, if the paladin still responsible? That may be the next step.

A Paladin is not supposed to part with his sword to someone who he does not trust or to someone who does not have the authority or right to make use of his blade.

Especially not without question.

[Deepbluediver]

Ok. If the troglodyte asks to borrow the paladin's sword to kill her own eggs and then herself, and the paladin lends the sword to her, if the paladin still responsible? That may be the next step.

This is becoming increasingly obscure, I think, but I would probably rule no. However, I have to ask, are we out in the middle of a wasteland, with no other tools or weapons lying about? The phrase "falling on your sword" is usually just that: a phrase and nothing more. Ritual suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku) is usually done with a knife.

While it might not make the paladin directly responsible, since his sword has now been used to take the life of an innocent, it could become tainted and would not work well when wielded by that paladin, needing it to be either cleansed or replaced.

[ericgrau]

This is why helping orphanages and widowed mothers is one of the prime responsibilities of do gooders. Tithe to the orphanages. He might not help everyone, but on an adventurer's income he will help 500 people.

Decisions made under pressure do tend to be tricks, whether intentional or not. Best to walk away and save someone else if she won't at least take charity from some establishment somewhere in the world. Tell her to hold out for something better, but if she won't she won't.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

The right to self determination is a relatively modern concept and a core principle of Chaotic Good types, it's value is much diminished or even non existent in the eyes of a Lawful Good Paladin. A Paladin should be completely comfortable with laws most of us would balk at as unnecessary, oppressive, bureaucratic, and invasions of privacy.

A Paladin won't raise an eyebrow until these laws they are utilized to destroy livelihoods, rape, kill, torture, etc.

It's most likely that anyone that disagrees with the above is CG or CN themselves and has allowed their personal beliefs to color their perception of Good and needs to reexamine the way they treat alignments in game.

[Frosty]

I actually like this scenario.

Put yourself in the pally's shoes. A woman (Torlodyte, human, whatevs) with an unborn child approaches you asking you to kill her. You however value the lives of innocents above all else. Of course you won't kill her. You won't let someone else do it. You won't even let her do it yourself. A true pally would follow her and ensure nothing bad happens I think. Find somewhere she can live, hopefully Alcindor some purpose for her to live. Maybe bring her to some local monastery or something.

It's against her will but... in her best interest. Ultimately.If the troglodyte is telling the truth (and my paladin has no reason to believe she isn't), there's virtually nowhere for her to go. Other troglodyte tribes would see her as a failure for failing to protect the rest of her own tribe (she was the Great-Mother of the tribe that my character slaughtered because most of the tribe had been convinced to serve a demon. If my character did not slay them and the demon a LOT of evil was going to happen). Troglodyte society apaprently also eats the young of other trog tribes because they don't want competition for resources for their own young, so fostering them to other trog tribes won't work.

For biological and cultural reasons (discrimination), trying to raise the eggs in a human settlement just wouldn't work, and the troglodyte has stated that there are way too many eggs left for her to manage on her own anyways.

And I agree, in the real world, with the institution we have, getting some committed is the way to go. In this crap-sack ruined world, there aren't even any insane asylums, and any institutions around wouldn't even accept a troglodyte. Others would probably kill it on sight. :smallfrown:

[OzzyKP]

Well, it is a crap-sack world, but even if there absolutely isn't any way to help, it doesn't mean you should harm. If you can't fix things, your best bet is to just walk away.

[Coidzor]

A Paladin won't raise an eyebrow until these laws they are utilized to destroy livelihoods, rape, kill, torture, etc.

Well, if they're intelligent or wise (a rarity, I know) then they'd at least see the great potential for abuse in such laws and recognize how apt the people able to abuse the laws would be to actually do so.

[Ravenica]

Facilitating her death would probably be a neutral act. In your shoes I would also not use force to stop her (freedom of choice) I would however throw myself on my knees and beg her to bare the young and promise they will be well cared for, taken under your wing, protected and nurtured. It fits with a paladin sworn against discrimination and dedicated to protect the innocent. If there is no immediate action simply say outright that your paladin continues this until she does something (or you think of a new argument). If she wont tend the young ask her how to do it yourself maybe? Then she can go date a knife behind that bush over there without your involvement :smallyuk:

edit: as for it not being feasible, since when has THAT been a consideration for paladins? Failure to try just because its too hard would probably make helping her an evil act

[Augmental]

It's most likely that anyone that disagrees with the above is CG or CN themselves and has allowed their personal beliefs to color their perception of Good and needs to reexamine the way they treat alignments in game.

I think you meant to put this in blue.

[Eldonauran]

As the Paladin, I would refuse to do such a thing.

I can't conceivably stretch the Good alignment, as given by D&D in the strictest reading, as to why this would be an acceptable thing to do. A animal suffering, in pain and about to die? Yes, I can see that. But not an intelligent, healthy woman bearing a child, who is suffering from depression. Never. Situations in life can be improved, especially with a Paladin willing and able to help.

Failing to convince the woman to change her mind, well, that's a tragedy but a Paladin is not liable for the choices of others.

Disclaimer: If you are speaking of a different 'interpretation' of the alignment system than I am familiar with, my opinion doesnt apply. Ignore it as you will.

[Frosty]

The right to self determination is a relatively modern concept and a core principle of Chaotic Good types, it's value is much diminished or even non existent in the eyes of a Lawful Good Paladin. A Paladin should be completely comfortable with laws most of us would balk at as unnecessary, oppressive, bureaucratic, and invasions of privacy.

A Paladin won't raise an eyebrow until these laws they are utilized to destroy livelihoods, rape, kill, torture, etc.What laws? Most nations were destroyed when the permanent gates to the lower planes were opened. Fiends roam the lands and relatively few settlements are around. Think the Fallout world in medieval times. Yeah my character will obey legitimate authority, but for the most part, my character IS the law in the lands she has traveled in thus far.

Also, my character (apparently) is the Last Paladin Left in the world. No order to back my character up. No guidance except what my character remembers from the Paladin_Mentor-Who-Totally-Sacrificed-Herself-To-Save-The-PC-and-an-entire-town-from-Fiends.

I've been roleplaying the whole "Self-determination is good" belief for the entire campaign now, so probably more Neutral Good than Lawful Good. The deities might be let me get away with it because I'm one of the few outlets of Good left in the material world. My character isn't really sure.

[Tyndmyr]

The right to self determination is a relatively modern concept and a core principle of Chaotic Good types, it's value is much diminished or even non existent in the eyes of a Lawful Good Paladin. A Paladin should be completely comfortable with laws most of us would balk at as unnecessary, oppressive, bureaucratic, and invasions of privacy.

A Paladin won't raise an eyebrow until these laws they are utilized to destroy livelihoods, rape, kill, torture, etc.

It's most likely that anyone that disagrees with the above is CG or CN themselves and has allowed their personal beliefs to color their perception of Good and needs to reexamine the way they treat alignments in game.

You are kidding, right? Not everyone has the exact same view of things you do.

A respect for law is not the same as loving any laws, or a disrespect for other rights. There's room for more than one type of paladin, including paladins who believe that personal choice is very important, and not in conflict with law at all.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You've done all you can to try and convince her that she should live and, having failed in that, there is no other course of action you can take that is a (good) action. All you can do is avoid taking an evil action. Just walk away, with an "I'm sorry. I cannot aid you in this, but neither will I stop you from choosing your own course. Goodbye. :smallfrown:"

[Ravenica]

last post snip

Oh man you HAVE to found a free town that accepts anyone XD

you can leave your new trogochildren in charge while you adventure XD

[Coidzor]

What laws?

The laws of whatever nation he hails from, the nation that was wherever he is now, or his own personal set of laws from being a Paladin for when the Paladin is operating in a legally dead zone.

[Deepbluediver]

I think you meant to put this in blue.


You are kidding, right? Not everyone has the exact same view of things you do.

Aaaaaand I think that's the cue to exit stage left before we start debating morality/ethics/alignment in a way that gets people's feelings hurt.

[OzzyKP]

Oh man you HAVE to found a free town that accepts anyone XD

you can leave your new trogochildren in charge while you adventure XD

That's a good idea actually. Especially since she's collected an eclectic hodge-podge of NPCs. If this world is so crappy, wandering around doing good deeds isn't going to change things in the long term, she should create a "shining city on the hill" to be a shelter for what good is left in the world.

[Frosty]

Oh man you HAVE to found a free town that accepts anyone XDWorking on it actually. I plan on crafting a huge coalition. I feel like Commander Shepard actually.

The laws of whatever nation he hails from, the nation that was wherever he is now, or his own personal set of laws from being a Paladin for when the Paladin is operating in a legally dead zone.My character does not really have a home-nation. When my character was young is when the fiend-pocalype happened. My character mostly just has ideals handed down by the Mentor, which my character is trying to apply at the moment and having difficulty.

Aaaaaand I think that's the cue to exit stage left before we start debating morality/ethics/alignment in a way that gets people's feelings hurt.Why do morality debates usually end up with people getting hurt? :smallfrown:

[pyromanser244]

I would consider ending an innocent life to be an evil act. I have trouble thinking of something more obviously innocent than an unborn baby. and I don't really care why you do it either. the vows of a paladin are clear, no evil acts. breaking a vow with the best of intentions still leaves you with a broken vow.

gah, I hate thinking lawfully. it leaves me feeling dirty inside.

[Frosty]

gah, I hate thinking lawfully. it leaves me feeling dirty inside.Why? :smalltongue:

Although I'm beginning to think my character should just walk away from this. At least that should be Neutral.

[Ravenica]

In that case Frosty I'd talk to the rest of your group, how willing are they to dedicate some time to this cause to help this woman out, she clearly wasn't dedicated to this demon and feels responsibility to these younglings (she hasnt smashed the eggs already or stopped caring for them yet). I'm assuming this takes place in a troglovillage, a good place to start building your new settlement. Make forays out to bring in people and supplies and found the "hell" out of your free lands :smallbiggrin:

[Andreaz]

Why? :smalltongue:

Although I'm beginning to think my character should just walk away from this. At least that should be Neutral.

And to prove my point this is so easily complicated...negligence does not exempt guilt.

[Tyndmyr]

Why? :smalltongue:

Although I'm beginning to think my character should just walk away from this. At least that should be Neutral.

Walking away would be at least neutral, yes. Absolutely, talk first, see what, if anything, you can do to remedy the situation. But, in the end, if she wants death, and you value choice...it is her choice what to pursue. Not your job to force her to live, nor to kill her.

[sdream]

What laws? Most nations were destroyed when the permanent gates to the lower planes were opened. Fiends roam the lands and relatively few settlements are around. Think the Fallout world in medieval times. Yeah my character will obey legitimate authority, but for the most part, my character IS the law in the lands she has traveled in thus far.

Than you should try to uphold the law as your paladin (who is law) sees it.

If your paladin thinks that the troggie mama is giving up hope unnecccessarily, you are honor bound to try and convince her otherwise... but you said you already tried that.

The specifics of this case may truly make it impossible for her to care for all the children, or be accepted in troglodyte society.

However, it seems you are championing a better society. You are not honor bond to break the laws of reality and save eggs you cannot save, but offering to provide for safety and large dead animals for her and her children if they agree to work towards a better society with you seems like a good win/win last effort.

You are not responsible for helping her give up, or aiding her in suicide you do not agree with.

[OzzyKP]

Also, it sounds like a pretty cool campaign/world. I'd love to play something like that. Building a city to rebuild good civilization in a sea of darkness sounds way cooler then wandering from place to place killing the evil necromancer of the week.

[Frosty]

In that case Frosty I'd talk to the rest of your group, how willing are they to dedicate some time to this cause to help this woman out, she clearly wasn't dedicated to this demon and feels responsibility to these younglings (she hasnt smashed the eggs already or stopped caring for them yet). I'm assuming this takes place in a troglovillage, a good place to start building your new settlement. Make forays out to bring in people and supplies and found the "hell" out of your free lands :smallbiggrin:This is a solo campaign, although my character does have other obligations as well, such as clearing the lands of the fiendish infestation, and finding a way to help her lover, who is currently being possessed by a demon (the party keeps her unconscious with subdual damage, but I'm worried about permanent brain damage. Does Restoration help with that? Not that we have a cleric. Divine spellcasters are pretty much extinct in this world).

This takes place underground in a tunnel system. This trog was NOT dedicated tot he demon at all and tried to fight it (but failed). She physically cannot take care of all the eggs even if she wanted to (way too many). I might have been content to stay and help out, but even if I convinced the trog to live her life and stay here, there's the problem of the Good-aligned dragon who hired me to kill all the troglodytes or at least drive all of them out (the dragon says it's self defense since the troglodytes have repeatedly tried to murder the dragon. Plus he sensed something evil in recent activities, which turned out to be the demon activities within the trogs). To top it off, the payment the dragon is offering is to drive the demon out of my character's lover, so if I piss the dragon off, my paladin's loved one might be lost forever.

negligence does not exempt guilt.#&$&(# you for com;licating things some more :smallyuk:

[Alabenson]

If the troglodyte is telling the truth (and my paladin has no reason to believe she isn't), there's virtually nowhere for her to go. Other troglodyte tribes would see her as a failure for failing to protect the rest of her own tribe (she was the Great-Mother of the tribe that my character slaughtered because most of the tribe had been convinced to serve a demon. If my character did not slay them and the demon a LOT of evil was going to happen). Troglodyte society apaprently also eats the young of other trog tribes because they don't want competition for resources for their own young, so fostering them to other trog tribes won't work.

For biological and cultural reasons (discrimination), trying to raise the eggs in a human settlement just wouldn't work, and the troglodyte has stated that there are way too many eggs left for her to manage on her own anyways.

And I agree, in the real world, with the institution we have, getting some committed is the way to go. In this crap-sack ruined world, there aren't even any insane asylums, and any institutions around wouldn't even accept a troglodyte. Others would probably kill it on sight. :smallfrown:

I'm going to ask a question that I don't think has actually been asked yet; Does the troglodyte mother set off your evil-dar?

If she does, I'd say the best thing you could do at this point would be to just walk away. Doing so would be a solidly neutral act, and based on the above information, it's conceivable that helping her (either by killing her or convincing her to live) would just make things worse.
It might just be my paranoia talking, but killing her could be a trigger for some sort of demon-summoning ritual the DM has planned.

[Frosty]

I have Paladin Head-bobbed her (detect evil). She pinged very very slightly evil, well within the range that is redeemable, much like the goblin I've convinced to join up with me. Based on the circumstances, I am 99% sure the trog is playing it straight with me.

[Frosty]

Well, Imma wait for my DM to give me a response. I chose to pray for a few seconds before the act for the off-chance I get divine guidance :smallcool:

[pyromanser244]

Why? :smalltongue:



I could write essays on the problems I have with lawful alignments. to some up the big one up here, a quote from my last post; "I don't care".

the paladin code doesn't care about you or your circumstances. in fact laws in general are that way. you either follow them or you don't, and if you don't then they try to bring the ban-hammer down. you could be trying to achieve the greatest good the world has ever seen and it wouldn't matter.

channeling the apathy needed for proper law grates on my nerves, due in no small part to the effort I make to give a ^%#$ about people.

[Ravenica]

well if you have a dragon patron you should be able to get some help, appeal to it's sense of good for a stay of execution due to the (good) chance of redemption and the greater good. The tunnels would definately be a good place to start your anti-evil rebellion, no creature would settle in a place that cant sustain it (food source/water source) and it's mostly unoccupied at the moment for some reason :smallamused: if they were close enough to threaten the dragon it shouldn't be difficult to leave "party" of the party here to help while you take your lover and a few others back to the dragon for your appeal and reward (assuming you've cleared the rest of the hostile trogs)

[Andreaz]

#&$&(# you for com;licating things some more :smallyuk:I complicate because I love.

[VanBuren]

I want to formally complain about the fact every damn time I see an alignment discussion it goes into babies, mothers and similar figures. Also soul traps and hitler.

Seriously...it's got old. Where's my petty evil peasant who largely hates everyone but is too afraid to do anything about it other than being a jerk? Where's the xenophobic with a perfectly fine reason to hate elves ever since the last invasion pretty much scarred him for life?

"A terminally ill woman comes up to you and pleads that you kill her and her unborn child rather than have them waste away. Upon further investigation, you are also able to determine that her unborn child is actually a soul trapped Hitler. Now, if you were to simply cut them down, his evil would be released and consume the nearby town of vegetarian Orc hippies who have been trying--with some success--to overcome the racial barriers between their people and the ancient elves.

Now it just so happens that you recently found a tremendously powerful magical sword powered by orphans..."

[Zombimode]

Which takes priority? Value of a life (or two) or the value of free agency in making choices?

If this situation is a dilemma at all, it is not this. The value of the freedom of choice is not on the line here. The woman freely chooses to seek to end her life. By refusing to kill her the paladin does not interfere with this choice at all.

Hyperbolic example to get the point across:
Person A: "I choose to want to have sex with you."
Person B: "Meh, not interested, sorry."
Person A: "Stop oppressing my free will, you egocentric bitch!"

We would say Person A's reaction is not reasonable. That is because Person B's response does not have anything to do with Person A's free will. Free will != everything goes my way.

The case would be different, if the Paladin actively tries to prevent the womans suicide. But thats not what you have described.


So, IS there a dilemma here? Maybe.
First, lets assume the case where the woman does not have any unborn life within her.
We can infer, that the Paladin values life. And I think we can agree, that there is a number of good reasons for that. Preserving the womans life is something at stake here.

The woman seeks help by the paladin to commit suicide. She wants to do that because, for some reason or the other, she believes the future has nothing but suffering and pain for her in store. If that is truly her believe, then it is understandable that she wants to end her life.
But there are some epistemological problems with this kind of belief: it is based on an account of the future, which is most likely not something anyone can make completely accurate predictions. Sure, we do predictions of the future all the time and act on grounds of that. And in many contexts our predictions are fairly accurate. But in more complex matters we also know that our predictions can fail. And our decisions should reflect this risk.
Now, the prediction about the degree of happiness of my life in the future is a very complex matter. It depends on SO many things. I would expect a much higher chance of failure than say a prediction about the results of a physics experiment in a lab. The decision to end my life is non-reversible. It is thus something I would take the utmost care that my decision is well-informed. Since it involves a prediction about the future in a complex matter, this is very hard to do.
I'm not saying that there aren't any cases where a subject could make this prediction and committing suicide actually would safe the subject a life of pain and suffering. I just want to stress the point that this evaluation is very difficult to make, especially for an outside person like our Paladin here.

So, the situation for our Paladin here is that it is very probable that he can not know for sure that the womans prediction about here future is correct.
Possibility 1: he kills her
A) If the prediction is incorrect, he would have made a grave mistake.
B) In the unlikely event that is IS correct, he would have saved her from lots of pain and suffering. But she would be dead, which is not the ideal situation (= her being alive and happy).

Possibility 2: he refuses to kill her
A) If the prediction is incorrect, he avoided a grave mistake. There are several possibility after this: maybe she dies anyway, either by killing herself or finding someone else that kills her; but it is also possible that she lives and finds happiness.
B) In the unlikely event that is IS correct, she would suffer, which is regrettable. But: not killing her now leaves the possibility that she kills herself/get someone to kill her at a later date. Not killing her (now) is a decision somewhat rectifiable. Not killing her now only affects her life until the hypthetical point in the future where you then kill her. Whereas killing her life affects the whole of her hypothetical life.

In this situation where the Paladin most probably can not make an adequate evaluation, refusing to kill her would leave up the possibility for the ideal situation and is at least somewhat rectifiable. Killing her would completely eliminate the possibility for the ideal situation and is non-reversible*.

Until he has better information, not killing her is the way to go.


So, does the fact of unborn life within her change the situation? I think it does, but just in the sense that it makes the point even more clear: while the the prediction about her own future is uncertain at best, the prediction about the child's life is even more uncertain. Remember, this prediction is not about the environment of living and possible happenings. While such things are included, the point is if you can be happy under such circumstances. The woman maybe knows herself best and could say with certainty that under circumstances X she would be unhappy. But even if her predictions that X comes true is correct instead of X', she has no way of knowing if her child reacts to X the same way she does. Maybe her child adapts? The point is, she doesn't know.
So all it changes is it adds another layer of uncertainty. The possibility for the Paladin to make a grave mistake is even higher if he kills her (and thus her child).

I would say, in most situations the Paladin that kills the woman is very, very careless.
If the Paladin is that careless in matters delicate as this, maybe he/she is not up to the task of being a Paladin. If he/she is really serious about being a Paladin, contemplating about the actions and changing the ways of thinking to be less careless is an option. The atonement spell exists for a reason.

*Uh, at least when no resurrection magic is around. Screw you, D&D, and your easy-to-get resurrection effects!

[Frosty]

an awesome post from ZombimodeFirst of all, love the name. I think the name is funny given the current debate :smallbiggrin: I think your post is very informative, although yes the existence of ressurection magic does make things a bit different than real-life ethics of course. I will likely back off and walk away now, and refuse to kill the trog.


I could write essays on the problems I have with lawful alignmentsSo I guess in your view Paladins really shouldn't be LG? :smallwink:

[Frosty]

Wheee...didn't Fall yet from walking away. Probably right choice.

[Squark]

Have you tried negotiating with the Dragon? Depending on it's morals, it might be willing to assist. If you can convince her that the Dragon might be merciful, that might buy you some time to think of a better way out. As for what happens if the Dragon isn't merciful and slays her as soon as he sees her... Well, frankly, I don't think that Dragon deserves to be called good.

On the suicide thing, I'd argue that the paladin should not take any efforts to facilitate it or encourage it, and you certainly shouldn't actually kill her yourself, but it's not exactly like you can subdue her and take her to a mental hospital. Ultimately, If she's determined to take her life, I'm not sure there's anything you can do to stop her, ethically or otherwise.

On the eggs... If the mother dies, it doesn't sound like there's anything you can do. You can and should try, but unless you find a way to reproduce the pheremone or whatever the mother needs, I think you're probably just going to eventually fail as the embryos die. Which is awful, but I think you knew that it wasn't going to be all roses and sunshine when you started this campaign. If you do manage to convince the mother not to commit suicide, I'd say you should try to save as many eggs as you can, realizing many are not going to make it. Again, not pretty, but, at the risk of sounding overly callous, I suspect infant mortality rates are pretty high already in this world.

Assuming you take the moral high ground and make every reasonable effort to salvage the situation, though, I don't think there's any grounds for your character to fall. Ultimately, your paladin is one lone woman (EDIT: Out of curiosity, I'm reading through your campaign if you don't mind. Hence the acknowledgement of your character's gender) in a world gone bad, and he's trying. There are going to be tragedies like this. Innocents are going to die. He's going to make mistakes. But she's only (demi-)human. Ultimately, her goal should be to be hope for those who have none. And a little hope can change the world, sometimes. Ungh. That was sappier than I meant. Just was trying to balance out what felt to me like too much cynicism with some idealism

[Frosty]

My campaign is already in its second thread since the first one hit 50 pages :) Went from level 3 I think to level 6 currently.

Be warned, there are some mature content.

[Incom]

Yeah, if the dragon is truly LG, I don't think he'd execute a captured, pregnant woman without asking questions first, troglodyte or otherwise.

I'd at least offer to take in some of the kids. Maybe she can't offer them a better life, but you're a paladin, surely you can think of something. If nothing else, the dragon should be willing to give them a chance, since the kids have done nothing to him and are probably quite impressionable. And in the intervening time, maybe the mom will cool off a bit.

Offtopic, I think pyromanser needs to reread Celia's speech from the OOTS trial scene. LG is a perfectly legitimate point of view provided the LG person thinks their alignment through first.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And to prove my point this is so easily complicated...negligence does not exempt guilt.

That's an interesting statement. However, under D&D's written alignment system negligence, or more accurately non-action, in fact does exempt guilt, or more accurately responsibility; at least in this particular case.

A character is only responsible for what they do. In this case, all the paladin did (the situation is resolved according to the OP) was make a choice. She chose not to act in absence of sufficient information to choose a course of action. That's a very solidly neutral act.

Were there enough information to determine a (good) course of action, then failing to act, more accurately making the choice to not take action, could possibly be an evil act, but only if there is also enough information to determine with certainty that choosing not to take action will result in evil being done immediately.

The trog has, thus far, made no attempt to destroy or abandon the eggs. Even if you could force her to stay alive, you can't force her to care for the eggs if she chooses not to. No decision the paladin can make will affect the eventual fate of those eggs. She is therefore, not responsible for what happens to the eggs, unless she destroys them herself. For that reason, they can be removed from the equation.

That only leaves determining what to do with the trog herself. If she's determined to die, no amount of effort will save her, short of keeping her unconcious through either poison/drugs or non-lethal damage, either of which shows a distinct lack of respect for her life in that it causes her harm without killing her, which ammounts to torture. Nevermind that if you don't have some way to provide a sustenance affect she'd starve.

In sumation, the paladin can't be held responsible for the trog eggs, and trying to force the trog herself to live when she wants to die will either ultimately fail, quite probably in fairly short order; though that is only a failed attempt at good, not evil; or require that you torture her, while you sustain her life magically, which is definitely evil.

Thus while there are several actions you can take that are neutral, and there's no question you could do evil, there doesn't seem to be a good action available in this scenario, at least not one that has any real chance at success.

[Crasical]

Paladins are servants of Good and Law, not of any particular god. To paraphrase a rant I once heard, Paladins can't be made to fall. No god has the authority to zap a paladin and take their powers away because they where put into a situation where they had to choose between two evils. Paladins fall when they lose faith and cease to believe in the cause of righteousness.

So your hometown burns down, your girlfriend gets eaten by demons, your church ends up headed by a psychopath. You make some bad decisions and you're wracked with guilt. As long as you choose to keep fighting, to keep striving for the forces of light, you don't fall. A paladin falls when they give up, give in, when they lose faith in themselves and their cause, and no longer believe themselves worthy.


Well, that's one way to look at it, anyway.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Paladins are servants of Good and Law, not of any particular god. To paraphrase a rant I once heard, Paladins can't be made to fall. No god has the authority to zap a paladin and take their powers away because they where put into a situation where they had to choose between two evils. Paladins fall when they lose faith and cease to believe in the cause of righteousness.

So your hometown burns down, your girlfriend gets eaten by demons, your church ends up headed by a psychopath. You make some bad decisions and you're wracked with guilt. As long as you choose to keep fighting, to keep striving for the forces of light, you don't fall. A paladin falls when they give up, give in, when they lose faith in themselves and their cause, and no longer believe themselves worthy.


Well, that's one way to look at it, anyway.

This is an excellent alternative to RAW. If you don't like alignment as written but want to keep paladin's around, this is an excellent adaption.

[kardar233]

Paladins are servants of Good and Law, not of any particular god. To paraphrase a rant I once heard, Paladins can't be made to fall. No god has the authority to zap a paladin and take their powers away because they where put into a situation where they had to choose between two evils. Paladins fall when they lose faith and cease to believe in the cause of righteousness.

So your hometown burns down, your girlfriend gets eaten by demons, your church ends up headed by a psychopath. You make some bad decisions and you're wracked with guilt. As long as you choose to keep fighting, to keep striving for the forces of light, you don't fall. A paladin falls when they give up, give in, when they lose faith in themselves and their cause, and no longer believe themselves worthy.


Well, that's one way to look at it, anyway.

That's a pretty cool viewpoint, and it reminds of The Deed of Paksenarrion, which every Paladin player should read. Everyone else should read it too, just in case.

I'd like to point out that this viewpoint allows for a Paladin to take the Well Intentioned Extremist slide all the way down to Lawful Evil without falling; depending on your opinion this may be a good thing or a bad thing.

[Slipperychicken]

Relevant facts without all the nitty gritty details:

A mother with an unborn child comes up to a paladin and asks the paladin to kill her. The mother believes that she doesn't deserve to/has no reason to live. The mother also sincerely believes that the child would be born into a life of suffering, with no prospect for change for the better, so slaying the unborn child would be a mercy.

The paladin attempts diplomacy and fails to convince the mother to change her mind. If the paladin accedes to the request and kills the mother without pain or suffering, would this be an evil act? Which takes priority? Value of a life (or two) or the value of free agency in making choices?

Sounds like, by RAW, it depends. The BoVD definition of Muder (pg. 7) requires a "nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like". So it's not Murder.

If the deed "damns or harms souls" (I forget what happens to unborn souls if they die before birth in DND cosmology), then he absolutely falls. Damning or Harming Souls is an Evil Act in BoVD page 8.

If the unborn child is "an innocent" (Hash this one out on your own, I'm tired), then the mother is Harming or Threatening The Innocent, so the Paladin is obligated by the Code of Conduct to punish her either way. The Paladin falls if he does not punish the mother.



My course of action: Exhaust all other possible options, especially information-gathering, while preventing Mom from killing herself (nonlethal damage might be the way to go here). If all else fails, cast Heart's Ease (BoED, Sanctified 3) on her and hope for the best. If Paladin is on a time limit, KO Mom and drag her to a nearby good-aligned church so they can deal with it.

If I were DMing: Paladin should take all reasonable measures to ensure the mother's (and unborn child's) safety, and put her through suicide counseling. If that is not possible, I wouldn't fall him either way.

[Kane0]

Hmm. If the paladin were a paladin believing in mercy, freedom of choice and just rewards he would probably not have a huge problem in obliging her request, so long as both she and the paladin genuinely believe what she is saying and neither is under mental influence.

Thats just me though.

[Frosty]

Paladins are servants of Good and Law, not of any particular god. To paraphrase a rant I once heard, Paladins can't be made to fall. No god has the authority to zap a paladin and take their powers away because they where put into a situation where they had to choose between two evils. Paladins fall when they lose faith and cease to believe in the cause of righteousness.

So your hometown burns down, your girlfriend gets eaten by demons, your church ends up headed by a psychopath. You make some bad decisions and you're wracked with guilt. As long as you choose to keep fighting, to keep striving for the forces of light, you don't fall. A paladin falls when they give up, give in, when they lose faith in themselves and their cause, and no longer believe themselves worthy.


Well, that's one way to look at it, anyway.So in theory, Miko would never have fallen?

[Grollub]

she was the Great-Mother of the tribe that my character slaughtered because most of the tribe had been convinced to serve a demon. If my character did not slay them and the demon a LOT of evil was going to happen

If I'm readin this right.. you killed a tribe of Demon-worshipping Trogs, with the Leader?? ( Great- Mother ) ( who pings as evil ), standing before you asking you to kill her because she can't care for the eggs??

I wouldn't have even stopped to talk to her, smite her and the eggs, odds are the eggs have been corrupted by the demon in the first place.

[Frosty]

The great-mother was fighting against the demon in her tribe but failed the counter the seduction of the succubus-like demon infiltrating the tribe. The succubus took over as the matriarch. I was sent by the dragon to go clear the infestation, and I've killed ALL the trogs except the Great Mother. She is free of demonic taint,a nd only pings slightly evil.

[Squark]

Mind you, having read the pbp thread in question, this debate is now largely academic, seeing as the Troglodyte in question has blocked the egg chamber from the paladin (who did not kill anything), and the DM seems to have indicated Frosty took the right path.

[Yukitsu]

I'm of the sort that says "well, I've got food, water, a comfortable cart that I don't absolutely need, why don't we take care of you" and end up with a horde of hangers on, leeches and ne'erdowells taking advantage of me, but it gives a good time to preach the good word to the wicked who are selfish, and lets me protect the ones that aren't. But yes, you can always personally take them out of that bad situation and, as the saying goes, make sure you teach them how to light their own fires.

Edit: I play the paladins that are told "you can't always save them all" by others, and always respond "That's just an excuse not to try".

[Kelb_Panthera]

You -can't- always save them all.

To me, however, that's not an excuse to not try. It's all the more reason to combat evil where ever it stands.

I not the type to play a "smite-on-site" paladin either, but for many of my paladins the fact that, maybe just maybe, the actions of him and others like him might someday make that statement false is a driving force behind his actions.

Make the world a better place and all that jazz.

[Yukitsu]

You -can't- always save them all.

To me, however, that's not an excuse to not try. It's all the more reason to combat evil where ever it stands.

I not the type to play a "smite-on-site" paladin either, but for many of my paladins the fact that, maybe just maybe, the actions of him and others like him might someday make that statement false is a driving force behind his actions.

Make the world a better place and all that jazz.

I've failed, but I've never been in a situation where I for once believed that saving everyone was actually impossible. Leads to a lot of interesting character breakdowns in my case, if it happens, and out of character it often makes me wonder what I could have done differently.

[VanBuren]

You -can't- always save them all.

Even so, you can't know that for sure until afterwards. After all, you can never be sure when reality will sneeze and you can get a free shot in.

[Frosty]

I think the rest of my party has was inspired by my actions. Or at least they approve. At least something good as come of this adventure.

[Averis Vol]

If I were in the paladins shoes (And I"ve been in a similar scenario) and she was worried about the poverty of her life..... I would give her the coin in my pocket and the shield on my arm, I would giver her all she needed but the blade at my side as it would save more lives then this one.

It all comes down to how you play your paladins. Mine would trade places with her readily and live in the squalid poverty as he has better means to make a living then she does apparently, and, worst comes to worst I would seek out evil to slay and refill my coffers. easy as that.

EDIT: Scenario seems to be different then what I originally envisioned.....

[Crasical]

So in theory, Miko would never have fallen?

Ayep. As was already noted, viewing paladinsthis way lets them slide all the way to Evil without actually falling provided they are self-deluded enough.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've failed, but I've never been in a situation where I for once believed that saving everyone was actually impossible. Leads to a lot of interesting character breakdowns in my case, if it happens, and out of character it often makes me wonder what I could have done differently.

You play straight idealists, I play pragmatists with an idealistic streak and enough conviction to not give up in spite of their pragmatic thinking.

Both are perfectly valid options for a paladin IMO.

I've occasionaly tried the straight idealist, but it's quite a bit more taxing on my acting muscle. :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

You -can't- always save them all.

Depends on the DM, really. Some you can, some you can't save any because they're making you the surrogate to abuse for all of their issues with X because you made the mistake of playing a paladin with them.

[pyromanser244]

So I guess in your view Paladins really shouldn't be LG? :smallwink:

they can be......
yeah let me point at Roy here and say "pretty much that". he's a guy that puts the Good before the Law as far as alignment goes. and that is were the paladins should be. they should be good guys before anything else and endeavor to uphold justice regardless of the laws they have to work with.


Offtopic, I think pyromanser needs to reread Celia's speech from the OOTS trial scene. LG is a perfectly legitimate point of view provided the LG person thinks their alignment through first.

one of my favorite bits of lawyer work ever. while I do agree with her, my experience is that all too few lawful types ever think it threw. they have their "should do" lists and don't need to think past them.:smallsigh:


in response to Crasical (and for some semblance of on-topic discussion) I'd say the fault in the analogy is seen with Ochul and Miko. Ochul has all manner of horrible things done to him and the city and people he loves but never stops being a paladin. Miko on the other hand causes the death of her legitimate lord and jeopardizes said city and people in the process. all the while she thought she was doing the right thing. and she is the one who lost her paladin powers. she wanted to fight for good but she just wasn't doing that. if anything she set the good guys back. whats more, you don't need to be a paladin to fight for good. you only need to be good at said fight.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Depends on the DM, really. Some you can, some you can't save any because they're making you the surrogate to abuse for all of their issues with X because you made the mistake of playing a paladin with them.

I was assuming a DM with a strong interest in trying to uphold verisimilitude, not unlike myself.

In a "realistic" world you really can't save them all, if for no other reason then because sometimes you're just not there.

If a DM made sure one of my paladins could always save everyone, I'd probably lose interest in playing paladins under that DM. Maybe give serious thought to going blackguard, or just skipping an alignment based character altogether.

[Frosty]

they can be......
yeah let me point at Roy here and say "pretty much that". he's a guy that puts the Good before the Law as far as alignment goes. and that is were the paladins should be. they should be good guys before anything else and endeavor to uphold justice regardless of the laws they have to work with.But shouldn't that describe Neutral Good more?

[Tvtyrant]

There is only one solution. Go back in time and choose Cleric instead. I am joking to a certain extent, but I really think the Paladin's code if silly.

[Squark]

Having read the campaign, this seems like a situation in which the DM is giving the player (singular) tough choices, but that's also the sort of the game Frosty wanted to play. The DM has also been willing to offer guidance if Frosty's character takes the time to meditate a bit (in the form of remembered lessons from the character's mentor). So, it doesn't look like it's a game where the player can save them all, but if the player's ok with that, it's fine.

[Frosty]

The praying for guidance thing doesn't really happen all that often. It's a tough world, and somehow my paladin has to lead it and save it while not always knowing what to do. It is a fun campaign thus far though.
Having read the campaign, this seems like a situation in which the DM is giving the player (singular) tough choices, but that's also the sort of the game Frosty wanted to play. The DM has also been willing to offer guidance if Frosty's character takes the time to meditate a bit (in the form of remembered lessons from the character's mentor). So, it doesn't look like it's a game where the player can save them all, but if the player's ok with that, it's fine.I didn't really make this thread to complain. Merely to gain some advice as to the right thing to do.

[Mnemnosyne]

So in theory, Miko would never have fallen?
Depends on the campaign setting. What Crasical says is one of the interpretations of paladins, but it's certainly not the one followed in the Forgotten Realms, for instance. I think it's also not accurate in Greyhawk, though I'm much less familiar with that setting.

In the Realms, all paladins are paladins of specific gods. Tyr, Torm, Helm, and several other gods all employ paladins, and a paladin of Helm has a different code to follow than a paladin of Tyr, who likewise has a different code to follow than one of Torm. If the paladin does something against that god's code of behavior, the god makes them fall. They serve their god and the ideals he sets forth, not vague and undefined ideals of good and law. A paladin of Helm, for instance, is likely to have a much stricter set of rules than a paladin of Torm or Tyr, from my interpretation of those gods and their behavior. I believe Greyhawk is similar, with some paladins dedicated to specific gods like Heironeous, although I do not know whether paladins (or any divine types) can exist without being devoted to a particular deity or not.

Any paladin dedicated to a god gains their powers from that god. In some settings like the Realms, this is the only way to have divine power. In other settings, they may be able to be paladins without a specific god granting them their paladin abilities; Eberron is one such example.

[Coidzor]

I was assuming a DM with a strong interest in trying to uphold verisimilitude, not unlike myself.

In a "realistic" world you really can't save them all, if for no other reason then because sometimes you're just not there.

If a DM made sure one of my paladins could always save everyone, I'd probably lose interest in playing paladins under that DM. Maybe give serious thought to going blackguard, or just skipping an alignment based character altogether.

In a realistic world one still doesn't encounter all sets of infinite problems in finite experience. :smallwink:

[Crasical]

Depends on the campaign setting. What Crasical says is one of the interpretations of paladins, but it's certainly not the one followed in the Forgotten Realms, for instance. I think it's also not accurate in Greyhawk, though I'm much less familiar with that setting.

The core rulebook actually reads as follows:


Paladins need not devote themselves to a single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough.

You're absolutely right about it varying by setting and DM, though.


EDIT: I'm also kind of hazy on how applicable OotS comparisons are, here. The author has shown very willing to play fast and loose with the rules to move the plot and drama along. He's obviously running under his own rules.

[Frosty]

This is Pathfinder, and I don't think paladins are required to worship a specific god to get paladin powers in PF...

[Coidzor]

This is Pathfinder, and I don't think paladins are required to worship a specific god to get paladin powers in PF...

It's a setting-level thing anyway. I'm not that up on Golarion, I must admit.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In a realistic world one still doesn't encounter all sets of infinite problems in finite experience. :smallwink:

True, but luck doesn't generally guarantee that you'll live a life of rainbows and kittens, especially considering that some settings have gods that control luck.

IMO a paladin that never has the chance to fall is much less compelling a character than one that does.

In most games, I don't want to fall but I'd like the opportunity.

Risk = dramatic tension = entertaining stories.

For my paladins, I like at least some of the risk to be to his faith in himself and the value of the ideas he upholds. It's interesting to me. Same goes for kensai for that matter.

If all I wanted was to smite my opponents with absolute conviction in my belief system, I'd play a CW samurai. (our games are low-op and a CW samurai can do just fine.)

[pyromanser244]

But shouldn't that describe Neutral Good more?

it can, but doesn't always. even if you believe that Law == Good (and it doesn't) you can't deny that laws can be, well, broken. not that they get ignored but that they simply don't work. a paladin shouldn't have to follow a law that hurts people. he should be able to judge if a law is such and at least try to change it so that it is just. anything less and he is incapable of doing any Good on account of the not-so-noble politicians.

for my money, the assumption that Laws are always right lands you in the LN alignment not the LG.

[Kelb_Panthera]

it can, but doesn't always. even if you believe that Law == Good (and it doesn't) you can't deny that laws can be, well, broken. not that they get ignored but that they simply don't work. a paladin shouldn't have to follow a law that hurts people. he should be able to judge if a law is such and at least try to change it so that it is just. anything less and he is incapable of doing any Good on account of the not-so-noble politicians.

for my money, the assumption that Laws are always right lands you in the LN alignment not the LG.

umm.... I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the books say.

In the case of the paladin at least, I'm sure of it. The mechanics and the fluff put a noticable emphasis on the good over the law aspect of the LG requirement.

For example, the CoC says that a paladin must respect legitimate authority. Respect does not necessarily mean obey. Further, if a nation's laws are unjust, a paladin may choose not to recognize the current government as a legitimate authority until such time as it can be reformed or replaced.

Nothing, AFAIK, says that a lawful character has to obey all codified laws to remain lawful. If you're a member of a church whose dictates clash with the local government's laws which one is a lawful character supposed to choose? Does putting one over the other for some things, but not others, make the character more lawful for obeying two sets of laws, or more chaotic for "disrespecting" them both?

I've always read "law" in an alignment sense as "order." IMO that's what was intended.

[VanBuren]

umm.... I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the books say.

In the case of the paladin at least, I'm sure of it. The mechanics and the fluff put a noticable emphasis on the good over the law aspect of the LG requirement.

For example, the CoC says that a paladin must respect legitimate authority. Respect does not necessarily mean obey. Further, if a nation's laws are unjust, a paladin may choose not to recognize the current government as a legitimate authority until such time as it can be reformed or replaced.

Nothing, AFAIK, says that a lawful character has to obey all codified laws to remain lawful. If you're a member of a church whose dictates clash with the local government's laws which one is a lawful character supposed to choose? Does putting one over the other for some things, but not others, make the character more lawful for obeying two sets of laws, or more chaotic for "disrespecting" them both?

I've always read "law" in an alignment sense as "order." IMO that's what was intended.

A Paladin need not respect unjust laws simply because they are the laws.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

[Frosty]

But a paladin must recognize than in general the presence of laws is usually better than the absence of laws?

[VanBuren]

But a paladin must recognize than in general the presence of laws is usually better than the absence of laws?

Certainly. But a law that protects and encourages slavery, for instance, is illegitimate by its very nature. Simply by existing it is a corrupt law and a Paladin need not abide by it. A Paladin that refuses to turn a slave over to its legal owner doesn't risk falling.

[KillianHawkeye]

IMO, a Paladin never harms an unarmed noncombatant regardless of their wishes. Not even if it were a case of "kill one, save a thousand" or other such moral gray areas.

If there is somebody who is truly seeking death, a Paladin should not be the one to aid them, but neither should a Paladin fall for failing to dissuade them.

[RFLS]

I'd say that, given that the Paladin is essentially a knight with a serious chivalric code issue, he should take her under his protection, no matter the cost to himself.

[Frosty]

Remember that the PHB2 Knight can be of any Lawful alignment, not just LG, so Chivalry is not necessarily the defining quality of Paladins.

IMO, a Paladin never harms an unarmed noncombatant regardless of their wishes. Not even if it were a case of "kill one, save a thousand" or other such moral gray areas.If one individual is willing to die to help save a thousand others, I'd call that a heroic sacrifice and I think there should be no problem if a Paladin aids in that sacrifice.

[RFLS]

Remember that the PHB2 Knight can be of any Lawful alignment, not just LG, so Chivalry is not necessarily the defining quality of Paladins.

Wasn't referring to the PHBII knight. I was referring to knights as found in stories about King Arthur. Chivalry may not be the defining quality of paladins, but there's a pretty big overlap between chivalry and the paladin's code.

If I remember right, their code involves protecting the innocent. The mother in question sounds innocent, and killing her is not protecting her, even if it's logically the best course of action. Logic doesn't enter into a paladin's code; it's a very black and white thing. The only course of action that doesn't dabble in gray areas would be attempting to protect her to the best of his ability.

...yeah, paladins are silly.

[KillianHawkeye]

If one individual is willing to die to help save a thousand others, I'd call that a heroic sacrifice and I think there should be no problem if a Paladin aids in that sacrifice.

Okay, possibly. But I still say the Paladin should not be the one to do the deed if at all possible.

I was thinking of a situation more like and evil villain presenting a sadistic choice such as "kill the person you love or I'll press this button and destroy this village full of orphans."

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wasn't referring to the PHBII knight. I was referring to knights as found in stories about King Arthur. Chivalry may not be the defining quality of paladins, but there's a pretty big overlap between chivalry and the paladin's code.

If I remember right, their code involves protecting the innocent. The mother in question sounds innocent, and killing her is not protecting her, even if it's logically the best course of action. Logic doesn't enter into a paladin's code; it's a very black and white thing. The only course of action that doesn't dabble in gray areas would be attempting to protect her to the best of his ability.

...yeah, paladins are silly.
When you're talking about black, white, and grey; paladins are allowed to go grey, they just can't go black. Trying to force the trog to stay alive when she doesn't want to is likely to provoke an attack from her, at which point she'd have to either knock the trog out or kill her.

I hate how so many people try to hold the paladin to the logical but uncertain consequences of their actions while ignoring that other possible consequences aren't a problem. A paladin should only be held responsible for the immediately forseeable, and entirely certain, immediate consequences.

Paladin's know(relig) check tells him killing the balor in the room full of helpless prisoners will result in an explosion killing all of the prisoners chooses to to smite those last few hp instead of letting the cleric banish, he's commited an evil act. If he failed the knowledge check and the cleric didn't say anything, it's not an evil act. The prisoners are dead either way, but in the latter situation the paladin didn't know what would happen, and shouldn't be held responsible for an unexpected and unfortunate surprise.

Okay, possibly. But I still say the Paladin should not be the one to do the deed if at all possible.

I was thinking of a situation more like and evil villain presenting a sadistic choice such as "kill the person you love or I'll press this button and destroy this village full of orphans."

Orphans, the paladin version of godwin since people started discussing paladins on the internet.

Incedentally, that paladin wouldn't be responsible for the villian pushing the button under any circumstance short of grabbing the villian's wrist and pushing the button with the villian's finger.

The responsibility for those orphans' deaths falls squarely on the villian.

[zlefin]

plenty of good pointsin the thread; to provide a short answer:
shouldn't kill in the first place; he's LAWFUL good, not chaotic good; so he doesn't have to respect her freedom of choice nearly as much.

[danzibr]

If one individual is willing to die to help save a thousand others, I'd call that a heroic sacrifice and I think there should be no problem if a Paladin aids in that sacrifice.
That's a toughie. Initially I want to say I agree... but I'm not sure.

[AlchemicalMyst]

Let me start by saying an alignment change is not just a click inside a character's head causing completely different actions than normal. The "fall" if you will from LG to LN, NG, or even TN can be a representation of the character suddenly being faced with a different reality than was originally perceived.

A child growing up might be LG but as he/she grows into adulthood may realize how Laws can actually hurt people and some shouldn't be followed at all and shift to NG only to later realize that Laws are unnatural and vile creations! Ending up as CG.


Relevant facts without all the nitty gritty details:

A mother with an unborn child comes up to a paladin and asks the paladin to kill her. The mother believes that she doesn't deserve to/has no reason to live. The mother also sincerely believes that the child would be born into a life of suffering, with no prospect for change for the better, so slaying the unborn child would be a mercy.

The paladin attempts diplomacy and fails to convince the mother to change her mind. If the paladin accedes to the request and kills the mother without pain or suffering, would this be an evil act? Which takes priority? Value of a life (or two) or the value of free agency in making choices?
In regards to Good and Evil:
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

In regards to Lawful Good:
"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good combines honor with compassion."

Q. "If the paladin accedes to the request and kills the mother without pain or suffering, would this be an evil act?"
A. YES. You are ending a life, or two, and only for the purpose that the mother is suicidal and believes the child's life will be bad anyways.

Q. Which takes priority? Value of a life (or two) or the value of free agency in making choices?"
A. Value of life. For a LG character (a Paladin at that!) ending the life of an innocent, especially on purpose, is the worst thing you can do.


If one individual is willing to die to help save a thousand others, I'd call that a heroic sacrifice and I think there should be no problem if a Paladin aids in that sacrifice.
Now that's a completely different situation however still one that a Paladin would probably fall from Paladinhood(?) for.

If a LG character, again especially a Paladin, was faced with the choice to personally take the life of an innocent in order to save a village they should not be willing to do so and if they are should at the very least be role played as very shaken about the experience.

As a GM I would rule that just killing that mother in the scenario mentioned above would definitely result in a fall from LG to NG as such blatant disregard for innocent life is an obvious choice to go against the teachings. Roleplay wise I see it less as the character snapping but instead having to learn to deal with the fact that they just decided a life was not worth saving and went even a step forward and ended the life themselves. It should be a life changing action.

The paladin should have done their best to help the woman no matter what if they wished to not risk an alignment change. Perhaps even going as far as taking the woman by force to someone who could watch and aid her.


Now this, as stated by others, will change from GM to GM and setting to setting so I in no way say this is exactly RAW, just my interpretation of it.

[Ziegander]

I was thinking of a situation more like and evil villain presenting a sadistic choice such as "kill the person you love or I'll press this button and destroy this village full of orphans."

Heh, you mean like the situation where the evil villain Lawful Good dragon patron of the campaign said, "kill the person you love this village of troglodytes or I'll press this button do nothing and destroy leave the person you love to a fate worse than death"?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Let me start by saying an alignment change is not just a click inside a character's head causing completely different actions than normal. The "fall" if you will from LG to LN, NG, or even TN can be a representation of the character suddenly being faced with a different reality than was originally perceived.

A child growing up might be LG but as he/she grows into adulthood may realize how Laws can actually hurt people and some shouldn't be followed at all and shift to NG only to later realize that Laws are unnatural and vile creations! Ending up as CG.


In regards to Good and Evil:
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

In regards to Lawful Good:
"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good combines honor with compassion."

Q. "If the paladin accedes to the request and kills the mother without pain or suffering, would this be an evil act?"
A. YES. You are ending a life, or two, and only for the purpose that the mother is suicidal and believes the child's life will be bad anyways.

Q. Which takes priority? Value of a life (or two) or the value of free agency in making choices?"
A. Value of life. For a LG character (a Paladin at that!) ending the life of an innocent, especially on purpose, is the worst thing you can do.


Now that's a completely different situation however still one that a Paladin would probably fall from Paladinhood(?) for.

If a LG character, again especially a Paladin, was faced with the choice to personally take the life of an innocent in order to save a village they should not be willing to do so and if they are should at the very least be role played as very shaken about the experience.

As a GM I would rule that just killing that mother in the scenario mentioned above would definitely result in a fall from LG to NG as such blatant disregard for innocent life is an obvious choice to go against the teachings. Roleplay wise I see it less as the character snapping but instead having to learn to deal with the fact that they just decided a life was not worth saving and went even a step forward and ended the life themselves. It should be a life changing action.

The paladin should have done their best to help the woman no matter what if they wished to not risk an alignment change. Perhaps even going as far as taking the woman by force to someone who could watch and aid her.


Now this, as stated by others, will change from GM to GM and setting to setting so I in no way say this is exactly RAW, just my interpretation of it.

While I, rather strongly, disagree with your take on this, I respect your right to interpret it how you wish.

I've given my reasons for disagreeing with you about the OP's situation earlier in the thread.

As for one character volunteering to die for what he believes is the greater good, that's both the BoED and dictionary definition of martyrdom.

If the volunteer is correct in his belief that his death is for the greater good, I most certainly wouldn't have the paladin fall for aiding him, and in a set of specific circumstances where that character's continued life would cause evil, with certainty, I might have the paladin fall for any action taken to thwart that character's death.

One of the most important things to bear in mind when discussing alignment is,

"Blanket statements will almost always fail in specific circumstances."

Edit: Come to think of it, that bold statement applies to most things, not just alignment. It is, IMO, extra true in regards to alignment though.

[AlchemicalMyst]

While I, rather strongly, disagree with your take on this, I respect your right to interpret it how you wish.

I've given my reasons for disagreeing with you about the OP's situation earlier in the thread.

As for one character volunteering to die for what he believes is the greater good, that's both the BoED and dictionary definition of martyrdom.

If the volunteer is correct in his belief that his death is for the greater good, I most certainly wouldn't have the paladin fall for aiding him, and in a set of specific circumstances where that character's continued life would cause evil, with certainty, I might have the paladin fall for any action taken to thwart that character's death.

One of the most important things to bear in mind when discussing alignment is,

"Blanket statements will almost always fail in specific circumstances."

Edit: Come to think of it, that bold statement applies to most things, not just alignment. It is, IMO, extra true in regards to alignment though.
Thank you for disagreeing? I never understood why people feel the need to re-clarify the fact that they disagree with a certain viewpoint just because someone else enters the conversation. I respond to help OP, not debate opinions xD

That said, if Paladins just went around killing anyone who asked them too they wouldn't be very good upholders of all that is Good and Just IMHO. Just mobile suicide booths :tongue:

[Frosty]

Heh, you mean like the situation where the evil villain Lawful Good dragon patron of the campaign said, "kill the person you love this village of troglodytes or I'll press this button do nothing and destroy leave the person you love to a fate worse than death"?Again, to be fair, the troglodytes were constantly harassing and trying to kill the dragon. This is likely due to the recent demonic influence.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thank you for disagreeing? I never understood why people feel the need to re-clarify the fact that they disagree with a certain viewpoint just because someone else enters the conversation. I respond to help OP, not debate opinions xD Then you should've read more carefully. The OP's situation was resolved before you posted.

If you did see that, then posting anyway would seem to indicate that you -did- want to debate the morality of the action taken and its alternatives.

As for the, "I respectfully disagree and have already stated why" statement. That's just being polite, because without it, I'm effectively ignoring the fact you made any statement other than the one I addressed directly.

Good manners are always a good idea, and they become especially important when it comes to keeping discussions with volatile subjects civil.


That said, if Paladins just went around killing anyone who asked them too they wouldn't be very good upholders of all that is Good and Just IMHO. Just mobile suicide booths :tongue:

I agree, and I don't think anyone is saying that a paladin should go around killing anyone just because they asked.

I'm saying that there can be circumstances under which killing someone because they ask is definitely okay, and circumstances under which it definitely isn't.

Like I said, blanket statements regarding alignment are always a bad idea.

[Ziegander]

Again, to be fair, the troglodytes were constantly harassing and trying to kill the dragon. This is likely due to the recent demonic influence.

The "kill the demon-worshipping troglodytes" things is a common enough of "Good" mission to be handed out by the "Good" leaders. It's the part where the Dragon threw in blackmail on top of total disregard for the spiritual well-being of what I can only assume is an innocent and Good-aligned character and for the emotional well-being of what may be the last, best examplar of Good left on the planet.

That didn't feel less-than-good to anyone else?