would paladin kill an innocent child?

[malkuth]

ok here is my question. a paladin learns the future from a trusted mage or someone whose powers for the subject are unquestinoble that the paladin is sure that there is no way he is wrong. in the future an innocent child of now seems to be a killing machine if not killed in 2 days for example. the future reading's results are inevitable, no matter what is done, it is told to paladin that he can't change these optional futures.

so what do you think the paladin would do?

my answer is that he shouldn't kill the child because of not deserving it yet. considering that he doesn't catch someone without having enough evidence that he is guilty, even letting him commit other crimes mean time, he wouldn't kill someone for uncommitted crimes. but what if in future, the family of those that are murdered by the child come and tell him that he let this happen, they are starving to death cause he let him kill their husbands etc and ask him where the honor is in letting those people die?

the answers may vary depending on very small facts of situation, still I would like to hear your opinions.

[Coidzor]

The paladin inadvertently alerts people who have no qualms about killing the child in the course of their investigation into options other than infanticide or death and they take care of it.

Basically though, if you're up against something that can do that, you're basically screwed unless you can go and kick in the teeth of whatever is causing such things to happen. The DM will just bring up a new person that's going to turn into an uber-monster anyway even if the kid was killed, and by posing the scenario it's clear that the DM isn't really keen on a fun game.

Edit: Oh, wait, I misread that and thought you were positing an invincible or unkillable killing machine.

If it's just a regular killing machine the Paladin hangs around and beats it up if he can't take a third option, like finding the cause of the transformation and beating the tar out of it.

[Alaris]

ok here is my question. a paladin learns the future from a trusted mage or someone whose powers for the subject are unquestinoble that the paladin is sure that there is no way he is wrong. in the future an innocent child of now seems to be a killing machine if not killed in 2 days for example. the future reading's results are inevitable, no matter what is done, it is told to paladin that he can't change these optional futures.

so what do you think the paladin would do?

my answer is that he shouldn't kill the child because of not deserving it yet. considering that he doesn't catch someone without having enough evidence that he is guilty, even letting him commit other crimes mean time, he wouldn't kill someone for uncommitted crimes. but what if in future, the family of those that are murdered by the child come and tell him that he let this happen, they are starving to death cause he let him kill their husbands etc and ask him where the honor is in letting those people die?

the answers may vary depending on very small facts of situation, still I would like to hear your opinions.

Look at that, morally grey question of the week has arrived.

The Paladin should 'not' kill the child immediately. He should have the Wizard divine when the child commits his first heinous act, and then be there when it happens. Stop the child (or adult, by this point).

Currently, the Child is not guilty. A god would surely drop a Paladin that slew the child.

I cannot think of any circumstance where the Paladin should slay the child... at least in a Paladin's eyes. Now if he were a Fighter, sure, kill the Child before he becomes horribly evil, since we can't change him.

[malkuth]

this is not from a game. I am the DM and it is first time someone plays a paladin in our party. my paladin is trying to understand his boundries and asks these kind of questions sometimes. and the tricky part here is the inevitability of the future, he is informed that he will be a murderer (meaning that he will success killing one person at least) and this future can't be changed unless the child is killed in 2 days. We talked much about it yesterday and I wanted to hear the other people's opinions.

[JusticeZero]

These are situations that the paladin needs to answer for themself and which the GM should never intentionally place the paladin in unless there is no wrong answer.

[Jeff the Green]

Well, the paladin I would play would kill the child, fall, and then spend a month or so in seclusion, tormented by the memory, and then seek atonement.

But yes, it's pretty unambiguous that killing the child would result in falling. In a real game, any DM that presented this scenario would be a **** unless the player explicitly said they want to play a paladin that will do what's right even if it isn't Good and are okay with playing a glorified Warrior until they can get an atonement.

[Matticussama]

But yes, it's pretty unambiguous that killing the child would result in falling. In a real game, any DM that presented this scenario would be a **** unless the player explicitly said they want to play a paladin that will do what's right even if it isn't Good and are okay with playing a glorified Warrior until they can get an atonement.

Or unless the Paladin wanted an in-character reason to fall and eventually become a Blackguard, without just "And today I turn into a homicidal maniac for no reason." For situations like this, where the character wants the Paladin to fall, the DM can present moral gray areas like this in order to have the Paladin falling advance the story and in-character begin adopting an "ends justify the means" philosophy that is very common among Lawful Evil characters.

[Ace Nex]

If the child becomes a killer, he is not "innocent" (at least in the future), so killing him may cause his loss of powers but an atonement should fix that right up. Gods aren't stupid, and probably already knows this and that there is no alternative. Thus, he's not going to drop someone who is presented with no other viable alternative. If one person needs to die so thousands live, it's a sacrifice worth taking. Even if he does lose his powers, the God will know it was for a good reason and give him a shot to redeem himself. If anything it leads to a cool side-quest. Worse comes to worse he goes blackguard, knight of the grey, paladin of Tyranny, or some other Paladin off-shoot class

[Pickford]

this is not from a game. I am the DM and it is first time someone plays a paladin in our party. my paladin is trying to understand his boundries and asks these kind of questions sometimes. and the tricky part here is the inevitability of the future, he is informed that he will be a murderer (meaning that he will success killing one person at least) and this future can't be changed unless the child is killed in 2 days. We talked much about it yesterday and I wanted to hear the other people's opinions.

No, a paladin would not. A quote from the code of conduct is helpful here:


loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Killing an innocent is 'never' the correct choice if one wants to remain a paladin.

edit: Jeff the Green, atonement requires a creature to repent. Being willing to do evil things for good ends is explicitly opposed to that and atonement would fail.

edit2: And paladins aren't beholden to deities, they are beholden to righteousness. You can be a paladin and have no god, or have a patron god and not give a fig what they think or say and suffer 0 ill effects.

[Matticussama]

If the child becomes a killer, he is not "innocent" (at least in the future), so killing him may cause his loss of powers but an atonement should fix that right up. Gods aren't stupid, and probably already knows this and that there is no alternative. Thus, he's not going to drop someone who is presented with no other viable alternative. If one person needs to die so thousands live, it's a sacrifice worth taking. Even if he does lose his powers, the God will know it was for a good reason and give him a shot to redeem himself. If anything it leads to a cool side-quest. Worse comes to worse he goes blackguard, knight of the grey, paladin of Tyranny, or some other Paladin off-shoot class

Except that the child is innocent until the child commits the crimes. The future is always in flux, and just because a prophecy/divination says that the child could become a murderer. Killing someone because they might become a murderer far exceeds the boundaries of normal Paladin behavior.

As was suggested earlier, a Paladin should stay in the area and try to prevent it from happening; then, when/if the Paladin sees the child attempting to kill someone, they are justified in taking appropriate measures of response. But just murdering a child before they kill someone isn't acceptable behavior for a Paladin, and Atonement should only work in cases where the person genuinely regrets their actions and not as a "the ends justify the means but I'll use a spell to get rid of the consequences."

[Gildedragon]

The bow -will- be a killer if not stopped in 2 days; this means the first killing will happen on the third day (else the child could be stopped in 3 days). Keep watch over the child; try to stop it from committing the crime.

Not killing the child because of trying to prevent fate in a peaceful way is (maybe) foolhardy.
Killing the child for what they might do is, at best, LN leaning to LE. The only way it can be LG is if the kid is aware and consents.

Though one should always consider the source of prophecy might have been tampered with.

[Jeff the Green]

edit: Jeff the Green, atonement requires a creature to repent. Being willing to do evil things for good ends is explicitly opposed to that and atonement would fail.

Repentant: Feeling or showing sorrow for wrongdoing.

I'd say my scenario fits. You don't have to genuinely intend to never repeat an act to be repentant. You just have to accept that it was not Good and be sorry that you had to make that choice.

[Vizzerdrix]

ok here is my question. a paladin learns the future from a trusted mage or someone whose powers for the subject are unquestinoble that the paladin is sure that there is no way he is wrong. in the future an innocent child of now seems to be a killing machine if not killed in 2 days for example. the future reading's results are inevitable, no matter what is done, it is told to paladin that he can't change these optional futures.

No if, and, or buts. The person will become a killer.
Present this evidence to his peers and let them sort it out. If they give the Okay then go for it. If not, it isn't his problem.

Either way, he should either go Black or Grey guard, of retrain into a Cleric/fighter, then throw a DMG at the DM. Insta-fall scenarios are the sign of a bad DM.

[Kadarai]

Repentant: Feeling or showing sorrow for wrongdoing.

I'd say my scenario fits. You don't have to genuinely intend to never repeat an act to be repentant. You just have to accept that it was not Good and be sorry that you had to make that choice.

I totally agree. This is a no win situation for a paladin and the archetypical dilema in a character that embodies the extremes of both good and law. He would have to options: Let the future unfold, and then deal with it at the time of happening, or deal wit hit now. either way the consequences would fall heavy on the mind of a pure knight leading to his fall, but also the spark of goodness in him would lead him to the path of redemption. It's the peak of paladin roleplay. it is hard to do and the player willing, so a DM should not use it without thought. Maybe it's time for a paladin to question his morales and become grey guard or smth or leave knighthood all-together and start retraining as a fighter.

Whatever the case it is purely a question of roleplay and how far the player wants to explore his character. If you bring mechanics in here you will see so many abuses and "misinterpretations" of RAW that you would start to question your morals IRL... (It's ok our Cleric prepares 3 atonement spells/day, we can kill 3 child, not just one - true story, seen people arguing about it).
Seen it happen in Brilliant Gameologists... Led to a brilliant explanation of why a Half-Mummy, Half-Troll, Half-Human paragon (3/2) paladin of Pelor/Hellraiser that uses illusions to hide his abominable nature from his clergy and god to continue doing adventuring would be a legal and awesome character for some people to play.

[Sugashane]

Diplomacy is a class skill of the Paladin's for just this type of reason.

*Hides under table*

[BWR]

Considering that the future is written in stone (except for killing to prevent the thing entirely), I would say it is not an evil act. Seriously unpleasant, and possibly causing a loss of powers until a redemption quest + atonement is performed, but it would not cause a perma-fall.

Sure, we get into pre-crime territory, but if the system of detecting future evil and future crimes genuinely is infallible, then it would not be evil to act on this. It would be evil to say "I have to let these innocents die before I can kill this man, just because I want to feel better about myself"

[Starbuck_II]

Wait, kill someone or murder someone? Is the child killing evil orcs like becoming an adventurer?

Because the wording matters.

[Jeff the Green]

Considering that the future is written in stone (except for killing to prevent the thing entirely), I would say it is not an evil act. Seriously unpleasant, and possibly causing a loss of powers until a redemption quest + atonement is performed, but it would not cause a perma-fall.

There's no such thing as a perma-fall for paladins. As long as you remain LG, no act you commit puts you beyond redemption.

Exalted feats, on the other hand... :smallfurious:

[Xerxus]

Well, if you kill the child, he will never become a massmurderer, which implies that there is at least one course of action that prevents this "inevitable future". If there is one then there might be two, it's not like killing someone is especially effective when it comes to changing a given future. So the wizard is either clearly wrong if you kill the child, in which case it was wrong and you fall, or you can be reasonable and say that either there is no way to prevent the child from becoming a murderer and you can't kill him, or there is a way and you once again can't kill him because the future wouldn't be set in stone.

[jokeaccount]

Go watch the movie Minority Report and decide for yourself

[MrNobody]

Since you are a DM and searching for options for your player, i think all dependes on the character level. An high level paladin could lay a "Mark of justice" spell on the child: if he'll kill the people, it will be punished; if not, it's safe. Another options could be asking a cleric of his own deity to cast the spell for him.
He could try to contact an outsider and ask him to "guard" the soul of the child: it's a good sidequest, also.

Killing the child... no... not an option.

I think that the "standard" paladin would do everything is in his power to know the details of the omicide and be there when it happens.
And more, he can try the "qui gon jinn" way: take the child with him in his journey, trying to raise him as a right man (not necessarly opening him the way of paladinhood) and see if he can prove the prediction wrong.

[Stux]

Yup, big no no for the Paladin to kill the kid. The kid is innocent in the present, that is all that matters. When he becomes evil then the Paladin can do something about it without being dumped by his god. Clear cut and simple as that.

Question is, why is it so inevitable? Standard future model in D&D (which as DM you are by no means bound to!) is that it is a possible path, which is mutable based on actions in the present. So the Paladin could attempt to protect the child from corruption, or seek out who corrupt him.

If it truly is inevitable, then there must surely be a very powerful being who is making it so. Probably some kind of evil god. If the Paladin were to learn this he would probably go off hunting down and slaying followers of this god for the most heinous crime of corrupting the innocent to the ways of evil. Even if this doesn't stop the child becoming a murderer it would be some redemption in the eyes of the Paladin, and probably enough to satisfy that he had done everything he could.

[Kane0]

Most pallys would be devoting their energy to preenting the event than killing the child as a precaution (despite its viability as a precautionary measure). If all fails, he would try to be present to nip it in the bud when the evil emerges, not end the innocent life before the evil occurs. There might be a last second change after all, being the future and all that.

[Lord Haart]

ok here is my question. a paladin learns the future from a trusted mage or someone whose powers for the subject are unquestinoble that the paladin is sure that there is no way he is wrong. in the future an innocent child of now seems to be a killing machine if not killed in 2 days for example. the future reading's results are inevitable, no matter what is done, it is told to paladin that he can't change these optional futures.

so what do you think the paladin would do?

Assuming that prophesy is 100% true (no chance of error, no possibility of a third option, no way it was fabricated for some reason, whether by some omnipotent beings or by oracle himself) and that it is absolutely, positively impossible to change the future?

She'll go and change the future.


If her god is willing to provide her with CLW but not with any help on that task, her god is a jerk. If her god refuses to help because it would make things cosmically worse in the long run and/or because the god knows for certain that he can't change the future either, her god is omniscient jerk (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmniscientMoralityLicense). If Destiny doesn't appreciate her efforts after all and she fails in her task, she failed trying (instead of, say, surrendering and accepting murder of innocent child as the only solution, which would be un-paladinish quite enough to fail). Dare i remind you that paladins, at the very least, don't fall for crimes they didn't prevent (except if DM is really serious about screwing them), double so if they tried their hardest to? Which, by the way, is also why letting future happen, while definitely less awesome and valiant, wouldn't cause a fall either (unlike doing "what i had to do" for teh greater good, which is a patented one-way elevator — although, unlike many posters, i hold an opinion that it has a "Neutral floor" button rather than going straight to the lower layers).

[sonofzeal]

D&D morality is deontological, not consequentialist.



....in other words, good and evil are based on lists of "do"s and "don't"s, without regards to the results of those actions.

Or, idiomatically: in D&D, the ends never justify the means. It's all means all the time, baby.

This has some unusual consequences, if you carry through the logic. For instance, merely being self-serving is neutral. To be Evil, you have to positively prefer actions which break the rules. The Paladin's code tells us that lying is wrong - thus, a demon should never tell the truth. Ever. Willfully telling the truth should be outright repugnant to them, even if telling the truth leads to a darker world. They can tell the truth, but only insofar as an angel can lie, by which I mean "rarely" and "reluctantly". A lot of morally distasteful characters would simply be neutral, with evil alignment reserved for the more comic-book villains, the ones who revel in wrongdoing for its own sake, who positively enjoy slaughter and oppression as their own rewards. Gnolls are the perfect example - in MM1 it says they eat humanoids not because they're healthier or easier prey, but because they enjoy the screams more. That is, precisely, what Evil is about in D&D.

A campaign in such a setting would be interesting, to say the least. It'd be rather radically different from the more nuanced stories we're used to telling, but might have interesting avenues to explore too.

[Yahzi]

1. Yes, if he had to.

2. You should look up the old comic book Nexus.

[SillySymphonies]

Forumer Peregrine had a wonderful reply to this in a similar thread:


Here's how I see it: This kind of no-win situation should not arise. If it does, it is purely by the will of the DM. Whether you believe such a thing happens in the real world or not, in the game world, it is utterly up to the control of the DM. If the DM has not intended a no-win, but 'that's just what the story dictated', either the player or the DM (or both) has failed of imagination, at least briefly.

The game world has paladins. They are granted special powers, by a god or gods, in order to uphold Good in a Lawful way. A paladin is expected to do this, even if they believe that a less Lawful way is more expedient. They are required to have faith that the gods know what they're doing when they lay down these laws. This requires that, in this game world, the good gods do know what they're doing and the laws they lay down really do lead to the best solution. (That is, this is necessary, unless you are deliberately playing a 'dark' style of game. Making your good gods do dumb things will lead to a dark game -- you've made it so that the greatest-by-definition of Good is not enough, so sooner or later your players will have to be un-Good to be 'right'.)

This does not mean that the gods will always show up in a blaze of deus ex machina to save the day. This does mean that there is always a way out. Start with this basic assumption that the paladin's god will have a way, and let your imagination run loose for a bit. Like this:

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

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

What obstacles to such a solution can be thrown up? Dark cultists fighting back? Well, if you're forcing the paladin to be the one to do the killing, he's probably at arm's reach from the child anyway. He can get the child away, or he can kill the cultists first, or he can just take an even bigger leap of faith, trust his friends to protect him and the child, and kneel in prayer right there in the midst of battle.

Evil gods keeping the paladin's god from interfering? Now you're risking going over the line into 'dark game'. But let's look at it. The paladin has his divinely granted powers, even there in that place, so his god is not completely unable to act. Maybe his god can't act that directly, whisking the child's soul away, but the paladin should be able to suddenly find himself the conduit for just the right power to do the trick. Imagine something suitable. Maybe the child falls asleep in his arms and gently stops breathing, a smile on his face.

This is a game. If you make the paladin stab the child, everybody loses.

[Jane_Smith]

I believe their is an entire game series about just this scenario called Divine Divinity, Beyond Divinity, etc. Effectively? Wizard tells paladin that if this so and so child is not killed, an ancient evil will be reborn into the world and everyone loses. Paladin fights demons, cultists, all kinds of nasty ****, and finds a lone child on the altar, an innocent baby.

He spares the childs life.

Recap of what happened from that decision here;


So effectively the child comes of age, traps his father in another dimension sense he cant kill him, ends up bringing down an order of paladins, and bringing war to the world not once; but twice, killing hundreds of thousands, exterminating dragons, and imprisoning those that could stand in his way to drain them of their power for himself, snowballing him into one of the most powerful warriors and magicians in the cosmos. The series was discontinued after he begun the 2nd war and effectively won after reviving his lover, which in the process made him COMPLETELY IMMORTAL. The entire series is literally a giant slap to the face - every single thing you do at the end of each game is undone and spat on.

My advice? Kill the brat. And burn the corpse. It will save you, and many others, much heartache and frustration in the future!

[hamishspence]

My advice? Kill the brat. And burn the corpse. It will save you, and many others, much heartache and frustration in the future!

Says more about that game than about what the nonevil thing to do, in general, is.

[Morty]

Call me old-fashioned, but if I were running a D&D game, I would make a paladin fall if he or she willingly, consciously broke the code of conduct and/or committed an evil deed by corruption, arrogance, foolishness or greed. Not because he or she was put in a contrived lose-lose scenario.

[Blightedmarsh]

Assuming that this is an unavoidable prophesy then the trick is not to fight against it (this always backfires) but make sure that it does come to pass in the most advantageous or controlable way.

There are plenty of potential uses for a killing machine:

Executioner
Mercenary
Warlord
Adventurer
Seraphim (send him "upstairs" as it where)
Gladiator
Paladin

[Threadnaught]

How does the child become a "killing machine" anyway?

I see a number of ways which aren't the child's fault at all.
First of all, possession. If the child is possessed by some magical demon or wizard power and forced to kill, hey, it's not like killing the child beforehand would stop the evil whatever from doing this with a completely different person. (If the Paladin kill the child, they wouldn't be forced into those actions)

Second, the Paladin tries to kill them, they're forced to defend themselves and run away. Eventually circumstances make it so they have to kill. They then get real good at it. Nice job breaking it Paladin. (If the Paladin was successful... Their victim wouldn't have felt the need to take revenge.)

Third, more revenge. Someone is mistreating the child's family within the rule of the law, but the child doesn't appreciate how their family are deprived of everything they work for by someone so cruel. Pally notices the guy taking everything from them, both physical and emotionally, but doesn't do a damn thing to stop him because it's legal. Child kills the guy and swears to do the same to everyone who let the guy get away with everything for so long, usually right after the guy makes the child an orphan. Oh and the people that let the **** get away with abusing the family includes the Paladin... Nice job not fixing it Paladin. (If the Paladin helps the guy finish his genocide, there won't be anyone to take revenge.)


Support for killing the child because of possibility to turn into a murderer... Let's see...
Well, since everyone in the whole world has the potential to be a murderer, the best thing for a Paladin who has no problems with killing a potential murderer to do, would be to commit worldwide genocide. What better way to prevent all those potential murders before they ever happen?


I like Minority Report, it's a good film.

[joca4christ]

I'm with those who have said that a paladin would never willingly kill an innocent, even if it were "for the greater good". I think this would be a case where the paladin became the child's guardian. Guardian from outside evil, and evil from within. I think the paladin would do everything in his/her power to prevent the event from happening. Yes, there's a prophecy. But by golly, a paladin has faith in goodness and righteousness. While else would they become defenders of it?

Think about it! A paladin is sworn to protect the weak, right? What's weaker than a child? Would a noble paladin not attempt to protect the weak from something that would rob it of its innocence?

This would make an epic movie/story/quest!

[Talya]

I don’t believe in the no-win scenario. I like to think there always are…possibilities.

[Bakeru]

Given the "Directly kill an innocent now or indirectly kill many innocents later"-problem...
My take is this:
Killing an innocent is evil. Killing him with justification is justified evil, but it's still evil. Paladins don't do evil, no matter if justified or not. The end.

However, I still see several interesting ways how this could be played out! (No, no sarcasm-blue here, I'm serious)

Option one:
The paladin takes "the high road", refuses to kill the innocent, but (as has been mentioned) will continue to watch over him and will make sure to be there when the innocent will become an evil monster, minimising any potential casualties and damage.
Option two:
The paladin kills the innocent and falls, leading to one of three outcomes, two of which are, again, interesting:
Option two-point-one:
The paladin considers his fall as either a betrayal from or at least a sign of irrationality of his god(s) (He did what was necessary, how do they dare judge him for that?), turns from them, and becomes a lawful-evil blackguard. Could be nice if that's what the player wants.
Option two-point-two:
Not really "interesting", but the paladin could decide that he never wants to face such a choice again, retires and becomes a monk or something. Thematically appropriate, but a game over, so meh.
Option two-point-three:
The paladin accepts his fall, goes to the next cleric of his faith, states what he did and for what reason he did it, accepts any punishment (or, more likely, redemption quest) and atones. A short while later, a group calling itself the "Grey Guards" (Complete Scoundrel, page 40) is going to knock on his door and asks him to join. Their entire shtick is "Paladins who do necessary evil", after all. (Yes, "Slaughtering Innocents" is still something that's called out as a "don't do that" in the "Ex Grey Guard"-part, but it's only stated as risking your status as a Grey Guard, not as instantly voiding it - so, if you did it in the name of your faith, you could still atone without XP cost)

[Hyena]

My paladin would lock the child up for three days in a room and seal the only way out. Without anyone to murder, the child can not become a killer and the doom is avoided. He can go freely now.

[Telonius]

My preferred course of action:

Gather a bunch of Druids with Last Breath prepared. Be prepared to subdue the kid as soon as he starts running amok. For any deaths, use some spells to help bump up the fortitude save the next day. Result: prophecy is fulfilled (people actually die), harm is minimized, Everybody Lives.

[Draconi Redfir]

If this future of yours is so set in stone "this child WILL become evil and kill a bunch of folks no ifs ands or buts" then the best coruse of action is quite simply enough, to do nothing.

Think about it. you clearly stated that the future cannot be changed, that means that a kid WILL become a mass murder no matter what you do. wich means that if you kill the kid, either he's just going to come right back up as a zombie or bodack of some form and indirectly leave you as the cause of said murder, or it's going to turn out that you just killed the wrong kid, either his identicle twin or best freind who happened to be in the way when the wizard was scrying on the real kid or something.

You have your hitler scenario all over again, you can't go back and kill him to stop the seccond world war from happening because elsewise you'd just wind up with some other guy showing up at around the same time period, possibly even doing a whole lot worse then the guy you just killed.

So yeah, the best and simplist solution is to just do nothing, let the evil show itself, some people will probably die, but once you know who what where and why, THEN you stop it. you don't fall for no reason, and your set-in-stone prophicy still comes to pass as it was unavoidingly going to do so anyways. done.

[Samshiir]

If I were running, the only way I would let the Paladin keep Lawful Good is if he/she actively tried to change the future and prevent the child from becoming a killer. Perhaps by talking to the child and helping him with a problem, or intervening in a back-alley battle and preventing the death of the child's parents.

If the Paladin chose to kill the child to prevent the future killer, I would turn him/her Neutral Good, because I perceive it as a good act with a chaotic method to uphold their Lawful Code. Sure, it would take a lot for the Paladin to convice his/her superiors that it was the right thing to do, and possibly may never be accepted into Paladinhood again, but at least he/she prevented a dark future.

When I DM for a Paladin (or anyone trying to uphold an alignment, also brought up often with Jedi in my Saga Edition games), I always ask why they do the things they do, and what they think and believe when they do it. If the Paladin kills a child in cold-blood, then you obviously have a Blackguard on the spot. But if the Paladin trying to prevent the course of the future from taking an abysmally dark course, then sacrificing a splash of gray might be worth it.

I would use this as ammo for a new plot, personally. Either the Paladin is trying to prevent the future, or trying to convince his/her superiors that he/she was correct in his/her actions to prevent evil. (Miko Miyazaki?)

[CaladanMoonblad]

I don’t believe in the no-win scenario. I like to think there always are…possibilities.


I totally agree. This is a no win situation for a paladin and the archetypical dilema in a character that embodies the extremes of both good and law.


Assuming that prophesy is 100% true (no chance of error, no possibility of a third option, no way it was fabricated for some reason, whether by some omnipotent beings or by oracle himself) and that it is absolutely, positively impossible to change the future?

She'll go and change the future.



Only the above people vaguely guessed what is actually happening in the stated hypothetical...

But let me spell it out for everyone.

The OP's hypothetical is absurd, as the definition.

Premise A) The future is immutable. Premise B) What should the Paladin decide?

The first premise states that there is only one future, while the second assumes free will. These are contradictions of each other. A question of ethics requires free will as an unconditional principle; in an immutable world, ethics cannot exist. People would only be going through predetermined motions, which is inherently unjust.

Thus, one of the two premises cannot be true. Ever.

Seriously... does no one experience Cognitive Dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) anymore?

[Coidzor]

If I were running, the only way I would let the Paladin keep Lawful Good is if he/she actively tried to change the future and prevent the child from becoming a killer. Perhaps by talking to the child and helping him with a problem, or intervening in a back-alley battle and preventing the death of the child's parents.

Maybe I'm just biased, but it seems to me that anything that would be predominantly described as "child" wouldn't be able to become a killing machine without some kind of physical alteration/magical augmentation even if it were possessed of the most baleful ill will ever. It basically depends upon some kind of transformation of some sort like lycanthropy or the variants of supernatural possession that involve changing the host's corporeal form into something more fearsome and also more mindless/alien/not the child except in a quasi-real way.

Directly interacting with the child seems fruitless except for the potential to gather clues about what connection it has to whatever transformation is going to occur, as the child's state of mind is tangential unless the child is already so possessed of an ill will that the child is evil, which makes killing the child a little less of a morally grey area as it is not a true innocent.


Seriously... does no one experience Cognitive Dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) anymore?

Screwy variants of Fate are just sort of accepted as a potential genre convention at times, mostly. That, and most of us are trying to think like Paladins. Also coloring things is the idea of the jerkass DM and retconning whatever course of action one takes to be the wrong one.

[mangosta71]

Yes, a paladin would kill an innocent child. The more innocent, the better.

We're talking about a paladin of slaughter here, right?

[Amnestic]

The series was discontinued after he begun the 2nd war and effectively won after reviving his lover


It may interest you to know that another Divinity game was recently successfully Kickstarted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity:_Original_Sin) It is, however, apparently a prequel to Divine Divinity, so the story won't be continued from where it left off.

[Zero grim]

Okay so we have a wizard apparently powerful enough to predict the future but weak enough that he trusts a paladin to stop it, all right so lets skip right past "how does the paladin know the wizard is right" and lets say the wizard has some way of proving his isn't a demon in disguise.

Would the paladin kill the child, of course not unlace as mentioned were talking about paladins of slaughter.

So We have two paladins, a paladin that follows a good and a paladin that doesn't (remember nowhere in the paladin code does it say paladins have to be religious)

The religious paladin can simply take the kid to the largest church that's within 2 days travel and sit him in the main hall, if he doesn't turn into a murder where better a place for him to try killing people then in a church of clerics and adepts.

The None religious paladin can just sit the kid in a room with him that only has one exit, talk with him for 2 days and try and see if he can figure out why the kid would go on a murderous rampage (since nothing can change it the paladin cant have the rampage start early either), tell guards outside the room to kill the kid if he leaves without the paladin, then when the kid goes psycho the paladin can fight to defend himself (the only living thing nearby) killing in self defence is only a neutral act so it wouldn't make a paladin fall, if he fails to kill the child and dies himself then the guards can kill the child as he tries to leave, and the paladin can either be brought back to life or just enjoy being on the lawful good plane forever more, win-win.

[Scow2]

this is not from a game. I am the DM and it is first time someone plays a paladin in our party. my paladin is trying to understand his boundries and asks these kind of questions sometimes. and the tricky part here is the inevitability of the future, he is informed that he will be a murderer (meaning that he will success killing one person at least) and this future can't be changed unless the child is killed in 2 days. We talked much about it yesterday and I wanted to hear the other people's opinions.

This situation is impossible. Not as in there's no right answer, but in that it's impossible for it to come about. There are always alternate paths to take.

[Deophaun]

If this future of yours is so set in stone "this child WILL become evil and kill a bunch of folks no ifs ands or buts" then the best coruse of action is quite simply enough, to do nothing.

Except, the future is explicitly stated as being mutable: kill the kid, change the future. My paladin would figure that the person giving this prophecy was lying. Someone would get hit with a smite, and it wouldn't be the kid.

[Dr.Epic]

No. Killing the innocent is evil (or at least nongood) even if for good reasons. Moving on...

[Talya]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N-H1lz3OJ4

[Scow2]

My paladin would lock the child up for three days in a room and seal the only way out. Without anyone to murder, the child can not become a killer and the doom is avoided. He can go freely now.The prophesy says that if he is not killed within two days he will become a mass murderer. Not that he will become a mass murderer in two days. Lock him up for 3 days, kid turns to evil because of the callousness of "Good", and goes on a killing spree.

The solution if the kid's problem is Possession is "Wait for Possession, Prot From Evil the kid, then suck the (suppressed) possessor out and destroy it. Then take the kid fishing."

[Barstro]

I see a lot of different opinions based on opposing views of "time" and "innocent".

Same scenario, differently written.
Evil spawn of an evil god goes on a killing spree when he turns fifteen for the next forty years. Wipes out 80% of all towns and villages within 500 leagues. Cities are the only things with population densities enough to even have 40% survive. The champion of the people comes and fights this man to almost death by use of a magical weapon the gods of good just created (took 15 years). Through some talisman, the evil spawn is turned to pure energy and will most likely come back centuries in the future. That same talisman, for whatever reason, transports the champion back in time to the birth of the child. The champion is unable to act on his own, but he can convey the story of what will happen; The infant will begin its killing spree in fifteen years, but will become invulnerable to any harm in two days.

Or;

Kill an innocent child within two days.

Is the child really innocent? Can he be prevented from becoming a killer?

[Darius Kane]

Is this a trick question?

[Pickford]

Repentant: Feeling or showing sorrow for wrongdoing.

I'd say my scenario fits. You don't have to genuinely intend to never repeat an act to be repentant. You just have to accept that it was not Good and be sorry that you had to make that choice.

If you intend to redo it, you don't feel genuine sorrow. Hence, atonement never works on a subject who would do the same thing again.

edit: Darius I see it as a Rorschach test of the player.

[zlefin]

the correct course of action in such a situation is to throw a book at the dm.
It's not a plausible scenario; as with most fixed prophecy point issues; the only way such a thing can happen is by endless dm fiat to stop every countermeasure that can be put up; given how many options there are in d&d, and how powerful those options are.

[Coidzor]

I see a lot of different opinions based on opposing views of "time" and "innocent".

Same scenario, differently written.
Evil spawn of an evil god goes on a killing spree when he turns fifteen for the next forty years. Wipes out 80% of all towns and villages within 500 leagues. Cities are the only things with population densities enough to even have 40% survive. The champion of the people comes and fights this man to almost death by use of a magical weapon the gods of good just created (took 15 years). Through some talisman, the evil spawn is turned to pure energy and will most likely come back centuries in the future. That same talisman, for whatever reason, transports the champion back in time to the birth of the child. The champion is unable to act on his own, but he can convey the story of what will happen; The infant will begin its killing spree in fifteen years, but will become invulnerable to any harm in two days.

Or;

Kill an innocent child within two days.

Is the child really innocent? Can he be prevented from becoming a killer?

Either A. it's like the Bhaalspawn from Baldur's Gate and has a choice in the matter and can be raised to have a different fate or B. it's not actually a person in any real sense, being nothing but an evil spawn of evil that merely looks like a people.

Conveniently 15 years is ample time to find out if there's a third option as well as include some way of altering the time loop if it comes to that.

[Talya]

the correct course of action in such a situation is to throw a book at the dm.
It's not a plausible scenario; as with most fixed prophecy point issues; the only way such a thing can happen is by endless dm fiat to stop every countermeasure that can be put up; given how many options there are in d&d, and how powerful those options are.

"Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?"

I prefer prophecies where the reaction to the prophecies themselves are what cause the prophesied result.

[zlefin]

while those are amusing; again it requires a great deal of contrivance and dm fiat to make such things happen; it also tends to require a lower power level than d&d is capable of.

Prophecies like that are only fun if the outcome is a plausible result of their attempts to stop it; which requires strict narrative control and possible idiot balls. It's easy in d&d to find other options wherein it leading to the prophesied outcome is not plausible without 100% dm fiat.

[Hecuba]

Decision Chart


Ethics - Is morality Dentological or Consequential?

Dentological - Default presented in most D&D literature (the morality of an action is inherent to the action and does not changed based on the outcome/intended outcome):

Go to 2
Consequential (the morality of an outcome is measured by its outccome and/or intended outcome)

STOP: Presuming no more equitable means can be found in an acceptable time frame, the ends can justify the means.

Agency - Is the subject's evil a function of their choices or their nature?

Do they have free will (construct)?
Do they have the capacity to be good (Outsider)?
Is the act evil act under question voluntary? (Opposed to an autonomic function inherent to their existence, like a beating heart is to a human being) (Abomination)?

No

STOP: The subject isn't an innocent child, though it may appear to be one. Not all monsters are hideous.
It may be possible to find a more equitable means to resolve the issue, but doing so may require fundamentally altering what they are.
Yes

STOP: Killing a sentient being for something they have not yet done is not just or good.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

After all, everyone has a price they will willingly accept-- even for that which they hope never to sell.:sabine:

[Snails]

My paladin does not believe assertions of inevitability from anyone but his own personal god directly providing this information. The fact that this prophecy might be true is strong reason to investigate whether the child is actually innocent. If not innocent, then the child can be executed. If innocent, then there is a terrible corrupting evil that needs to be dealt with, AND there might be a future non-innocent child that needs killing...soon.

Of course, my god can tell me what I need to do instead. But She has already informed me to trust in the power of Good in innocent children, and that Evil often underestimates this strength.

I am sure that other members of the party may have different opinions. Some will be quite similar, as my paladin is proud of his choice of companions.

[Razgriez]

First off, let's get the main question out of the way: As several others said. Even if a prophecy says "This will happen, no matter what you try to do" the fact remains the same. Until it happens, the Child is innocent, no matter how much "Fate" deems that child will commit a terrible act in the future. You kill the child until such a fate happens, you're boarding the express bullet train to Ex-Paladinville, with complimentary Alignment shift (Strong Chaotic, as you choose to not follow your code, and I'd dare say at least one shift down to Neutral, or evil unless your new Featless fighter is actually seeks redemption.

Book of Exalted Deeds shuts down this idea that it's ok, stating that willing to commit evil acts because it's "better for fewer to suffer, than the many" is a concession to evil. As much as it sucks for the paladin to have to face it, they would have to do everything in their power to try and help the child stay innocent, and would have to wait for the evil act to happen before killing becomes a viable option without risk of falling

Also, to correct an argument I saw being made earlier, that it would be "Ok" to do so, because all a Paladin would supposedly have to do, is just get an Atonement spell. Allow me to set out the facts as has been written out in the rule books. The idea that a Paladin can just willfully commit an evil act, and just find the nearest priest of their faith for an atonement and act like it was no big deal, is absolutely wrong.

Book of Exalted Deeds p.20 Sins and Atonement notes the following: A character who has committed an evil act cannot simply obtain an atonement spell and carry on as though nothing happened. They must make amends for their actions. One must also display a willingness to try harder to avoid such actions, avoiding evil at all cost. In many cases, they must also perform an act of penance, often unrelated to those affected by the evil act that caused on to fall, to prove their commitment good

Then and only then, does the Atonement spell have it's proper effect. The spell also makes note of many of these same issue, not to mention, that since it was a willfully committed act, and not one out of unknowing knowledge or magical compulsion, the cleric would have to pay the XP cost to intercede on behalf of the Paladin.

[The Trickster]

I basically asked this question in another thread. D&D doesn't really like to ask these questions because a good DM won't put a Paladin in a situation where they will fall regardless of his/her actions. In this scenerio, the paladin would not kill the child, but perhaps watch over the child, with hopes of;

1) Preventing the child from turning evil
2) Rehabilitation, if the child turns evil, or
3) Deal with the evil if there is no hope (after the child has grown up).

[Myrddin0001]

A LG Pally would not kill the child until he has commited the crimes because, as of the present, he has commited no evil acts. Now a Grey Guard on the other hand surely would. I've played a Grey Guard before and just such a situation arose. A GG holds to what is right in the eyes of the greater good while a core Pally does what is wholely "good" and "just" even when those things conflict with future events and lives. Take Batman vs Superman. Both are LG but Batman will punch evil in the face especially before it happens if he can help it. Superman is the epitomy of Lawful Stupid and only punishes those that have commited the greatest wrong.

[hamishspence]

This has some unusual consequences, if you carry through the logic. For instance, merely being self-serving is neutral. To be Evil, you have to positively prefer actions which break the rules. The Paladin's code tells us that lying is wrong - thus, a demon should never tell the truth. Ever. Willfully telling the truth should be outright repugnant to them, even if telling the truth leads to a darker world. They can tell the truth, but only insofar as an angel can lie, by which I mean "rarely" and "reluctantly". A lot of morally distasteful characters would simply be neutral, with evil alignment reserved for the more comic-book villains, the ones who revel in wrongdoing for its own sake, who positively enjoy slaughter and oppression as their own rewards.

Champions of Ruin takes a rather different tack. While there might exist evildoers who "revel in wrongdoing for its own sake" and find Good acts "outright repugnant" - this is only one Evil Archetype, and there are many others.

The important part is that the being is doing Evil deeds, not that they "prefer" them.

It's also worth noting that lying is "not automatically evil" according to BoVD.

So telling the truth may not be "automatically good". Certainly not a Fall-worthy act for a Paladin of Tyranny, or a Paladin of Slaughter.

[Snails]

Another way to look at it: Does the ends justify the means?

I think it is pretty obvious what the proper paladin response would be.

A paladin should never ever fall for saying N-O.

How a paladin might squeak through by saying yes can be very interesting, but it requires a good degree of trust between DM and player.

[hamishspence]

"Whether or not good ends justify evil means- they cannot make those means less evil" - so to speak.

[Blightedmarsh]

The third option would be to delay or contain the problem.

Contingent maze spell would be one option.
Sending the child to ravenloft or some other place of no return.
Some kind of pleasant lotus eater prison (possibly via a genesis spell)
Slow down time for the child. By the time he is old enough to be a problem it is highly likely that their will be no humaniods left for him to menace.

[Hyena]

Sending the child to ravenloft or some other place of no return.
Now-now, let's not jump at the conclusions. Nobody deserves to be put into Ravenloft, especially innocent child.

[Yogibear41]

IMO nothing is set in stone regardless of what some fancy wizards divinations have to say, the paladin should not kill the child(if he is truly an innocent child, if your wizard friend or whatever is powerful enough to KNOW the future with 100% accuracy he should be able to tell you if the child is already evil, or knows why the child would become evil) and should try to prevent the child from going down the path of evil.

[Janus]

One thought I've had while reading this is what's the child going to do through his life? Are we talking a fallen hero turned murderer? What will happen to the people the hero would have helped had he been alive?


Both are LG but Batman will punch evil in the face especially before it happens if he can help it. Superman is the epitomy of Lawful Stupid and only punishes those that have commited the greatest wrong.You and I have totally different views of Batman and Superman. Not to mention I'm not a fan of the implication that only punishing people who've actually done something evil is somehow Lawful Stupid.

[Toofey]

Should a Paladin be willing to fall to save lives?

[Janus]

Should a Paladin be willing to fall to save lives?
I'm in the "no" camp on that. It's probably due to my religious beliefs, but I just can't buy the "do evil for the greater good" thing. I don't think that's ever worth it, and I'd rather not play with a DM who forces that kind of thing.

Paladin codes should be challenging things to uphold at times, but ultimately they need to be in place not just for the protection of others, but the paladins that follow them.

[olentu]

Should a Paladin be willing to fall to save lives?

That depends on whether alignment is a straightjacket.

[Seharvepernfan]

so what do you think the paladin would do?


Not much. His hands are tied.

If, as you say, there is literally nothing he can do, his choices are only:

1. kill the kid
2. don't kill the kid

Then he'll take option #2, but things are virtually never that clear-cut.

Bottom line; it doesn't matter what somebody thinks will or won't happen in the future, a paladin cannot commit an evil act. They cannot take a "the ends justify the means" stance.

[Geddoe]

A LG Pally would not kill the child until he has commited the crimes because, as of the present, he has commited no evil acts. Now a Grey Guard on the other hand surely would. I've played a Grey Guard before and just such a situation arose. A GG holds to what is right in the eyes of the greater good while a core Pally does what is wholely "good" and "just" even when those things conflict with future events and lives. Take Batman vs Superman. Both are LG but Batman will punch evil in the face especially before it happens if he can help it. Superman is the epitomy of Lawful Stupid and only punishes those that have commited the greatest wrong.

If you really think Batman would take the kid out while the kid is innocent instead of Taking a Third Option, then you don't know Batman.

Any paladin that doesn't try to seek a third option(and if it really is unchangeable, being the first victim to try to stop the kid) is not worthy of the title.

[Shadowknight12]

Actually, from a purely logical standpoint, there is no actual reason to kill the child.

Time can only work in one of two ways: Either it's deterministic, or it isn't.

If time is deterministic, that child is immortal and invulnerable. The seer saw him doing those horrible things in the future, which means that it is an event that must happen and cannot be changed. Nobody that the seer saw dying can be saved. Nothing can be done about it. There is no decision to make.

If time is not deterministic (and the outcome that the seer saw can be changed), then there is no need to outright kill the child either, since we can presumably do something to prevent him from turning him into what the seer saw. Sure, killing him would be the easiest and safest way, but it's most certainly not the only one.

Whether it's right or not to kill the child depends on the DM running the whole thing. Some might say that letting the child live is gambling with the lives of thousands of innocents, while others might say that killing an innocent child is an evil act no matter the reasons.

The only thing we can assure, using cold hard logic, is that there is never a scenario where the paladin must kill the child.

[Osiris]

My answer would be that either
1 the paladin feels sorry for the child, and another party member (a Chaotic Neutral party member) just kills the child
or
2 as somebody else said, the paladin waits (maybe in the shadows) until the child commits evil, then the paladin yells, "SMITE EVIL :smallfurious: " and kills the child.

Who is this child, is he some tainted evil thing or what? This is a hard question, and I have never been a paladin before- maybe I ought to try one :smallsmile:

[dascarletm]

If you really think Batman would take the kid out while the kid is innocent instead of Taking a Third Option, then you don't know Batman.

Kind of depends on where we are in the story/which story arch of batman we are talking about, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/batman-alignment.jpg

[BoutsofInsanity]

This is the answer to your question

Does the Paladin deem it worth the fall to kill the child? Paladin's should never fall unless the Player chooses too. It should end up being an epic choice (If your playing with smart people).

Using your example...
If the Paladin knows that the child will kill hundreds of people, and there is nothing the Paladin can do to stop it. He has to ask himself, is he willing to fall to save those people. If he isn't that is the choice he makes, if he is, then he has a new and interesting back story. Look at Jamie Lannister and his betrayal. Would he rather be branded a traitor, or let the mad king murder everyone?

[TuggyNE]

Does the Paladin deem it worth the fall to kill the child?

For what it's worth, BoED* says that this is never a correct line of reasoning; falling is not an appropriate sacrifice under any circumstances possible, because it betrays the whole point of trying to do Good.

*I think; maybe it's BoVD, but that seems unlikely.

[joca4christ]

This whole thread brings to mind the TV series Heroes, particularly Season One. Won't go into huge detail, but essentially the characters found out that New York would be destroyed in the very near future (information given via time travel and visions). When it became fairly obvious who would be the cause of the destruction (a relatively innocent character) the characters sought a way around the event without executing the cause. Why? 'Cause THAT is what HEROES do! And what class symbolizes heroics more purely than the classic paladin?

[Pickford]

Champions of Ruin takes a rather different tack. While there might exist evildoers who "revel in wrongdoing for its own sake" and find Good acts "outright repugnant" - this is only one Evil Archetype, and there are many others.

The important part is that the being is doing Evil deeds, not that they "prefer" them.

It's also worth noting that lying is "not automatically evil" according to BoVD.

So telling the truth may not be "automatically good". Certainly not a Fall-worthy act for a Paladin of Tyranny, or a Paladin of Slaughter.

Lying falls under dishonorable actions. Honor has no actual bearing on the Good/Evil axis.

[Snails]

Should a Paladin be willing to fall to save lives?

"Should"? Of course not.

It is really just an ends justifies the means scenario. There is nothing particularly tricky here, and the Paladin exists to see right through this kind of false choice.

It is not a trap for any decently roleplayed Paladin. It might be a trap for everyone else in the party.

Of course, a DM is free to explore how a universe where the ends justifies the means is baked into the moral metaphysics could tick, but that is a sufficiently exotic houserule that it is the DM's responsibility to clarify how this would work, not for the player to worry over.

I would note that this scenario is not that different from Blackwing's argument that Familicide might be a positive thing overall. To V's credit, s/he outright rejects this line of reasoning because s/he does not have the right to make that kind of judgement, regardless of how the body count might happen to tally.

The OP is offering a False Choice, where body count choices are allegedly clear. As Shadowknight12 quite clearly shows us, accepting this kind of evidence at face value is preposterous.

I would further add that the most common theme in the tradition of prophecy driven tales is that mortals should not go around trying to control their destiny by presuming they can interpret prophecy at all. If anything, it is acting upon the obvious interpretation of the prophecy which precipitates the feared result.

Your son will kill his father and marry his mother? Better send him off so he will not recognize his own father or mother.

Cannot be killed by the hand of man? No worry there, Mr. Witch King.

The son of those who defied you and born in September, you will mark him as your equal, and only one may live? Going right after that baby when its mother is the smartest witch of her generation cannot go wrong.

The innocent child must be killed or great evil will be unleashed upon the world? Hmmm...is this supposed to be hard?

[Jeff the Green]

For what it's worth, BoED* says that this is never a correct line of reasoning; falling is not an appropriate sacrifice under any circumstances possible, because it betrays the whole point of trying to do Good.

*I think; maybe it's BoVD, but that seems unlikely.

True, but there's nothing saying there's nothing saying a paladin has to have that sort of single-minded devotion to metaphysical Good. In fact, there's an entire prestige class (Grey Guard) devoted to doing necessary evil and then atoning for it.

[Fyermind]

My paladin would kill the kid then, but not before an adventure through the far realms to make sure he really had to....

[Frosty]

The question is: Is there free will?

If no, then it really doesn't matter as what you choose has is immaterial.

If yes, then choose to try to alter the outcome. The paladin cannot be faulted for failing in the attempt, if he or she fails.

[Osiris]

Wait, maybe the wizard uses a Resilient Sphere to "carry" the child into a custom Adamantite cell, and once the kid pops out, Paladin Man sees its red eyes- the prophecy is coming true! Paladin Man Smites the kid, end of match. MAYBE. If the paladin won't act until the kid does evil, some Chaotic Neutral Half-orc barbarian in the paladin's party would have already killed it. perhaps

[KnightOfV]

The paladin code is sacred, no paladin should ever ever ever willingly take an action to fall, especially for something like 'the greater good.'

Like Batman, who refuses to kill the Joker, even will go out of his way to save evil criminals despite knowing they will likely one day hurt more people. (Like in the Dark Knight Movie, or Arkham City video game) Codes are codes for a reason.

If it means more pain later... the paladin can't control that. He has to follow his code. That's why it is there- to keep him from doing something evil. If I were your paladin, I would try to find way to raise/ shelter/ protect the child from others that would kill it due to the prophesy. That is the burden of being a paladin.

[Kaeso]

Would a Paladin kill an innocent ch-

No


What about an innocent ad-

No


B-but!

No

[Pickford]

For what it's worth, BoED* says that this is never a correct line of reasoning; falling is not an appropriate sacrifice under any circumstances possible, because it betrays the whole point of trying to do Good.

*I think; maybe it's BoVD, but that seems unlikely.

It's both:

BoVD pg 6 Intent and Context, it's lengthy so I'll paraphrase:
Paladin climbing hill to escape owlbears triggers rockslide killing bears and continuing down the hill to crush a hut full of commoners. Is he evil? No, but he might still feel guilt about it.
What if his friend said "Don't do it, you might trigger the rockslide that will crush the hut!"? IF he continues to climb to save himself, probably evil (reckless endangerment/far too overconfident).
If paladin clearly sees danger of act, but climbs up anyway to save self, absolutely evil act. Sacrificing self for others is a good act.

BoED pg. 9 The Straight and Narrow, lengthy section but this portion is relevant, to the discussion so paraphrased:
Good characters may view a situation where evil is required to avert catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom
"I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity." This is misguided, it tilts the balance of good and evil (universally) in evils favor and is an unconscionable concession to evil.

So yeah, murdering the kid is an evil act and the paladin can't do it and remain a paladin. Actually murder itself is essentially always evil (even murdering an evil creature). Add to that, if the enemy begs mercy is must be granted, even if that creature has betrayed the paladins trust repeatedly (no killing the helpless if they give up in combat).

I saw the grey guard mentioned earlier, that won't help, grey guard protects against dishonorable acts made in the cause of righteousness. For example, lying/cheating, but others (murdering innocents) are still not allowed and a grey guard who does them is permanently (no atonement possible) deprived of both paladin and grey guard class abilities.

[angry_bear]

Wait, maybe the wizard uses a Resilient Sphere to "carry" the child into a custom Adamantite cell, and once the kid pops out, Paladin Man sees its red eyes- the prophecy is coming true! Paladin Man Smites the kid, end of match. MAYBE. If the paladin won't act until the kid does evil, some Chaotic Neutral Half-orc barbarian in the paladin's party would have already killed it. perhaps

It's not just that a Paladin won't kill an innocent child, he won't let anyone do something that blatantly evil. And no matter what, the child is still innocent until he commits the future crimes.

At the very worst, what the Paladin might do is place a Mark of Justice on him. And even then, that's iffy since I'm pretty sure taking away someone's free will based on a theory he's going to commit evil, is at best, an act of neutrality. The child isn't Belkar, who's already done some heinous stuff but is needed to save the world; he's a child who the Paladin has been told is going to become evil one day.

Anyone who disagrees with that concept, I'm sorry but, in my opinion should not be playing a Paladin... Unless he's playing it specifically because he wants to go Black Guard down the line, then a Paladin doesn't compromise. The Paladin is the most restrictive class as far as alignment goes. But, it's supposed to be. A Paladin is designed to be the symbol of what's right, a champion of good. There are, in my opinion, no compromises in that.

Also, this is why I typically play Druids or Wizards instead. lol

[Andezzar]

Has no one already remarked that the scenario is inherently flawed?

If the prophesy were 100% accurate, killing the child would not work/prevent it from becoming the killing machine. If killing the child now would prevent the child from becoming a mass murderer, the prophesy/divination/divine insight/whatever could not be 100% accurate.

Basically this is a problem of destiny vs. free will. Both cannot exist at the same time. If the actions of a person are already set by destiny, there can be no free will and vice versa. Additionally destiny makes the whole alignment debate moot because there is no choice.

If you are simply talking about a preemptive strike on the assumption that this might be the lesser of two evils, the answer is that a paladin could not do it without falling.

[Bakeru]

If the prophesy were 100% accurate, killing the child would not work/prevent it from becoming the killing machine. If killing the child now would prevent the child from becoming a mass murderer, the prophesy/divination/divine insight/whatever could not be 100% accurate.No.
The divination is "The child will become a mass murderer unless he's killed within two days".
The divination includes a specific escape route which is still part of the prophecy.
The prophecy is only wrong if either a) the child is killed, but becomes a mass murderer anyway, or b) the child isn't killed, but doesn't become a mass murderer.


Basically this is a problem of destiny vs. free will. Both cannot exist at the same time. If the actions of a person are already set by destiny, there can be no free will and vice versa. Additionally destiny makes the whole alignment debate moot because there is no choice.You're ignoring the option of "multiple choice destiny". Some specific actions can produce specific changes. You can make choices, but only at specific points, and they lock you into specific paths. Basically, "Computer Game with multiple endings"-destiny.
Sure, it's not the most reasonable way of thinking, but it's a possibility, and we're talking about a world with gods and magic.

[Andezzar]

No.
The divination is "The child will become a mass murderer unless he's killed within two days".
The divination includes a specific escape route which is still part of the prophecy.
The prophecy is only wrong if either a) the child is killed, but becomes a mass murderer anyway, or b) the child isn't killed, but doesn't become a mass murderer.If the "unless he's killed within two days" is part of the prophesy, this situation is terribly contrived situation.


You're ignoring the option of "multiple choice destiny". Some specific actions can produce specific changes. You can make choices, but only at specific points, and they lock you into specific paths. Basically, "Computer Game with multiple endings"-destiny.
Sure, it's not the most reasonable way of thinking, but it's a possibility, and we're talking about a world with gods and magic.The problem is that a choice at any point will invalidate a lot of future "destinies". And thus make the concept of destiny invalid. If there is more than one possible future, the future cannot be predestined.

[Blightedmarsh]

Say this paladin derives his power and owes his fealty to a god. Couldn't he simply ask his god what is the right choice/free pass. I mean in the end he is not answerable to an objective morality system but to his divine patron; If gods OK with it then it must be the right thing to do whatever it is. I mean a god is hardly going to turn round and strip a paladin of his powers for something he was expressly ordered or permitted to do.

[hamishspence]

It is possible that a god may not have any control over whether a paladin falls or not, even if that paladin is a paladin "of" that god.

Would fit with the notion of a LN god ordering a paladin to do something evil, and the paladin refusing. In at least one novel (Tymora's Luck), a NG god (Lathander) is disobeyed by his paladin because she feels he is doing something evil.

[Bakeru]

The problem is that a choice at any point will invalidate a lot of future "destinies". And thus make the concept of destiny invalid. If there is more than one possible future, the future cannot be predestined.It can be predestined up until the next "fork", and the possible options at each fork could be limited, making an complete "road map" of destiny comparatively simple. (Simplicity depending on how far into the future you're seeing, how frequent "forks" are, how many options each "fork" has, if it's possible for routes to re-join later and so on...)

Seriously, look at computer RPGs like Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age. There are definitely choices, but the amount of possible endings is limited, because there are only sometimes true choices, and only between developer-selected (or, for the sake of this example, predestined) options.


If the "unless he's killed within two days" is part of the prophesy, this situation is terribly contrived situation.I don't deny this. However, "this would never actually happen" isn't really an answer to the question.

[Andezzar]

It can be predestined up until the next "fork", and the possible options at each fork could be limited, making an complete "road map" of destiny comparatively simple. (Simplicity depending on how far into the future you're seeing, how frequent "forks" are, how many options each "fork" has, if it's possible for routes to re-join later and so on...)If you cannot predict beyond a fork this not really destiny but simply a case of cause and effect.

[Bakeru]

If you cannot predict beyond a fork this not really destiny but simply a case of cause and effect.You can predict "Up until that fork, this will definitely happen. At that fork, either A or B will happen, depending on the choice person X makes. If A happens, then later, either C or D will happen, depending on a choice made by person Y, or if B happens, either E or F will follow, depending on a choice made by person Z"

You can't know what exactly will happen, but you can know every possible future and which choices will lead up to it.

[Frosty]

The paladin code is sacred, no paladin should ever ever ever willingly take an action to fall

Codes are codes for a reason.

If it means more pain later [for others]... the paladin can't control that. He has to follow his code. That's why it is there- to keep him from doing something evil.
I've quoted the relevant parts. So what I'm basically getting out of this is that the paladin isn't put on the earth to bring about the most Good of even to save the most people from evil. His main job (and only consideration when there is ambiguity) is to never do Evil acts himself. The code is there is prevent HIM from doing evil, not to prevent evil from happening to the world. Is that your interpretation?

[Andezzar]

You can predict "Up until that fork, this will definitely happen. At that fork, either A or B will happen, depending on the choice person X makes. If A happens, then later, either C or D will happen, depending on a choice made by person Y, or if B happens, either E or F will follow, depending on a choice made by person Z"

You can't know what exactly will happen, but you can know every possible future and which choices will lead up to it.That is not destiny, just guess work and does not fit with the claimed 100% accuracy of the OP.

[Bakeru]

That is not destiny, just guess work and does not fit with the claimed 100% accuracy of the OP.It does have 100% accuracy if the next fork (or, at least, the next fork that has any relevant interaction with this problem - other forks could have kingdoms raised and/or toppled without changing the future of the child) is "The child lives or dies", the choice is made by the paladin, and the possible results are "child becomes a mass murderer" or "child is dead".

[Frosty]

Obey the letter of the prophesy? :smallwink: "Child, I will slay you now, but we have Ms. Cleric McResurrection here who'd be happy to have you back in like an hour, tops. Now you won't become a mass murderer and all you'll have is 2 Con drain which we can probably deal with using Greater Restoration or something."

[Bakeru]

"[...] and all you'll have is 2 Con drain which we can probably deal with using Greater Restoration or something."Nope, nothing can restore level loss or constitution drain through death.

...still, better than (permanently) dying, and who knows, maybe Ms. Cleric's middle name is "True".

[Nerd-o-rama]

If/Then or conditional Prophecies are still a form of predestination. Saying "If A happens, B will absolutely follow" is a staple of pulp writing, if not actual mythology. In fact, it's the only way I'd personally run a prophecy as a GM as it gives the possibility of player action preventing the predestined event to occur, thus a motivation to act. It's certainly feasible to have a divination dependent upon a condition that's still reliable, which is the important fact in this case.

Now, as for the Paladin's actual actions, a Paladin would not murder an innocent person. Regardless of how reliable or 100% guaranteed a prophecy is, in-universe or out-of-universe, the only way I see a Paladin handling it and not falling is doing his absolute utmost to avert the Prophecy, and if he fails at that - which he probably will if every other attempt to avert prophecy or take a third option in literature are any indication - execute justice after the person has committed the crime. There are well more than 48 hours' worth of alternative options any Paladin worthy of the name would attempt before the deadline, many of which have been detailed already in this thread.

What it comes down to is that part of being a Paladin is never doing the Evil thing even when it's logical, expedient, or even demonstrably for the Greater Good. You always, always, always either search for another way, die trying, or stop being a Paladin. Stupid Good? Maybe. But it's the soul of the Code and the class.

[Bakeru]

What it comes down to is that part of being a Paladin is never doing the Evil thing even when it's logical, expedient, or even demonstrably for the Greater Good. You always, always, always either search for another way, die trying, or stop being a Paladin. Stupid Good? Maybe. But it's the soul of the Code and the class.I basically agree with this, but I need to note that there's also the option for a paladin to "accept the necessity", take the fall, and then turn either blackguard (if continuing to fall further) or Grey Guard (if accepting it as a grim necessity).

"True" Paladins never do evil, even justified or necessary evil, or they fall.
Justified and necessary Evil is the job of the Grey Guards, who're still Lawful Good, but... well, not shining beacons of righteousness.

[Pickford]

It is possible that a god may not have any control over whether a paladin falls or not, even if that paladin is a paladin "of" that god.

Would fit with the notion of a LN god ordering a paladin to do something evil, and the paladin refusing. In at least one novel (Tymora's Luck), a NG god (Lathander) is disobeyed by his paladin because she feels he is doing something evil.

They don't, that's RAW. A paladin falls for violating their code, not for anything a deity does or doesn't like/want/say.

[Starbuck_II]

They don't, that's RAW. A paladin falls for violating their code, not for anything a deity does or doesn't like/want/say.

Maybe he meant in FR, there gods have more influence (to whether you can raise from spells from the dead, etc)

[Andezzar]

Any If-Then statement is not destiny (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destiny), because for something to happen a condition must be met. Unless there is no option of not meeting that condition, whatever is supposed to happen is not predetermined.

If the condition is always met it is not really an If-Then statement but simply a list of two things that will happen.

I'm not aware that the gods of Faerun have any more say in whether a paladin falls than other deities. I would like to knwo though if the rules say so.

[Bakeru]

Any If-Then statement is not destiny (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destiny), because for something to happen a condition must be met. Unless there is no option of not meeting that condition, whatever is supposed to happen is not predetermined....call it what you will, a setting where "if-then" predictions can be 100% accurate while still allowing for free will is possible without logical flaws, and it's conceivable that in such a setting, a paladin might be met with the given problem and thus would have to make a choice. If we're calling it "destiny" or not isn't important.

[malkuth]

In real life, even if humans could get messages from the future, it would have no meaning as it could be from any of the possible futures and wouldn't mean anything. But this is a fantasy game where existences can see the future and they are sure to come if not tried to be changed by someone, or need a difference in the chain of events after the prophecy. So I don't think that the approach of "probability of the situation is possible to exist or not" is a good idea to discuss as it is a fantsy world.

This is not from a game, but a question my paladin asked me. I wouldn't use a situation like this in my scenario as long as he doesn't ask for it for deep desperation roleplay opportunity.

[dascarletm]

I've quoted the relevant parts. So what I'm basically getting out of this is that the paladin isn't put on the earth to bring about the most Good of even to save the most people from evil. His main job (and only consideration when there is ambiguity) is to never do Evil acts himself. The code is there is prevent HIM from doing evil, not to prevent evil from happening to the world. Is that your interpretation?

I see it as more of a guide to make the paladin say, "I will save the princess AND the villagers you vile arch enemy!" It forces them to look outside of damned if you do damned if you don't situations.

Without the code, you see this situation and go, "Oh no what must I choose?" While a paladin has been trained to say, "No, I will not play by your rules. My code has shown me that there can be no compromise when it comes to evil." He/she then goes and turns the kid good while flipping the notion of compromising to evil off.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Any If-Then statement is not destiny (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destiny), because for something to happen a condition must be met. Unless there is no option of not meeting that condition, whatever is supposed to happen is not predetermined.

As much as I feel like a moron for attempting to argue semantics on the internet, whether something fits the dictionary definition of "destiny" isn't relevant in this case. Let me just point to a conditional prophecy in literature as an example of what I mean:

In Shakespeare's MacBeth (I can say it because I'm not in a theater), part of a prophecy foretells that Macbeth will be safe until Great Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane Hill, establishing the logical precondition that MacBeth's plans will be defeated If and Only If the forest somehow moves to the castle. In the story, MacBeth wrongly interprets the impossible-sounding condition as being equivalent to "forever", but it is in fact just that - a condition. MacBeth is defeated when (and only when) his enemies chop down most of the forest and carry it to his castle to cover their movements. (He's also defeated by and only by a man not born of a woman, which was the second part of the prophecy - to be fair, the remaining third was the prophets telling him to beware that one specific Caesarean-delivered guy).

Was the precondition inevitable? Well, maybe. MacBeth does nothing to prevent it because he believes it's impossible (he is the villain of the story, even if he's the main character, and he consistently violates every rule on the Evil Overlord's List he can possibly manage). The fact that the prophecy has an "until" condition doesn't make it any less of an accurate prophecy, though, and neither does an "if" - even if "if" is a less absolute conditional.

[Andezzar]

...call it what you will, a setting where "if-then" predictions can be 100% accurate while still allowing for free will is possible without logical flaws, and it's conceivable that in such a setting, a paladin might be met with the given problem and thus would have to make a choice. If we're calling it "destiny" or not isn't important.Please give me an example how an if-then statement can always be true, while the if part can be true or false (due to free will).


I see it as more of a guide to make the paladin say, "I will save the princess AND the villagers you vile arch enemy!" It forces them to look outside of damned if you do damned if you don't situations.

Without the code, you see this situation and go, "Oh no what must I choose?" While a paladin has been trained to say, "No, I will not play by your rules. My code has shown me that there can be no compromise when it comes to evil." He/she then goes and turns the kid good while flipping the notion of compromising to evil off.I agree. If however the statement that the child will become a mass murderer unless killed within two days is true he will inevitably fail.

@Nerd-o-rama: Exactly, MacBeth misinterpreted what the conditions were. He could also have interpreted them correctly and thus ensured his continued survival.

There is no indication whether those predictions were unavoidable or simply one of the possible futures. If they are only one option the prophesies cannot be 100% true.

[Augmental]

I'd knock out the child and put him in a bag of holding with a bottle of air until the three days pass. With his parent's permission, of course. :smalltongue:

[Nerd-o-rama]

MacBeth misinterpreted what the conditions were. He could also have interpreted them correctly and thus ensured his continued survival.

There is no indication whether those predictions were unavoidable or simply one of the possible futures. If they are only one option the prophesies cannot be 100% true.

A prophecy as a logical statement can always be true.

Let's go back to the original topic, the example is muddled by MacBeth being a moron (and thinking back to the original play, if everything the witches say counts and prophecy, the whole mess was completely inevitable even if they provoked it in the first place by giving MacBeth information about the future. Prophecies are very chicken-and-egg in tragedies).

Let A = "This child is killed in two days."
Let B = "This child becomes a mass murderer."

The prophecy as originally presented is therefore !A -> B. "If this child is not killed in two days, then this child becomes a mass murderer." This can always be true even if the condition (!A, "this child is not killed in two days") doesn't happen. It's not a given that the condition will happen, but if it does, the consequence will always follow. Maybe it's not predestination so much as a definitive prediction, then, but it's still stating an absolute about the future which, in fantasy and possibly only in fantasy, is possible.

[dascarletm]

I agree. If however the statement that the child will become a mass murderer unless killed within two days is true he will inevitably fail.


Which really means the DM needs to rely heavily on DM Fiat, and limit player choices ability to affect outcomes. I don't see that as a good way to game. If I want to play an RPG with a certain specified set of outcomes I'll go play a computer game. The beauty of DnD is that choices, and outcomes are neigh limitless. This situation almost goes against some basic DnD principles.

[Bakeru]

Please give me an example how an if-then statement can always be true, while the if part can be true or false (due to free will).Because of formal logic?
The statement "If A, then B" defaults to "true" whenever A is untrue. The only way for "If A, then B" to be "untrue" is if A is True but B is Untrue.
At least, that's how math students use it. In any case, the worst possible interpretation would be "No truth-value given", because "If A, then B" makes no assumptions about what's going to happen if A is untrue. So, it's still never wrong unless A is true and B isn't.

[Kudaku]

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p9ew?Should-the-Paladin-Fall-A-Guide

[Andezzar]

Because of formal logic?
The statement "If A, then B" defaults to "true" whenever A is untrue. The only way for "If A, then B" to be "untrue" is if A is True but B is Untrue.
At least, that's how math students use it. In any case, the worst possible interpretation would be "No truth-value given", because "If A, then B" makes no assumptions about what's going to happen if A is untrue. So, it's still never wrong unless A is true and B isn't.No truth value possible is not the same thing as always true/100% accuracy claimed by the OP.
The OP actually specified two statements and only one of them can be true. That gives us choice and thus violates the 100% accuracy condition for the situation as a whole. That is not the inevitability I associate with destiny/fate.

[BCOVertigo]

ok here is my question. a paladin learns the future from a trusted mage or someone whose powers for the subject are unquestinoble that the paladin is sure that there is no way he is wrong. in the future an innocent child of now seems to be a killing machine if not killed in 2 days for example. the future reading's results are inevitable, no matter what is done, it is told to paladin that he can't change these optional futures.

so what do you think the paladin would do?

Spend the two days watching every episode of Dexter for inspiration, then add the kid to the party.

[HunterOfJello]

Is the child an Unholy Scion? Is there significant reason to believe that it is one?

If not, then no the paladin should not ever kill an innocent child.

~~~

At the risk of falling into the True Scotsman fallacy, I will say that a paladin who would do such a thing would instantly fall and was therefore not appropriately a paladin in the first place.

[ArcturusV]

Mostly depends on how dependable Fate is in the setting. If Fate is an inescapable thing which cannot ever be avoided, the prophecy that this child is gonna go Super Villain is a fact. One that the Paladin can have verified by sources he would trust, such as diviners in his church or something.

Then? Doesn't matter. Fate is fate in that setting. It's unavoidable. The child was going to be evil. It was not "innocent" in the least. IF Fate works that way in the setting. Course if Fate DOES work that way, the paladin will fail to kill the child anyway, but he still will end up attempting to. Very Greek Tragedy.

If Fate is more of a nebulous thing. Something that can be changed, altered, or is merely just "the most likely outcome", then no. The Paladin would be aware of that. Divinations are not always true, you can act upon them and change them. So he probably goes, finds the kid, and tries to mentor and tutor him to be as strong a champion of Justice as he would have been of Evil. Which has a chance to work.

At the very least, if Fate worked in the mutable sense in that setting, there's no reason to try anything else. The kid isn't going to be Evil unless his very nature is in fact Evil. Like some sort of Demon/Undead thing where their very existence causes Evil to flourish in the vicinity, etc.

[animewatcha]

Paladin goes to wizard number 2 and on for second opinion and on. Eventually, wizard # x says about the first divining wizard 'You Gonna Learn Today'. Said wizard gives paladin a scroll ( or heck does the service himself 875 gp for scroll of this spell ) of...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sepiaSnakeSigil.htm

with instructions as to how to make the child subject to the sigil. Child goes into suspended animation till atleast the 2 days pass while the paladin babysits. 2 days pass. Nothing happens. Diviner-wizard man is at loss of words. Child is fine. Paladin keeps his code. DM goes speechless.

[Pickford]

Mostly depends on how dependable Fate is in the setting. If Fate is an inescapable thing which cannot ever be avoided, the prophecy that this child is gonna go Super Villain is a fact. One that the Paladin can have verified by sources he would trust, such as diviners in his church or something.

Then? Doesn't matter. Fate is fate in that setting. It's unavoidable. The child was going to be evil. It was not "innocent" in the least. IF Fate works that way in the setting. Course if Fate DOES work that way, the paladin will fail to kill the child anyway, but he still will end up attempting to. Very Greek Tragedy.

If Fate is more of a nebulous thing. Something that can be changed, altered, or is merely just "the most likely outcome", then no. The Paladin would be aware of that. Divinations are not always true, you can act upon them and change them. So he probably goes, finds the kid, and tries to mentor and tutor him to be as strong a champion of Justice as he would have been of Evil. Which has a chance to work.

At the very least, if Fate worked in the mutable sense in that setting, there's no reason to try anything else. The kid isn't going to be Evil unless his very nature is in fact Evil. Like some sort of Demon/Undead thing where their very existence causes Evil to flourish in the vicinity, etc.

Well, the original proposition is strictly speaking a "killing machine", not "evil" or "super villain".

So under the criteria we actually have, the kid grows up to be your j-average adventurer. :smallamused:

Doesn't matter though, the paladin can't intentionally commit an evil act under any circumstances and retain the paladin status. Murder is evil, the best the paladin can do in these circumstances is investigate 'why' the child would be likely to do wrong and work to circumvent that.

Redeeming Evil, BoED pg. 8, seems highly applicable here; also pg. 28 Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, seen t Acthe mention of Murder before from you. Suffice to say shorthand wise, I disagree with how you define "murder". DnD Alignment wise, they define Murder in a vastly different sense than you seem to. Killing a villain before they do anything wrong isn't "Murder". Assassination perhaps. But even then, it's not an Evil. Evil would be LETTING something evil happen just so you can go, "look, I'm a hero!" and kill them after the fact. Setting up tragedy so you can be a hero? Yeah, that's DnD Evil. Killing someone before they do something evil themselves? DnD Good.

That said, yes. Probably would take the higher road as I mentioned. Particularly if, setting particulars wise, Prophecy, Fate, etc, isn't "Written in Stone" but mostly in the "Most likely to occur as things currently stand" category.

If it's "Written in Stone" Fate for the setting... it doesn't really matter. No matter what you do the kid would live and end up the same way. You can try to fight it. You SHOULD fight it as a Champion of Good. But you cannot ever succeed.

As I said, very Greek Tragedy in a way. I suppose also very fatalistic like a Russian Novel.

[hamishspence]

DnD Alignment wise, they define Murder in a vastly different sense than you seem to. Killing a villain before they do anything wrong isn't "Murder". Assassination perhaps. But even then, it's not an Evil.

BoED hints otherwise. And so does Eberron Campaign setting.

"Preventing disaster from happening" isn't exactly a "nefarious motive"- but murder isn't solely defined by the motive in the real world, so why should it be, in D&D?

And, as mentioned, the child wouldn't be "a villain" at the time the paladin is killing them.

[Bakeru]

No truth value possible is not the same thing as always true/100% accuracy claimed by the OP.
The OP actually specified two statements and only one of them can be true. That gives us choice and thus violates the 100% accuracy condition for the situation as a whole. That is not the inevitability I associate with destiny/fate."100% accuracy" is indistinguishable from "never wrong".
The prophecy only states that if X ("child isn't killed") happens, then Y ("Child becomes evilbad murderer") will follow. If X never happens, then the prophecy isn't wrong, it just doesn't apply.
Assuming all these prophecies are either "don't apply, because X never happened" or "X happened, and Y followed", then they're never wrong.
That's still "100% accuracy".

Also, as already stated, in mathematical logic, "If A, then B" is true if:
A and B are true,
A is untrue, but B is true,
A and B are untrue.
"If A, then B" is only untrue if A is true and B is untrue.

We could try to go into philosophical logic, but I'm not going to bother trying to make sense out of that.
A mathematics lecturer and a philosophy lecturer are talking about the tests their students had to take.
The phil. lecturer says "Ohh, these poor guys, this year's tests were so much harder than last year's!".
The math. lecturer asks: "What, did you change the questions again?"
"No!", answers the phil. lecturer. "The questions are still the same, but we changed the answers!"

[Nerd-o-rama]

No truth value possible is not the same thing as always true/100% accuracy claimed by the OP.
The OP actually specified two statements and only one of them can be true. That gives us choice and thus violates the 100% accuracy condition for the situation as a whole. That is not the inevitability I associate with destiny/fate.

I think the problem is Bakeru and I are arguing from formal logical definitions which only people who've taken a logic class in college care about.

We also seem to both be fans of either the Belgariad or something similar with a series of "either/or" prophecies determining the fate of the world.

[Blightedmarsh]

One thought, what about the child's soul?

If the child dies an innocent then its soul might be saved. If the paladin waits for the child to become a monster then the child's soul is dammed. For a highly religious servant of the divine then this is a real consideration.

[Andezzar]

Can souls even be saved in the different D&D universes? At least in Faerun souls go to whatever afterlife is appropriate for their patron deity. In that regard I would not even know what constitute saving. If the afterlives the different evil deities offer were all bad, why would anyone worship them select them as their patron deity?

[Scow2]

Lying falls under dishonorable actions. Honor has no actual bearing on the Good/Evil axis.However, a Paladin MUST act with Honor at all times, and Lying is something they are expressly forbidden from doing (Jury's still out whether this includes telling children about Santa Claus, though). A Paladin is not only a bastion of Good, but also a Trustworthy one. Although he can occassionally commit other chaotic acts without falling, lying is right out. Unless he's bluffing, maybe, in which case he needs to appeal to the Rule of Funny to bail him out.

Lies are evil when they are used (As they most frequently are) to harm someone, either immediately, or to intensify the pain of the truth when it comes out. Even lies made with benign intent can bring about incredible suffering (re: The Crucible), which is yet another reason a Paladin cannot do it.


Can souls even be saved in the different D&D universes? At least in Faerun souls go to whatever afterlife is appropriate for their patron deity. In that regard I would not even know what constitute saving. If the afterlives the different evil deities offer were all bad, why would anyone worship them select them as their patron deity?Short-sightedness(Higher quality of life on the mortal world in exchange for eternity of suffering "later"), deception on the part of the deity, or hoping to have a "Get out of Jail Free" card (Why do you think so many evil characters seek immortality?)


Well, the original proposition is strictly speaking a "killing machine", not "evil" or "super villain".

So under the criteria we actually have, the kid grows up to be your j-average adventurer. :smallamused:I still love this interpretation. "Come, my young friend. There is evil to be smitten in this world!"

[Amnestic]

One thought, what about the child's soul?

If the child dies an innocent then its soul might be saved. If the paladin waits for the child to become a monster then the child's soul is dammed. For a highly religious servant of the divine then this is a real consideration.

Or you could use the Redemption rules in BoED, so you don't have to murder an innocent child and can still have their soul not go to hell.

[Nerd-o-rama]

One thought, what about the child's soul?

If the child dies an innocent then its soul might be saved. If the paladin waits for the child to become a monster then the child's soul is dammed. For a highly religious servant of the divine then this is a real consideration.

Just don't take "if we kill him now while he's still innocent, he'll go to heaven" to its logical conclusion.

[Amnestic]

Just don't take "if we kill him now while he's still innocent, he'll go to heaven" to its logical conclusion.

"All creatures are fallible. All creatures sin eventually. Thus we must exterminate every child while they are still innocent." sort of thing?

Could make for a decent enough BBEG.

[dascarletm]

"All creatures are fallible. All creatures sin eventually. Thus we must exterminate every child while they are still innocent." sort of thing?

Could make for a decent enough BBEG.

I feel like I've seen that somewhere... can't put my finger on it...

[Bakeru]

I feel like I've seen that somewhere... can't put my finger on it..."Goblins: Life through their eyes"?
There's this crazy paladin who for some reason keeps his class ability even though he kills everyone who ever had even the slightest contact with what he considers evil, even if it was only as a prisoner.

[dascarletm]

"Goblins: Life through their eyes"?
There's this crazy paladin who for some reason keeps his class ability even though he kills everyone who ever had even the slightest contact with what he considers evil, even if it was only as a prisoner.

Was he a paladin of Pelor? (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558798/Pelor,_the_Burning_Hate)

[Andezzar]

There's this crazy paladin who for some reason keeps his class ability even though he kills everyone who ever had even the slightest contact with what he considers evil, even if it was only as a prisoner."There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt." - Isador Akios, Blood Ravens Librarian

[Frosty]

Can non-lawful gods sponsor paladins?

[Andezzar]

Yup, neutral good ones. In some worlds paladins do not even need divine backing.

[Frosty]

Wait, I also seem to remember a CG god in Faerun sponsoring paladins...that seems odd.

[Andezzar]

Faerun is weird in that way. The deities do not conform to the usual rules.

[Jeff the Green]

Faerun is weird in that way. The deities do not conform to the usual rules.

Though that's not a rule in non-FR D&D anyway. There's no reason a paladin has to worship a deity within two steps of their alignment like clerics do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wait, I also seem to remember a CG god in Faerun sponsoring paladins...that seems odd.

Sune Fire-Hair.

Ditzy goddess of lust, love, and beauty decides to give sponsoring paladins a whirl since paladins are all shiny and nice.

[Bakeru]

Sune Fire-Hair.

Ditzy goddess of lust, love, and beauty decides to give sponsoring paladins a whirl since paladins are all shiny and nice.Thanks to you, I now imagine Sune as a cheerleader and paladins as frat boys. Thank you very much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thanks to you, I now imagine Sune as a cheerleader and paladins as frat boys. Thank you very much.

You are most welcome :belkar:

Seriously though, I don't know why but I got a serious "ditz" vibe off of Sune's descriptions in FRCS and Faiths and Pantheons.

Edit: I'm definitely going to present it that way the next time I have a group come across a church of Sune.

[Frosty]

So what...Priestesses of Sune are drunken, loose sorority girls?

Can you post a summary of Sune's description from that book? :smallbiggrin:

[Kelb_Panthera]

So what...Priestesses of Sune are drunken, loose sorority girls?

Can you post a summary of Sune's description from that book? :smallbiggrin:

Here's an excerpt. It's taken from the section on clergy and temples from the 2-1/2 page description for sune.


Sunites are aesthetes and hedonists, who actively seek out pleasure and beauty in all things. The pursuit of aesthetic enjoyment is their life....

.....Sunites are not bashful about their bodies. The standard ceremonial garb of sunite clerics is monastic robes for men and habits for women cut to show off the figure of the wearer....

.....The sunite church's organization is loose and informal, and its leadership changes regularly with the whims of its clergy. The most attractive and charismatic sunite clergy are usually high clerics. Little is thought of a cleric dropping everything and going bounding off into the wild, particularly if the goal is some beautiful object or some beautiful individual, and such behavior creates little scandal in the church. The omitted portions of the section show the Sunite emphasis on romance, love, and friendship which weigh quite heavily for the followers of Sune.

They're not the evil, spiteful, bad-girl/boy types, but there is a certain quality in the general attitude of the sunite church that reminds me, rather forcefully, of a bunch of high-school kids from the popular clique.

The dogma of the faith also comes across as the kind of romantic idealism that most people, IRL, give up on after completing their education and getting hit over the head by "real life."

[Pickford]

Yeah, seen t Acthe mention of Murder before from you. Suffice to say shorthand wise, I disagree with how you define "murder". DnD Alignment wise, they define Murder in a vastly different sense than you seem to. Killing a villain before they do anything wrong isn't "Murder". Assassination perhaps. But even then, it's not an Evil. Evil would be LETTING something evil happen just so you can go, "look, I'm a hero!" and kill them after the fact. Setting up tragedy so you can be a hero? Yeah, that's DnD Evil. Killing someone before they do something evil themselves? DnD Good.

That said, yes. Probably would take the higher road as I mentioned. Particularly if, setting particulars wise, Prophecy, Fate, etc, isn't "Written in Stone" but mostly in the "Most likely to occur as things currently stand" category.

If it's "Written in Stone" Fate for the setting... it doesn't really matter. No matter what you do the kid would live and end up the same way. You can try to fight it. You SHOULD fight it as a Champion of Good. But you cannot ever succeed.

As I said, very Greek Tragedy in a way. I suppose also very fatalistic like a Russian Novel.

I was referencing the books, so it's actually RAW not my opinion.

[Bakeru]

I was referencing the books, so it's actually RAW not my opinion.Your reference provides "A paladin can't do evil (without falling)" and probably "murder is evil".

If killing the child, under these circumstances, is actually murder is another question not answered by RAW.
I'd say yes, it is (even though justified, but that doesn't matter to a paladin), but that's not set in stone.

[ArcturusV]

Not really. Because if I reference books I can also point out things supporting "Assassination = Good", like this page from the Book of Vile Darkness on the subject:

Page 8:

"Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing a fiend to exist, let alone summoning one or helping one, is clearly evil."

This paints a whole different dimension on this. Yes, I'm aware that just a few pages before that, it even mentions in the "People who are evil but don't call themselves evil" the guy who goes around killing children he believes will be evil due to prophecy, stating that he is evil, no matter what he calls himself.

But this casts doubt on that. Obviously there are creatures of such a nature that merely tolerating their existence IS evil. "Allowing them to live". Fiends are called out. But if there is one thing which is so innately evil that it must be smote no matter what form it's in. "Innocent Child" or otherwise, there's probably others that can come up.

Again, depending on particulars of setting.

Even strictly RAW, it's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. Always exceptions and counter examples, by RAW.

[Andezzar]

Nobody said anything about the child being or becoming a fiend (a group term for certain outsiders from the lower planes, unfortunately there is no clear definition). Additionally the picture and caption on p. 7 of BoED does imply that not destroying a fiend (I assume those are two succubi) is an option even for a paladin.

[Bob]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet because I haven't read every post in this thread, but: this is a pretty good example of why temporal magic is not more widely supported in this system.

d20/3.x systems are built around variable outcomes, hence the dice. Many things about it fall apart in the face of an inevitable outcome. A more game-friendly scenario would recognize the chance of failure in the future corruption of the young character, however small; the chance of the paladin converting the character to pacifism, however small; and the chance of the diviner being incorrect in his divination, however small.

Anyway, the purpose of a Paladin is to fight evil without compromise, even in the face of an inevitable outcome.

[Pickford]

Your reference provides "A paladin can't do evil (without falling)" and probably "murder is evil".

If killing the child, under these circumstances, is actually murder is another question not answered by RAW.
I'd say yes, it is (even though justified, but that doesn't matter to a paladin), but that's not set in stone.

Murder is clearly defined in English, the game doesn't need to define English words.

[Andezzar]

Murder is clearly defined in English, the game doesn't need to define English words.It is? I'm pretty sure there are differences between different English speaking countries - at least legally. Just for the purpose of this thread how do you differentiate murder from other homicides?

[olentu]

Murder is clearly defined in English, the game doesn't need to define English words.

What the game needs to do and what it does do are not necessarily the same thing. In this case the game defines English terms whether or not it is necessary to do so.

[ArcturusV]

Well, from your arguments, you define murder as "Killing anyone when they are not an active, aware threat to your life".

Note that isn't how English or Legal Codes tend to define Murder. Where it's define as premeditated actions against a victim which causes their demise. Which actually can include even your ideals that you've said in other topics are NOT murder. Telling someone you're coming to end their life, letting them arm themselves and defend themselves, but still killing them? That would still be murder. But you upheld that as not being murder and the "right way" to do things for a Paladin.

Whereas the game seems to define Murder as "Killing for your own personal gratification, wealth, or whims of a dark power."

That said? I'm just saying it's not clear cut. And particulars matter. There's also the matter of Divine Will. More or less doing what their power source tells them to do (Even if it's through prophets) rather than what they think is right.

In the end though? Even if the Paladin did fall for doing it, it'd make for an interesting storyline. And oddly a very "Paladinish" ideal behind it. Doing what is Hard, rather than what is Easy, for the ultimate Good, even if it is personally detrimental for them (Falling). Heroic sacrifice.

Depending on how it's played up.

[Pickford]

What the game needs to do and what it does do are not necessarily the same thing. In this case the game defines English terms whether or not it is necessary to do so.

And where terms are not defined it's standard concepts. Murder is just one of those situations. So as far as it goes, murder is illegal killing. (i.e. not as part of war, not in self-defense).

edit: ArcturusV, that discussion from another thread was actually discussing assassination as it relates to murder and how it would cause a paladin to fall.

Edit2: And betraying the cause of righteousness out of convenience is absolutely against paladin ideals. Anything that causes a fall 'was' the easy way out.

[TuggyNE]

Murder is clearly defined in English, the game doesn't need to define English words.

There are a lot of words that are rather clearly defined in English that D&D redefines in some way (usually to specify a particular subset of the common meaning). For example, level, throw, dungeon, abjuration, energy, longsword, constitution, good, evil, lawful, chaotic, alignment, druid… tons of 'em, really.

[hamishspence]

Well, from your arguments, you define murder as "Killing anyone when they are not an active, aware threat to your life".

Note that isn't how English or Legal Codes tend to define Murder. Where it's define as premeditated actions against a victim which causes their demise.

Actually, no, murder does not have to be premeditated. There is Second Degree Murder.

And also Felony Murder- where a person is killed in the process of committing another felony. Thus, if a burglar shoots a homeowner, even in "self-defence" (the homeowner was armed and shot first) the burglar is still guilty of murder if the homeowner dies.

[Jeff the Green]

Actually, no, murder does not have to be premeditated. There is Second Degree Murder.

And also Felony Murder- where a person is killed in the process of committing another felony. Thus, if a burglar shoots a homeowner, even in "self-defence" (the homeowner was armed and shot first) the burglar is still guilty of murder if the homeowner dies.

In the US, there's also third degree murder: any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." So, for example, killing in a bar fight is normally second degree murder, but if that bar fight started because someone's wife cheated on him, it'd be third degree.

[Pickford]

In the US, there's also third degree murder: any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." So, for example, killing in a bar fight is normally second degree murder, but if that bar fight started because someone's wife cheated on him, it'd be third degree.

More to the point, killing the child is clearly murder unless the child is in the act of attempting to kill someone else.

[olentu]

And where terms are not defined it's standard concepts. Murder is just one of those situations. So as far as it goes, murder is illegal killing. (i.e. not as part of war, not in self-defense).

edit: ArcturusV, that discussion from another thread was actually discussing assassination as it relates to murder and how it would cause a paladin to fall.

Edit2: And betraying the cause of righteousness out of convenience is absolutely against paladin ideals. Anything that causes a fall 'was' the easy way out.

Sure we can assume the non-D&D definition when there is the lack of a D&D definition. Of course that requires that there is one and only one non-D&D definition as if there is not then we run into ambiguity. For murder I seem to have found several definitions that do not necessarily agree that killing a child would be murder. Even the basic definition you seem to be using (illegal killing) would not necessarily mean killing the child was murder since we do not know the laws of the area within which the child resides. Perhaps the killing of children by paladins is completely legal. Perhaps it is legal so long as one uses state approved methods of execution. And so on and so forth.

However this is all rather meaningless as murder is given a D&D definition.

[Bakeru]

Which actually can include even your ideals that you've said in other topics are NOT murder. Telling someone you're coming to end their life, letting them arm themselves and defend themselves, but still killing them? That would still be murder. But you upheld that as not being murder and the "right way" to do things for a Paladin.I'm pretty sure that "Gentleman-Assassin" that send notes beforehand was actually mentioned by me. Someone else also mentioned an Paladin-Assassin who merely sneaked in and then duelled the enemy commander while bypassing his guards. I don't think Pickford even reacted to either of those suggestions.


And where terms are not defined it's standard concepts. Murder is just one of those situations. So as far as it goes, murder is illegal killing. (i.e. not as part of war, not in self-defense).Nope. D&D provides a definition of Murder, which therefore overrides any other definitions outside of D&D:
"Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like." (Book of Vile Deeds, page 7)
The paladin doesn't do it for theft, not for personal gain, not for perverse pleasure, nor for anything similar. He does it to save people.

[Andezzar]

It might not be murder, but where does it say that the intentional killing of a sentient being is not evil? Any evil act would cause the paladin to fall.

[ArcturusV]

Well the example I quoted earlier. Passage saying "letting a fiend live is evil, killing it is always good". Fiends are intelligent. In fact most seem of higher intelligence than most prime material plane mortals. So obviously killing in and of itself of sentient beings is not evil. The Evil has to do with Motive, unless you're dealing with something like Fiends or Undead.

[Bakeru]

Again BoVD, page 7:

The heroes who go into the green dragon’s woodland lair to slay it are not murderers. In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act. Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil (although it’s not a good act), because it still stops the creature’s predations on the innocent. Such a justification, however, works only for the slaying of creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons.So, it would depend on if we can extend "creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil" to "creatures who will unfailingly turn consummate, irredeemable evil" (I'd say that's what the opening poster intended, even though he only said "killing machine", which most adventurers of any alignment would fit).

[Andezzar]

The weird thing is that this passage from the 3.0 book BoVD is rendered irrelevant by the 3.5 Monster Manual:


Alignment: This line in a monster entry gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind.
Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.So even with chromatic dragons and fiends the paladin cannot be sure. And even those creatures are not irredeemably evil by definition.

So especially the paladin should be restricted to the use of lethal force in situations where his or someone else's life is directly threatened. He should not go about in Detect&Smite mode.

[Bakeru]

So even with chromatic dragons and fiends the paladin cannot be sure. And even those creatures are not irredeemably evil by definition.As much as I love the idea of non-evil demons (since it lets me play a good character while still indulging my demon girl fetish), I think that's really more a case of "DM fiat can change this monster's alignment".

Also, while the Monster Manuals are the main source for monsters, I'd argue that the BoVD and the BoED are the main sources for alignment, at least the good/evil part, and the BoED states:
Of course, good characters recognize that some creatures are utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the Monster Manualas “always evil” are either completely irredeemable or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naïve fool would try to convert them. Evil dragons might not be entirely beyond salvation, but there is truly only the barest glimmer of hope.So, dragons are "possible, but only idealists and idiots try", and demons/devils are "only idiots try".

[Andezzar]

I'm not sure that a 3.0 book can be the primary source for a topic that is handled in a 3.5 book. Alignment is covered in several 3.5 books.

The first sentence of your quote is especially interesting. Taking it literally would mean that no good character would ever need detect evil - they just know when they can just smite a creature without repercussions. Killing other creatures would at least not be exalted good.

Now it is up to the DM to decide whether such irredeemable creatures actually exist as per the quote from BoED or if they go by the alignment definition from the 3.5 glossary.

Another interesting fact is that this quote makes chromatic dragons redeemable, whereas BoVD p. 7 says that they are not. So the alleged primary sources contradict each other.

[Threadnaught]

Not really. Because if I reference books I can also point out things supporting "Assassination = Good", like this page from the Book of Vile Darkness on the subject:

Page 8:

"Destroying a fiend is always a good act. Allowing a fiend to exist, let alone summoning one or helping one, is clearly evil."

This paints a whole different dimension on this. Yes, I'm aware that just a few pages before that, it even mentions in the "People who are evil but don't call themselves evil" the guy who goes around killing children he believes will be evil due to prophecy, stating that he is evil, no matter what he calls himself.

But this casts doubt on that. Obviously there are creatures of such a nature that merely tolerating their existence IS evil. "Allowing them to live". Fiends are called out. But if there is one thing which is so innately evil that it must be smote no matter what form it's in. "Innocent Child" or otherwise, there's probably others that can come up.

Again, depending on particulars of setting.

Even strictly RAW, it's not as cut and dry as you make it seem. Always exceptions and counter examples, by RAW.

Underlined first.
Pretty much, killing the child would be an evil act and the Paladin would definitely fall. No matter why the Paladin is killing an innocent, the fact remains that they are. But then again, let's look at the bolded part...

Bold.
If one child has the potential to kill, maybe more do. Maybe it shouldn't be just this one child who is killed... For the greater good. Maybe all children across the entire world need to die. Don't stop at children, there are adults who are either evil through and through, or who have experienced enough of it to possibly turn to darkness. Kill 'em all. Cleanse the world, destroy all life. Then as the material plane stands as a lifeless wasteland, delve into Hell and cleanse it of all fiends and sinner permanently. Then go through all the other planes, including Heaven, and wipe out all who may have sinned and any with knowledge of evil which could potentially turn them (Good Outsiders and Gods). Then, once all planes have been cleansed off all potential for evil, the Paladin can build a better world for all Good creatures. Obviously the Paladin wouldn't be allowed to benefit from any of this personally, because they're not self serving, but the Paladin is the last creature in existence. Somehow.


in the future an innocent child of now seems to be a killing machine if not killed in 2 days for example.

It would be hilarious if in two days the child was taken to be trained as a Paladin, became a Paladin and was a better Paladin than the theoretical Paladin in this discussion.
But of course, Paladins still have the potential to commit evil acts and as such should immediately be killed if encountered by a Paladin, otherwise both would obviously fall due to committing an evil act.

At least as far as RAW is concerned.


So apparently being a genocidal maniac is both Lawful and Good... No politics rule? Well I can't say it, but I'm still gonna think it.

[Bakeru]

I'm not sure that a 3.0 book can be the primary source for a topic that is handled in a 3.5 book. Alignment is covered in several 3.5 books.

The first sentence of your quote is especially interesting. Taking it literally would mean that no good character would ever need detect evil - they just know when they can just smite a creature without repercussions. Killing other creatures would at least not be exalted good.

Now it is up to the DM to decide whether such irredeemable creatures actually exist as per the quote from BoED or if they go by the alignment definition from the 3.5 glossary.

Another interesting fact is that this quote makes chromatic dragons redeemable, whereas BoVD p. 7 says that they are not. So the alleged primary sources contradict each other.I'd agree that BoVD is only true if it isn't contradicted in 3.5 somewhere, but BoED (where my last quote came from) is 3.5, and therefore primary source of "what is good?".

Hence, killing fiends is always good (well, maybe unless you only do it for the money, which would make it neutral), killing chromatic dragons is good unless there are strong indications that this specific dragon isn't evil (or, again, you're only doing it for money, which would still make it neutral).

The question would be, which alignment is more important, the current one (innocent child, probably true neutral), or the future one (which seems to become "fixed, irredeemable chaotic evil")

[Andezzar]

I'd agree that BoVD is only true if it isn't contradicted in 3.5 somewhere, but BoED (where my last quote came from) is 3.5, and therefore primary source of "what is good?". I could have sworn they were both 3.0.

[Scow2]

It might not be murder, but where does it say that the intentional killing of a sentient being is not evil?Everywhere, including the BoED. Especially the Job Description of adventurers and heroes.

Chromatic Dragons, Fiends, "Traditional" Goblinoids/orcs/Monstrous Humanoids, Bandits, Corrupt Politicians, and the like are all sentient.

You can still take life while respecting it.

[Andezzar]

Very rarely is the taking of a life necessary to keep the evildoers from doing evil. Taking life needlessly IMHO would fall under evil.

[Starbuck_II]

I could have sworn they were both 3.0.

Nope. While BoVD was made before 3.5 was finished (Savage Species was also made in between), BoED was made after.

[Evard]

Go watch the movie Minority Report and decide for yourself

Or Looper!

[Threadnaught]

Or Looper!

Isn't a Looper something criminal organizations use to assassinate people and dispose of their corpses?

Not what we're talking about.

[malkuth]

I hated looper when he decided to protect the child. and the movie had big flows in time mechanics...

and in the situation of topic: what if the player says that his characters reasoning makes him think that to kill the child is the good thing here and kill the child? so his character won't be willingly commint an evil act but a believed to be good act that he commits maybe will judged as evil by dm :S because in dnd mechanics the allignments are based on the things that the characters will to do. a very idiot man may try to do good things always, neutral good maybe but end up giving more harm than most evil but he is still good, his allignment won't shift.

maybe the dm shall say that "your intelligent score causes you to make the reasoning that xxx is good/bad" but it is not good as the player may get angry and tell the dm "then do every action as what the characters reasoning says and you play instead of me"

[ArcturusV]

Probably would be Wisdom instead of Intelligence for weighing the morality of a choice.

If the Paladin in question did have such doubts, he could probably just pay a Cleric to cast something like Commune, Augury, or some other divination to say "Hey, God/dess, this cool?".

Or at the very least? Just mundanely pray for a sign or answer. It might not work necessarily? But in my experience, you got a decent enough shot that if it's as Plot Centric as this example sounds the DM will probably bite with something of a Sign for you to follow. Gods have been known in DnD to manifest in such ways.

[Grayson01]

Look at that, morally grey question of the week has arrived.

The Paladin should 'not' kill the child immediately. He should have the Wizard divine when the child commits his first heinous act, and then be there when it happens. Stop the child (or adult, by this point).

Currently, the Child is not guilty. A god would surely drop a Paladin that slew the child.

I cannot think of any circumstance where the Paladin should slay the child... at least in a Paladin's eyes. Now if he were a Fighter, sure, kill the Child before he becomes horribly evil, since we can't change him.
How about the situation where he is told by a solar sent by his god telling him to slay the child, I could see that situation?

[Hyena]

With new information, I change my answer. He will kill the child - if the Fate gives him two options, one that will produce a mass murderer and one that will not, he will save the lives at the cost of one single life. And he will fall for it also - but does it even matter? The destiny said so, so there's no point in trying to prevent it.

[olentu]

It might not be murder, but where does it say that the intentional killing of a sentient being is not evil? Any evil act would cause the paladin to fall.

Ah the Ye Olde fighters with lasers eyes argument. Look, I have no real aversion to killing said child being D&D evil, but if we are going to get there let's do it properly. And the good old the rules don't say I can't argument is not what I would consider proper.

[Osiris]

Maybe you could consult a god, like Pelor, for this kind of work? I bet he could help- just use commune. What would he say, though? Maybe, "kill the child, for he is wholly evil!"

WAIT! I got it! the paladin can detect evil, or would it work, considering it hasn't done anything yet, but on the other hand, the alignment is still there, but does it only take effect after you've started doing stuff? Does RAW have anything to say about this, and would it make sense? :smallconfused:

[EmperorSarda]

what if the player says that his characters reasoning makes him think that to kill the child is the good thing here and kill the child? so his character won't be willingly commint an evil act but a believed to be good act that he commits maybe will judged as evil by dm :S because in dnd mechanics the allignments are based on the things that the characters will to do. a very idiot man may try to do good things always, neutral good maybe but end up giving more harm than most evil but he is still good, his allignment won't shift.


Then you have a Miko situation. Miko didn't think killing Shojo was an evil action, and came to that decision with what she thought (incorrectly) was best. The same is with the paladin, it doesn't matter how much he thinks killing the kid is a good idea, the kid is still an innocent until he starts killing people, until he commits a crime.

That being said, how is the nature of revelation/prophesy handled in your campaign? Is it like greek myth where no matter what you do shapes how the prophesy comes to pass? (Like, does going to kill the kid cause the kid to escape/kill lots of people the same way as not killing him for now will?)
Or is it merely a warning of what can be?

If it is the first, then just keep an eye out for the kid, being aware of him.

If it is a warning of what the kid can be, why not do some good gather information, find out about him and his family, what ideas are in his head and maybe hire the kid to be a sort of paige boy as the Paladin tries to instill into him a sense of good and evil?

[Coidzor]

Nobody said anything about the child being or becoming a fiend (a group term for certain outsiders from the lower planes, unfortunately there is no clear definition). Additionally the picture and caption on p. 7 of BoED does imply that not destroying a fiend (I assume those are two succubi) is an option even for a paladin.

Laying aside Half-Fiends, are there fiends who are children though? They can have offspring, sure, but do they have a child form? :smallconfused:

[Bakeru]

and in the situation of topic: what if the player says that his characters reasoning makes him think that to kill the child is the good thing here and kill the child? so his character won't be willingly commint an evil act but a believed to be good act that he commits maybe will judged as evil by dm :S because in dnd mechanics the allignments are based on the things that the characters will to do. a very idiot man may try to do good things always, neutral good maybe but end up giving more harm than most evil but he is still good, his allignment won't shift.
If the Paladin in question did have such doubts, he could probably just pay a Cleric to cast something like Commune, Augury, or some other divination to say "Hey, God/dess, this cool?".

Or at the very least? Just mundanely pray for a sign or answer. It might not work necessarily? But in my experience, you got a decent enough shot that if it's as Plot Centric as this example sounds the DM will probably bite with something of a Sign for you to follow. Gods have been known in DnD to manifest in such ways.Doesn't core have this cheap 1k item that explicitly answers "Does this change my alignment?" and "Would this make me fall?" questions if a character takes the time to think about it?
Ah, found it. Phylancery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness). If you contemplate an action, you know exactly how it will affect your alignment and possible codes of conduct you're following.

[Frosty]

Quick question on a different but related scenario:

Let's say a paladin is battling a fiend that is threatening a village. If the paladin is unable to defeat the fiend, he knows for certain that the fiend will go on to enslave or kill the entire village or even worse (who knows. Maybe sucking out souls).

The paladin knows that he begins the fight already somewhat outmatched. During the fight, he discovers that the fiend has held captive some innocent villagers in the same room. The fiend has ridiculous reach, and can basically drain the life from a villager as a free action to completely restore itself (lost limbs. Hitpoints). The paladin knows that the chances of going through the fiend's hitpoints like 7 to 8 times is practically zero, and he sees no way to free the villagers (well he could try, but the fiend has lots of tentacles, each of which gets its own action and the villagers will just get re-grabbed).

He knows that his best chance of winning this fight and saving the rest of the village, is to kill the villagers so that they cannot be used to restore the fiend. The question is...should he be willing to do so? If he loses the fight, he, and the entire village is dead or worse. The lives of the villagers...all of them...are in his hands.

Assume that resurrection magic is available, but expensive, and that the paladin cannot afford to raise all the hostages at this time.

[TuggyNE]

Quick question on a different but related scenario:

Let's say a paladin is battling a fiend that is threatening a village. If the paladin is unable to defeat the fiend, he knows for certain that the fiend will go on to enslave or kill the entire village or even worse (who knows. Maybe sucking out souls).

The paladin knows that he begins the fight already somewhat outmatched. During the fight, he discovers that the fiend has held captive some innocent villagers in the same room. The fiend has ridiculous reach, and can basically drain the life from a villager as a free action to completely restore itself (lost limbs. Hitpoints). The paladin knows that the chances of going through the fiend's hitpoints like 7 to 8 times is practically zero, and he sees no way to free the villagers (well he could try, but the fiend has lots of tentacles, each of which gets its own action and the villagers will just get re-grabbed).

He knows that his best chance of winning this fight and saving the rest of the village, is to kill the villagers so that they cannot be used to restore the fiend. The question is...should he be willing to do so? If he loses the fight, he, and the entire village is dead or worse. The lives of the villagers...all of them...are in his hands.

Assume that resurrection magic is available, but expensive, and that the paladin cannot afford to raise all the hostages at this time.

Now that is a genuinely interesting question. I'm half tempted to stat up a fiend with those exact capabilities just to give a less contrived situation for paladin morality discussions. :smalltongue:

I think you'll probably find honest differences between sincere and wise paladins on that, because it's extremely difficult to be sure what to do in that situation.

My gut suggests mercy-killing the hostages, but if even that course of action seems unlikely to lead to success, I'd suggest trying something quite different like negotiating with the fiend, simply fighting a defensive battle to give the villagers time to flee before I die, or (if nothing else) praying I'll be able to become a ghost to avenge/free them.

[Pickford]

I'm pretty sure that "Gentleman-Assassin" that send notes beforehand was actually mentioned by me. Someone else also mentioned an Paladin-Assassin who merely sneaked in and then duelled the enemy commander while bypassing his guards. I don't think Pickford even reacted to either of those suggestions.

Nope. D&D provides a definition of Murder, which therefore overrides any other definitions outside of D&D:
"Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like." (Book of Vile Deeds, page 7)
The paladin doesn't do it for theft, not for personal gain, not for perverse pleasure, nor for anything similar. He does it to save people.

How does providing warning that you're murdering someone make it not murder again?

The paladin is doing it for personal gain in this case. i.e. Trying to benefit the greater good (although as we've seen from the BoED that's incorrect and the paladin falls if they murder the child as you've proposed.

Phylactery of Faithfulness does not apply here. The paladin code is stricter than alignment changing/standing with ones deity. That is likely helpful, but evil actions aren't necessarily alignment changing, nor does the deity's opinion matter in any way shape or form.

Edit: Frosty the answer is explicitly no. Harming innocents is an evil act, no matter the reason.

[Ravens_cry]

The paladin gives a big raised middle finger to Fate and makes sure the child lives any way, doing their best to see the child is raised to honour and respect life.
To be honest, this of situation is, frankly, ridiculous. If the paladin can choose to kill the child or not, people in the universe in question must have some measure of free will, or at least something like it. But if they do, there is no way that it could be so absolutely certain the child would become the monster foretold.

[olentu]

How does providing warning that you're murdering someone make it not murder again?

The paladin is doing it for personal gain in this case. i.e. Trying to benefit the greater good (although as we've seen from the BoED that's incorrect and the paladin falls if they murder the child as you've proposed.

Phylactery of Faithfulness does not apply here. The paladin code is stricter than alignment changing/standing with ones deity. That is likely helpful, but evil actions aren't necessarily alignment changing, nor does the deity's opinion matter in any way shape or form.

Edit: Frosty the answer is explicitly no. Harming innocents is an evil act, no matter the reason.

Ah still mistakenly drawing equality between the terms assassination and murder. I would ask again what part of the rules supports the equality but I doubt you will answer any more then you did in the past.

How interesting. It would seem that you are taking the stance that the only possible reason for doing anything is personal gain. Now before we get into a discussion about who decides the motivations of a player's character and the like I want to be sure that this is what you desire. While this would certainly make killing the child murder it would likewise make the killing of any intelligent creature, except for possibly the case of some effect such as mind control, murder.

[Coidzor]

Quick question on a different but related scenario:

Let's say a paladin is battling a fiend that is threatening a village. If the paladin is unable to defeat the fiend, he knows for certain that the fiend will go on to enslave or kill the entire village or even worse (who knows. Maybe sucking out souls).

The paladin knows that he begins the fight already somewhat outmatched. During the fight, he discovers that the fiend has held captive some innocent villagers in the same room. The fiend has ridiculous reach, and can basically drain the life from a villager as a free action to completely restore itself (lost limbs. Hitpoints). The paladin knows that the chances of going through the fiend's hitpoints like 7 to 8 times is practically zero, and he sees no way to free the villagers (well he could try, but the fiend has lots of tentacles, each of which gets its own action and the villagers will just get re-grabbed).

He knows that his best chance of winning this fight and saving the rest of the village, is to kill the villagers so that they cannot be used to restore the fiend. The question is...should he be willing to do so? If he loses the fight, he, and the entire village is dead or worse. The lives of the villagers...all of them...are in his hands.

Assume that resurrection magic is available, but expensive, and that the paladin cannot afford to raise all the hostages at this time.

The Paladin is probably just a dead man walking considering the amount of time it would take to deliver a mercy stroke to that many people.


The paladin is doing it for personal gain in this case. i.e. Trying to benefit the greater good (although as we've seen from the BoED that's incorrect and the paladin falls if they murder the child as you've proposed.

Arguing that doing something because it's viewed as the greater good is doing it for personal gain is a bit wonky. :smallconfused:

[TaiLiu]

The Paladin is probably just a dead man walking considering the amount of time it would take to deliver a mercy stroke to that many people.
Maybe the Paladin has Great Cleave, or something.

[Andezzar]

@Frosty's scenario: The paladin would either accept that he will fall and kill the innocents or would flee from the fiend to get help (and possibly have the killed people raised afterwards).

A paladin is about fighting the good fight while maintaining his moral standards, not about winning every time.

[Frosty]

The Paladin is probably just a dead man walking considering the amount of time it would take to deliver a mercy stroke to that many people.The strokes don't have to be merciful. The paladin does have a bow. He can probably kill all the hostages in about 4 rounds. Better than spending 4 rounds to whittle down the fiend's HP just to have it restored to full right?


@Frosty's scenario: The paladin would either accept that he will fall and kill the innocents or would flee from the fiend to get help (and possibly have the killed people raised afterwards).

A paladin is about fighting the good fight while maintaining his moral standards, not about winning every time.Normally, fleeing to get help would be one of the legitimate choices, but assume in this case that for some reason fleeing is not possible. It's do or die for the paladin, and the rest of the villagers can't flee reliably either (assume the fiend is very fast and good at tracking.)

The question is: Is it better for the paladin to accept possible falling to save the village, or is it better for the paladin and the entire village to do so that the paladin does not commit any evil acts?

Also, from *whose* perspective is it better for? The paladin's? The deity of the paladin? The idea/metaphysical force of "Good" in this multiverse?

Is it possible for the "Good" decision to differ from the "Right" decision? And who ought to be making that choice?

[ArcturusV]

That's usually my issue with some of these "It'll cause a fall" arguments in topics like this Frosty.

1) No one likes losing everything they've been doing power wise, so I'm usually loathe to cause a fall unless it's really, really blatant stuff. I've had paladins fall before. But other than one girl who just... something was wrong with her morality scale. I've never really been all that quick on the Fall-o-Whomper.

But look at the general bend of arguments about "It'd cause a fall". Most of them are saying things like "Let everyone else die horribly, let demons get away, etc, etc, etc, just as long as YOU don't fall."

Note that, as I read the Good vs Evil section of the Player's Handbook on alignments, Good is defined as being selfless. Giving of yourself for the betterment of others. Typically at least. Evil is defined as being concerned for yourself above others.

Letting something bad happen, something that you could have easily prevented just so YOU don't fall? That in and of itself sounds evil. You're throwing other people under the bus to save your own shiny powers.

And with those definitions of Good vs Evil as per the book... doing something that you know is "wrong", and you're likely to be punished for... but doing it for Good and to help others... is actually a good act.

As odd as it sounds. But book wise it fits and makes sense. Good people, as it's stated time and time again, sacrifice of themselves for others.

[Andezzar]

There is no right answer to the question. That's the definition of a dilemma. That's why I provided two options. If fleeing is not an option, the "good" option would be to attack the fiend and possibly fail (the CR system should make not make failure inevitable).

Yes, the good option can differ from the right option. The paladin has two problems. Not only is he required/expected to do the right thing, he is also required/expected to achieve the right thing while limiting himself to certain actions. "The end justifies the means" is not possible for a paladin.

The sensible option for the paladin would be to kill the innocents, vanquish the fiend and then rebuild the character as a cleric

[Frosty]

There is no right answer to the question. That's the definition of a dilemma. That's why I provided two options. If fleeing is not an option, the "good" option would be to attack the fiend and possibly fail (the CR system should make not make failure inevitable).

Yes, the good option can differ from the right option. The paladin has two problems. Not only is he required/expected to do the right thing, he is also required/expected to achieve the right thing while limiting himself to certain actions. "The end justifies the means" is not possible for a paladin.

The sensible option for the paladin would be to kill the innocents, vanquish the fiend and then rebuild the character as a clericThe CR system is broken to begin with and we all know it (That Damned Crab anyone?). Failure isn't inevitable. The paladin can probably win with enough natural 20s, but the chance is just very, very remote.

3 questions:

1) How would you, as a person, define the "Right" or "Correct" course of action. Specifically, how would you define it in such a way as to differentiate it from the "Good" course of action in a given situation?

2) In-character, if the paladin were asked the same question, would a paladin recognize ANY distinction between the "Correct" and the "Good" courses of actions, or should a paladin ALWAYS view those as one and the same.

3) If a paladin does always view "Good" and "Correct" as being one and the same, doesn't it just mean that Evil has an easier time winning and taking over?

[Andezzar]

1) How would you, as a person, define the "Right" or "Correct" course of action. Specifically, how would you define it in such a way as to differentiate it from the "Good" course of action in a given situation?I would consider the right course of action is to remove the threat and save as many innocents as possible. If the threat can't be removed without collateral damage, so be it. But I'm not a paladin.


2) In-character, if the paladin were asked the same question, would a paladin recognize ANY distinction between the "Correct" and the "Good" courses of actions, or should a paladin ALWAYS view those as one and the same.That is an interesting question. I have no answer for it. I guess that depends on the individual paladin. Maybe it changes with experience (not XP).


3) If a paladin does always view "Good" and "Correct" as being one and the same, doesn't it just mean that Evil has an easier time winning and taking over?Of course, fighting with one hand tied behind your back is going to be hard. It's the old question, how many of your principles can you throw overboard to facilitate defending your principles/ideals. Can't go into real world examples here but there are many.

[TuggyNE]

1) How would you, as a person, define the "Right" or "Correct" course of action. Specifically, how would you define it in such a way as to differentiate it from the "Good" course of action in a given situation?

Hypothesis: no, or very few, people are able to articulate their entire system of morals/ethics up front in a systematic without having to go back and patch things in that they forgot or didn't consider.

[Bakeru]

How does providing warning that you're murdering someone make it not murder again?Did you even read my full post? Or did you read it, but ignored the context?
The Gentlemen-Assassin was in the context of an Paladin assassinating an enemy leader. It never was murder, because murder in D&D is explicitly defined as: "Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like." (Book of Vile Deeds, page 7)
Book of Exalted Deeds even has "the slayers of Domiel", which are pretty much "Assassin, but good" - they require you to be Lawful Good, but are still stealth-based "kill enemies without giving them a chance to resist" characters.
The Gentleman-Assassin was an example of honour, not goodness. He could still be evil, but he could just as easily be an paladin assassinating enemy leaders on behalf of his church, because he never breaks the "act with honour"-clause of the Paladin Oath, and he never commits an evil or chaotic act (It isn't evil, because it's not for theft, personal gain, personal pleasure or anything like that, and it isn't chaotic, because he literally made an appointment).


The paladin is doing it for personal gain in this case. i.e. Trying to benefit the greater good (although as we've seen from the BoED that's incorrect and the paladin falls if they murder the child as you've proposed.Did you forget to put an "isn't" in there? When did "personal gain" and "trying to benefit the greater good" became one and the same thing?


Phylactery of Faithfulness does not apply here. The paladin code is stricter than alignment changing/standing with ones deity. That is likely helpful, but evil actions aren't necessarily alignment changing, nor does the deity's opinion matter in any way shape or form.Well, I'm willing to concede that point.


Edit: Frosty the answer is explicitly no. Harming innocents is an evil act, no matter the reason.Interestingly, not necessarily.
There's this fun question: People are bound to a railway. Well, two railways, who meet in a railway switch a bit later on. And a train is coming. You can decide which way the train will go, since you can trigger the switch, but you don't have time or are otherwise incapable to get there and free them.
For added moral dilemma, make it so that there's a different number of people on each railway: the one the switch is currently set to contains more people, the other one only one. Do you harm the one person to safe the many, or do you stand by to let the many die, because you don't want to harm the one person?
If harming innocents is always evil, then a paladin has no way not to fall in this situation.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Finally, the real Paladin cold-clocks (nonlethally) the intro to philosophy professor posing these questions, goes outside, and rescues people in non-hypothetical peril.

[dascarletm]

Quick question on a different but related scenario:

Let's say a paladin is battling a fiend that is threatening a village. If the paladin is unable to defeat the fiend, he knows for certain that the fiend will go on to enslave or kill the entire village or even worse (who knows. Maybe sucking out souls).

The paladin knows that he begins the fight already somewhat outmatched. During the fight, he discovers that the fiend has held captive some innocent villagers in the same room. The fiend has ridiculous reach, and can basically drain the life from a villager as a free action to completely restore itself (lost limbs. Hitpoints). The paladin knows that the chances of going through the fiend's hitpoints like 7 to 8 times is practically zero, and he sees no way to free the villagers (well he could try, but the fiend has lots of tentacles, each of which gets its own action and the villagers will just get re-grabbed).

He knows that his best chance of winning this fight and saving the rest of the village, is to kill the villagers so that they cannot be used to restore the fiend. The question is...should he be willing to do so? If he loses the fight, he, and the entire village is dead or worse. The lives of the villagers...all of them...are in his hands.

Assume that resurrection magic is available, but expensive, and that the paladin cannot afford to raise all the hostages at this time.

Here is what most people don't seem to understand about the code's purpose.
It is there so that you are forced to make the best decision. Not the good, or the correct one.

In your senario: He cuts the tentacles off dealing damage to said feind while freeing them all at the same time.

A paladin has his cake and eats it too.

For Bakeru:

Interestingly, not necessarily.
There's this fun question: People are bound to a railway. Well, two railways, who meet in a railway switch a bit later on. And a train is coming. You can decide which way the train will go, since you can trigger the switch, but you don't have time or are otherwise incapable to get there and free them.
For added moral dilemma, make it so that there's a different number of people on each railway: the one the switch is currently set to contains more people, the other one only one. Do you harm the one person to safe the many, or do you stand by to let the many die, because you don't want to harm the one person?
If harming innocents is always evil, then a paladin has no way not to fall in this situation.

Well assuming the game world doesn't know it works in a game world with turns or whatever, the paladin prays for the speed to save both people or divine help, and runs as fast as possible to save everyone. Closest first.

He wouldn't fall because he isn't harming anyone, he didn't set the senario up to hurt these people. A failure on his part to stop evil doesn't make him evil.

[Andezzar]

Here is what most people don't seem to understand about the code's purpose.
It is there so that you are forced to make the best decision. Not the good, or the correct one.

In your senario: He cuts the tentacles off dealing damage to said feind while freeing them all at the same time.

A paladin has his cake and eats it too. The problem is, dismemberment does not work in D&D (apart from severing the head with a vorpal weapon). Also a dilemma is specifically set up to not have a best option. If there were a clearly best option there would be no question which option to take.

[Sactheminions]

I think that boiling Paladins down so far is problematic. I understand that this is supported to some extent by OOTS, which has the Sapphire Guard presented in a fairly stereotypical light - for story reasons no less - but Paladins can be played in a variety of ways.

More to the point, I think that Lawful Good deities are probably capable of conceiving of the actions of their servants in a more than mechanistic fashion, and tolerating servants who conceived of their duty in different ways.

In other words, I think the answer is not "The Paladin would wait for the child to do something wrong and then stop them/judge them/etc." The answer is "Depends on the Paladin." Also, in 3.0-.5 at least, it depends on the deity they serve; I have no doubt that you can conceive of a properly Lawful Good deity that can countenance killing Evil before it develops (Lawful is a terrifying thing if you take it really seriously).

I mean, the Lawful Good totalitarian society is a trope at this point, right? And if that society had foreknowledge, why not punish people for acts they had not yet committed.

Come to think of it, this is sounding like a great concept for a world.

Morality, ethics, and politics are more complicated than alignment, and there is no reason two Lawful Good characters - or armies - or societies - cannot have a knock down, drag out conflict.

[Frosty]

Hypothesis: no, or very few, people are able to articulate their entire system of morals/ethics up front in a systematic without having to go back and patch things in that they forgot or didn't consider.So every paladin-trainee needs a graduate degree in philosophy before actually being becoming a paladin? Otherwise it seems like a paladin can't help but fall sometime in his or her adventures.


I would consider the right course of action is to remove the threat and save as many innocents as possible. If the threat can't be removed without collateral damage, so be it. But I'm not a paladin.So from your perspective, and probably the perspective of the villagers that the paladin is trying to save, the paladin code can be just Plain Dumb sometimes right? On an interesting note, if the 8 village captives shout at the paladin that they're willing to die in order for the fiend to be defeated, then is the entire dilemma gone?


That is an interesting question. I have no answer for it. I guess that depends on the individual paladin. Maybe it changes with experience (not XP).Shouldn't the rigid, unbending Paladin Code (tm) say that there is only ONE, RIGHT ANSWER to this question? 2 Paladins from the same world shouldn't have 2 different answers to this question?


Of course, fighting with one hand tied behind your back is going to be hard. It's the old question, how many of your principles can you throw overboard to facilitate defending your principles/ideals. Can't go into real world examples here but there are many.How does the quote go? "Perfect is the enemy of the Good Enough" or something like that?



In your senario: He cuts the tentacles off dealing damage to said feind while freeing them all at the same time.

A paladin has his cake and eats it too.The fiend then, as a free action, consumes one captive to restore that tentacle, and then recaptures the villager immediately. (Trust me. My paladin tried that already. The situation is only half-hypothetical)

[Emmerask]

ok here is my question. a paladin learns the future from a trusted mage or someone whose powers for the subject are unquestinoble that the paladin is sure that there is no way he is wrong. in the future an innocent child of now seems to be a killing machine if not killed in 2 days for example. the future reading's results are inevitable, no matter what is done, it is told to paladin that he can't change these optional futures.

so what do you think the paladin would do?

my answer is that he shouldn't kill the child because of not deserving it yet. considering that he doesn't catch someone without having enough evidence that he is guilty, even letting him commit other crimes mean time, he wouldn't kill someone for uncommitted crimes. but what if in future, the family of those that are murdered by the child come and tell him that he let this happen, they are starving to death cause he let him kill their husbands etc and ask him where the honor is in letting those people die?

the answers may vary depending on very small facts of situation, still I would like to hear your opinions.

Okay here is the problem, if all of this is the case then it also means that killing the child is impossible (universe is already determined since it was seen it will happen you can´t do anything about it).

If it is however possible to change the future by killing the child then it logically follows that the world is not deterministic and that means free will which in turn means the child can be changed from killer to normal.

Therefore the premise is wrong. So the only option left is try to change the child to a good person.

[Andezzar]

So every paladin-trainee needs a graduate degree in philosophy before actually being becoming a paladin? Otherwise it seems like a paladin can't help but fall sometime in his or her adventures.That's also a problem of a briefly and poorly defined code and the vast variety of situations in which it should be applied.


So from your perspective, and probably the perspective of the villagers that the paladin is trying to save, the paladin code can be just Plain Dumb sometimes right?Of course.


Shouldn't the rigid, unbending Paladin Code (tm) say that there is only ONE, RIGHT ANSWER to this question? 2 Paladins from the same world shouldn't have 2 different answers to this question?That would be nice, but sadly we do not even have the wording of the unbending Paladin Code.


How does the quote go? "Perfect is the enemy of the Good Enough" or something like that?Good one.


Okay here is the problem, if all of this is the case then it also means that killing the child is impossible (universe is already determined since it was seen it will happen you can´t do anything about it).

If it is however possible to change the future by killing the child then it logically follows that the world is not deterministic and that means free will which in turn means the child can be changed from killer to normal.

Therefore the premise is wrong. So the only option left is try to change the child to a good person.That's what I said five or six pages ago.

[Frosty]

So from your perspective, and probably the perspective of the villagers that the paladin is trying to save, the paladin code can be just Plain Dumb sometimes right?


Of course. So, in theory, the world could actually be better off if there were no Paladins, and in their place are Crusaders or Clerics of the same alignment/gods? The existence of Paladins instead of other people makes the world no as great a place as it could be?


That would be nice, but sadly we do not even have the wording of the unbending Paladin Code.*We* don't, as players, but universe in which the paladin inhabits would, in theory, have one right? So from *their* point of view what I said earlier applies, even if we as players don't exactly know what the code is? Of course, the players and DM might hash out the exact code beforehand...


Good one.thanks! :smallsmile: I had to google quite a few different phrases of similar intent before I found that one.

[Andezzar]

So, in theory, the world could actually be better off if there were no Paladins, and in their place are Crusaders or Clerics of the same alignment/gods? The existence of Paladins instead of other people makes the world no as great a place as it could be?From what we can glean from the rulebooks, yes.


*We* don't, as players, but universe in which the paladin inhabits would, in theory, have one right? So from *their* point of view what I said earlier applies, even if we as players don't exactly know what the code is? Of course, the players and DM might hash out the exact code beforehand...That might work if there actually can be a Code that tells the paladins the best course of action for any given situation i.e. eliminates any dilemma. I'm not so sure about whether this is even possible.

That kind of reminds of the Codex Astares (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Codex_Astartes#.UYavcttmK5g) which is supposed to have the answer to any situation a Space Marine could find himself in. There is no indication how large this book is or how many volumes it comprises. Besides organisational stuff very little is known, what's actually in the book(s) and the author of the codex also wrote this: "What wins the fight is what wins the fight. Ultimately nothing should be excluded if that exclusion should lead to defeat." It is unclear whether those sentences made it into the final version of the codex, but you can see that the author acknowledges that a rigid code can be detrimental.

[Augmental]

The fiend then, as a free action, consumes one captive to restore that tentacle, and then recaptures the villager immediately. (Trust me. My paladin tried that already. The situation is only half-hypothetical)

Out of curiosity, which parts of your dilemma are from a real game, and which parts did you make on your own?

[Frosty]

1) Space marines are not paladins. Far from it. As far as I can tell almost everyone working in an official capacity for the Imperium of Man (parts of the Imperial Guard excluded) are Lawful Evil. The space marines don't understand the term 'Sanctity of Life', and neither do the Commissars, for example. The emperor EATS psykers to stay 'alive' most people's lives suck. The Tau ought to just wipe out most of the Imperium. At least the Tau pay lip service to Good, and are the least of the evils in the world.

2)
That might work if there actually can be a Code that tells the paladins the best course of action for any given situation See, but there IS a such a Code, even if it's not literally spelled out in the handbook each paladin trainee is given. In theory, officially, there is some nebulous, metaphysical concept/force of Good floating around, and IT (not the Gods) determines when a paladin has Gone Too Far (tm) and falls. This force of Good knows all the rules, and pretty much dictates how a paladin can and cannot act and still be a paladin.

This actually makes me wonder how much Free Will paladins really have.

[Frosty]

Out of curiosity, which parts of your dilemma are from a real game, and which parts did you make on your own?I've fought the demon before. Only won because the demon completely underestimated me and I got *lucky* and it teleported away, with a lot more respect for my powers. Fast forward a level or two...I have to go and kill this demon before I'm granted the power of raise people from the dead (aka before I can take the feat Ultimate Mercy).

The first time I fought it, it had willing slaves that it could eat to restore itself. This time, it recently conquered a town, and I *know* it has captives. If I lose, the demon and her masters get to solidify their power base in the region, and this region will be heavily corrupted. Everyone living in the region will likely suffer, and perhaps the city that I'm currently working with (maybe a week's travel time) at the moment will have to face both devil AND demon forces now. Losing Is NOT an option.

[Coidzor]

The strokes don't have to be merciful. The paladin does have a bow. He can probably kill all the hostages in about 4 rounds. Better than spending 4 rounds to whittle down the fiend's HP just to have it restored to full right?

Even 4 rounds of being able to whale on the paladin with its oodles of tentacles that all get their own actions seems like enough to decide the fight or outright end it if the creature is a true threat, though, I admit I was thinking 6 at the lowest due to tactical positioning.


Is it possible for the "Good" decision to differ from the "Right" decision? And who ought to be making that choice?

I'd say that it's inherently a thing up to the DM, as by default the Good Choice and the Right Choice in RAW are the same, which is why we've got to get into fairly customized scenarios to explore the issue.

Though, like all things left up to DMs, it's quite easy to run into situations where the "Right" answer is completely wrong.

[Andezzar]

1) Space marines are not paladins. Far from it. As far as I can tell almost everyone working in an official capacity for the Imperium of Man (parts of the Imperial Guard excluded) are Lawful Evil. The space marines don't understand the term 'Sanctity of Life', and neither do the Commissars, for example. The emperor EATS psykers to stay 'alive' most people's lives suck. The Tau ought to just wipe out most of the Imperium. At least the Tau pay lip service to Good, and are the least of the evils in the world.Of course they are not paladins, the discussion just reminded me of another nebulous convoluted code, that is never spelled out. At least its author acknowledges its fallibility (if not in the text itself).


2) See, but there IS a such a Code, even if it's not literally spelled out in the handbook each paladin trainee is given. In theory, officially, there is some nebulous, metaphysical concept/force of Good floating around, and IT (not the Gods) determines when a paladin has Gone Too Far (tm) and falls. This force of Good knows all the rules, and pretty much dictates how a paladin can and cannot act and still be a paladin.Yeah the problem is that the game rules postulate that such a concept exist, but we as fallible players can't spell that concept out. The problem is that the player of the paladin and his DM are often reminded that such a concept is supposed to exist because both need to check whether the paladin character has fallen.


This actually makes me wonder how much Free Will paladins really have.Free will is not touched by this. The "wrong" decision out of the paladin's fee will, will just cause him to fall.

[Coidzor]

I've fought the demon before. Only won because the demon completely underestimated me and I got *lucky* and it teleported away, with a lot more respect for my powers. Fast forward a level or two...I have to go and kill this demon before I'm granted the power of raise people from the dead (aka before I can take the feat Ultimate Mercy).

The first time I fought it, it had willing slaves that it could eat to restore itself. This time, it recently conquered a town, and I *know* it has captives. If I lose, the demon and her masters get to solidify their power base in the region, and this region will be heavily corrupted. Everyone living in the region will likely suffer, and perhaps the city that I'm currently working with (maybe a week's travel time) at the moment will have to face both devil AND demon forces now. Losing Is NOT an option.

Have you considered the simplest answer?

[Lrbearclaw]

ok here is my question. a paladin learns the future from a trusted mage or someone whose powers for the subject are unquestinoble that the paladin is sure that there is no way he is wrong. in the future an innocent child of now seems to be a killing machine if not killed in 2 days for example. the future reading's results are inevitable, no matter what is done, it is told to paladin that he can't change these optional futures.

so what do you think the paladin would do?

my answer is that he shouldn't kill the child because of not deserving it yet. considering that he doesn't catch someone without having enough evidence that he is guilty, even letting him commit other crimes mean time, he wouldn't kill someone for uncommitted crimes. but what if in future, the family of those that are murdered by the child come and tell him that he let this happen, they are starving to death cause he let him kill their husbands etc and ask him where the honor is in letting those people die?

the answers may vary depending on very small facts of situation, still I would like to hear your opinions.

In my mind, this falls to the Paladin's personal code as well as the code he swore to. "Lawful" is not necessarily the law, but the man's code of honor. He follows it strictly, therefore falls under "Lawful".

[Frosty]

Even 4 rounds of being able to whale on the paladin with its oodles of tentacles that all get their own actions seems like enough to decide the fight or outright end it if the creature is a true threat, though, I admit I was thinking 6 at the lowest due to tactical positioning.
1) It's wail, not whale :smallwink:

2) I know this is an incredibly tough fight. The good thing is not *every* tentacle can hit me every turn, but taking it in the face for 4 rounds is still better than spending 2 to 3 rounds to kill ONE tentacle, just to have it regenerate.


I'd say that it's inherently a thing up to the DM, as by default the Good Choice and the Right Choice in RAW are the sameI'm not sure I agree with that. Can you show me the page where it actually says that? /is actually genuinely curious.

Have you considered the simplest answer?Which is?

Yeah the problem is that the game rules postulate that such a concept exist, but we as fallible players can't spell that concept out. The problem is that the player of the paladin and his DM are often reminded that such a concept is supposed to exist because both need to check whether the paladin character has fallen.
So what...this whole thread is pointless before of rule 0?

[Augmental]

Which is?

Ask your party members for help?

[Coidzor]

1) How would you, as a person, define the "Right" or "Correct" course of action. Specifically, how would you define it in such a way as to differentiate it from the "Good" course of action in a given situation?

Looking at the DM like he or she were insane would be the first course of action for devoting that much time to the scenario of trying to screw me over.

More generally I'm not lawful enough to give a definition that would fit all scenarios, and even if I were, you wouldn't want to read that much legalese. At the most abstract I'd say that the right course of action is to minimize harm and evil direct and indirect while maximizing weal/benefit and good both direct and indirect and the correct course of action is the one that benefits your side the most and most prevents the opposing side from being able to continue. If to destroy the Abyss, one would have to become a new class of Fiend, well, that's self-harm and harming more people down the line and hardly change the status quo even if the replacement for the Abyss were, say, 10 layers instead of infinity+1.

In 3.X, Good is better than Neutral is better than Evil, so an impartial observer would prefer an environment that was Good.


2) In-character, if the paladin were asked the same question, would a paladin recognize ANY distinction between the "Correct" and the "Good" courses of actions, or should a paladin ALWAYS view those as one and the same.

Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy are one and the same to a Paladin. The only hard choices arise from deliberate attempts to trap the Paladin and playing along with those kinds of traps is anathema.


3) If a paladin does always view "Good" and "Correct" as being one and the same, doesn't it just mean that Evil has an easier time winning and taking over?

Yes and no. Evil bites itself more often than not, after all, and the main theme of discussions of evil in D&D is that it is its own worst enemy, at least 3.X and up from what I've seen of PF and 4e. Yes, having principles can preclude certain tactics but using certain tactics will make you evil and the point of the Paladin is fighting monsters without becoming a monster.


The problem is, dismemberment does not work in D&D (apart from severing the head with a vorpal weapon).

It does, but usually has to be called out and invoking the sunder rules.


Also a dilemma is specifically set up to not have a best option. If there were a clearly best option there would be no question which option to take.

Why should I respect a DM who actually tries to pull a Paladin dilemma off IRL? The obvious answer is always to look for what the person putting together the scenario didn't take into account or dropped the ball on.

In this case the DM basically decided to screw all sense of the rules and fair play and make the tentacles be able to take their own actions as well as able to move and act as free actions that don't provoke attacks of opportunity.


I mean, the Lawful Good totalitarian society is a trope at this point, right? And if that society had foreknowledge, why not punish people for acts they had not yet committed.

Yes, but it's a problematic one at best, because by caring on in such a fashion, they would and should very swiftly cease to be Good and instead be like the Harmonium. And even then the Harmonium has ways in which it is problematic and seems dependent upon fiat rather than consistency for why they get the alignment as a whole that they do.


So every paladin-trainee needs a graduate degree in philosophy before actually being becoming a paladin? Otherwise it seems like a paladin can't help but fall sometime in his or her adventures.

Depends on the DM and the player and how jaded/twisted/optimistic/etc. they both are as a result of their experiences.


On an interesting note, if the 8 village captives shout at the paladin that they're willing to die in order for the fiend to be defeated, then is the entire dilemma gone?

That goes into the separate question of being someone's mercy angel and if that's something a Paladin can do.


Shouldn't the rigid, unbending Paladin Code (tm) say that there is only ONE, RIGHT ANSWER to this question? 2 Paladins from the same world shouldn't have 2 different answers to this question?

2 Paladins can have different codes depending upon the DM and setting and orders and the like. It also depends upon whether a paladin is a paladin is a paladin.


The fiend then, as a free action, consumes one captive to restore that tentacle, and then recaptures the villager immediately. (Trust me. My paladin tried that already. The situation is only half-hypothetical)

I believe I've adequately expressed my low opinion of your DM and his ability to homebrew something consistent with the general framework of the game.

And if that's an official Pathfinder creature, then the dev situation is worse than I thought.


So, in theory, the world could actually be better off if there were no Paladins, and in their place are Crusaders or Clerics of the same alignment/gods? The existence of Paladins instead of other people makes the world no as great a place as it could be?

If Paladins were replaced by equal level Crusaders or Clerics(with the ability scores and a certain base level of competence) then the side of Good would be that much stronger, so YES of course! A 15th level Paladin is a 15th level Paladin whereas a 15th level Cleric can wield power on a much greater scale and accomplish a whole lot more in real terms.

That's kind of an odd way of thinking. The Paladin class is weaker than the Cleric class, sure, but it doesn't follow that Paladins make the world a worse place as a result of this.


*We* don't, as players, but universe in which the paladin inhabits would, in theory, have one right? So from *their* point of view what I said earlier applies, even if we as players don't exactly know what the code is? Of course, the players and DM might hash out the exact code beforehand...

Sure, they might know something but as it is undefined at best we have the biases of the DM to go on and that's rarely a safe, fair bet to go with one person's unexamined gut biases.


1) It's wail, not whale :smallwink:

Well, you've stated that it can eat people as a free action... :smallwink:


2) I know this is an incredibly tough fight. The good thing is not *every* tentacle can hit me every turn, but taking it in the face for 4 rounds is still better than spending 2 to 3 rounds to kill ONE tentacle, just to have it regenerate.

Why not? The tentacles can move and attack and eat people as free actions.


I'm not sure I agree with that. Can you show me the page where it actually says that? /is actually genuinely curious.

I believe it's in BoED where Good is equated with Right, just extrapolated by adding the word choice after each. Others have already posted on that subject before in this thread as I recall.


Which is?

Your DM has issues with Paladins if he's trying to make you fall with scenarios like this.

[Frosty]

Ask your party members for help?I hope I'll have their help for the fight... (I'm almost there. Already inside the desecrated temple-in-construction). If I do, this fight becomes more...manageable, but the DM has given me hints that my paladin is gonna feel a lot more pain than success in the coming levels.

More generally I'm not lawful enough to give a definition that would fit all scenarios, and even if I were, you wouldn't want to read that much legalese. At the most abstract I'd say that the right course of action is to minimize harm and evil direct and indirect while maximizing weal/benefit and good both direct and indirect and the correct course of action is the one that benefits your side the most and most prevents the opposing side from being able to continue. If to destroy the Abyss, one would have to become a new class of Fiend, well, that's self-harm and harming more people down the line and hardly change the status quo even if the replacement for the Abyss were, say, 10 layers instead of infinity+1.Could you rephrase? I asked for a distinction between "Correct or Right" vs "Good" and you gave me "Correct" vs "Right" for some reason.


Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy are one and the same to a Paladin. The only hard choices arise from deliberate attempts to trap the Paladin and playing along with those kinds of traps is anathema.Right, which leads to...

Yes and no. Evil bites itself more often than not, after all, and the main theme of discussions of evil in D&D is that it is its own worst enemy, at least 3.X and up from what I've seen of PF and 4e. Yes, having principles can preclude certain tactics but using certain tactics will make you evil and the point of the Paladin is fighting monsters without becoming a monster.Clerics and Crusaders, for example, do NOT have to follow such rigid principles, yet they are in NO danger of losing their GOOD alignment. I do not believe that not following the Paladin code would lead to non-good alignments.


Depends on the DM and the player and how jaded/twisted/optimistic/etc. they both are as a result of their experiences.What if you were the DM?

That goes into the separate question of being someone's mercy angel and if that's something a Paladin can do.Not necessarily. I say it is respecting the wishes of the villagers that wish to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the village. There a LOTs of epics and poems about people willing to lay down their own lives in order to defeat evil.


2 Paladins can have different codes depending upon the DM and setting and orders and the like. Umm no. By RAW, since the Metaphysical Force of Good is what the paladin bases his ideals off of (and not any deities), then, WITHIN THE SAME SETTING, no two paladins should have different codes (deity-specific restrictions excepted, which are ADDITIONS to the code, not changes) or else one of them will eventually Fall right?


If Paladins were replaced by equal level Crusaders or Clerics(with the ability scores and a certain base level of competence) then the side of Good would be that much stronger, so YES of course! A 15th level Paladin is a 15th level Paladin whereas a 15th level Cleric can wield power on a much greater scale and accomplish a whole lot more in real terms.

That's kind of an odd way of thinking. The Paladin class is weaker than the Cleric class, sure, but it doesn't follow that Paladins make the world a worse place as a result of this.I'm not talking about class power. I'm talking about decision-making. Let's say that the cleric and crusader were suddenly de-powered to the same Tier as a paladin. I pose the same question. Would the world be better off as a whole with clerics/crusaders instead of paladins?


Well, you've stated that it can eat people as a free action... :smallwink:
Why not? The tentacles can move and attack and eat people as free actions.Nonono. The tentacles can't move. They have pretty good reach though. Basically, if I go sunder one tentacle, then on its turn the demon will drain another prisoner (it has other tentacles holding prisoners), which regenerates the sundered tentacle, which can then go and re-grab the prisoner escaped prisoners.


Your DM has issues with Paladins if he's trying to make you fall with scenarios like this.I don't think he's actively trying to make me fall, but I want to pre-empt and pre-plan so as to minimize my chances of falling.

[Scow2]

That's usually my issue with some of these "It'll cause a fall" arguments in topics like this Frosty.

1) No one likes losing everything they've been doing power wise, so I'm usually loathe to cause a fall unless it's really, really blatant stuff. I've had paladins fall before. But other than one girl who just... something was wrong with her morality scale. I've never really been all that quick on the Fall-o-Whomper.

But look at the general bend of arguments about "It'd cause a fall". Most of them are saying things like "Let everyone else die horribly, let demons get away, etc, etc, etc, just as long as YOU don't fall."

Note that, as I read the Good vs Evil section of the Player's Handbook on alignments, Good is defined as being selfless. Giving of yourself for the betterment of others. Typically at least. Evil is defined as being concerned for yourself above others.

Letting something bad happen, something that you could have easily prevented just so YOU don't fall? That in and of itself sounds evil. You're throwing other people under the bus to save your own shiny powers.

And with those definitions of Good vs Evil as per the book... doing something that you know is "wrong", and you're likely to be punished for... but doing it for Good and to help others... is actually a good act.

As odd as it sounds. But book wise it fits and makes sense. Good people, as it's stated time and time again, sacrifice of themselves for others.Every time a Paladin compromises to evil, even for "The Greater Good", the Nine Hells and Abyss get stronger. The "greater good" may outweigh the immediate evil action, but the concession and admittance that there is no "Good" resolution, especially from a bastion of Good, shifts the cosmological whole of the world toward Evil.


The problem is, dismemberment does not work in D&D (apart from severing the head with a vorpal weapon). Also a dilemma is specifically set up to not have a best option. If there were a clearly best option there would be no question which option to take.Actually, dismemberment DOES work in D&D. "A Dagger in the eye is still a dagger in the eye." All you have to do is say "I hack off the appendages trying to attack the captives" or something to that effect, and the GM should come up with an ad-hoc ruling for how to carry out and resolve the action, using rules that, while not outright applicable to the circumstance, can be used as a guide for creating a rule that does. Unfortunately, it seems that the section on "Handling actions not covered by the rules" was taken out of the DMG in the 3.0 to 3.5 transition. A terrible loss.

[Frosty]

Every time a Paladin compromises to evil, even for "The Greater Good", the Nine Hells and Abyss get stronger. The "greater good" may outweigh the immediate evil action, but the concession and admittance that there is no "Good" resolution, especially from a bastion of Good, shifts the cosmological whole of the world toward Evil.But sometimes there ISN'T a good solution. That's what living in the 'real world' means.

Also, if side evil ends up killing or enslaving all of side good, then principles don't matter much at that point.

[Emmerask]

That's what I said five or six pages ago.

I admit I haven´t read the whole thread, take it as an approval on my part then :smallsmile:

[malkuth]

maybe the paladin shall tell the child about the future and the options. the child will know that staying alive will make him be evil and he will end up killing other people. so if he wants to live, because he accepts to be a murderer to live, this decision shall shift his allignment, he becomes evil and paladin shall kill this evil being to save good people :smallsmile:

or the child shall suicide as a good kid and go to heaven :smallbiggrin:

[Augmental]

I hope I'll have their help for the fight... (I'm almost there. Already inside the desecrated temple-in-construction). If I do, this fight becomes more...manageable, but the DM has given me hints that my paladin is gonna feel a lot more pain than success in the coming levels.

How high a level is your paladin? How many people are in your party, and what classes are they?

[Frosty]

Level 8. 6 allies in my party. All are lower level than me. Well, one of them is currently not with me, but I do have a temporary replacement, an Inquisitor who may or may not be higher level than me.

Got a ranger, a fighter, a witch, a cavalier, a rogue, and the aforementioned inquisitor. They're...not optimized, and not directly under my control (DM has control).

[Andezzar]

Got a ranger, a fighter, a witch, a cavalier, a rogue, and the aforementioned inquisitor. They're...not optimized, and not directly under my control (DM has control).Is there no one in that group that can deny the enemy its actions?

[Frosty]

My allies tend to rely on damage to take things down. The witch uses Evil Eye, Misfortune, and sometimes casts Summon Monster. The fighter recently retained some of her feats so she can take IUS and Improved Grapple, so she *might* be able to take on one tentacle in a grappling contests. I haven't seen the inquisitor fight much.

Really. They're not optimized. Nor are they played optimally (which is not necessarily a bad thing in my book because people should fight how their personality would have them fight.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ Frosty's scenario:

Have you considered collapsing the temple on the creature? It's probable that doing so will crush all of his hostages, damage him somewhat, and buy your party time to buff up while it digs itself out.

No comment on whether that's the most morally upstanding course of action; but it seems to me to be the most pragmatic.

[Frosty]

@ Frosty's scenario:

Have you considered collapsing the temple on the creature? It's probable that doing so will crush all of his hostages, damage him somewhat, and buy your party time to buff up while it digs itself out.

No comment on whether that's the most morally upstanding course of action; but it seems to me to be the most pragmatic.

Considered? Yes. We don't have explosives though. Also, our party being so short on casters, having lots of rounds to buff won't help.

[Andezzar]

The inquisitor should get a wand of Forbid Action (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/forbid-action) or Ear-Piercing Scream (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/ear-piercing-scream) if he cannot cast those spells anyways. That should shut down the fiend unless the tentacles are separate creatures and/or do not require attack rolls.

[Scow2]

If the demon can really kill captives at-will as a FREE action (As opposed to diverting tentacle attacks to drain them), so that it's impossible to destroy it in one round without going through all of its captives first, then your best bet is to use Smite Evil on the DM using the largest book around, because THAT kind of shenanigans are absolute bull****.

There might be a scroll of a spell to help in the situation.

Does your inquisitor know Terrible Remorse' (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/terrible-remorse) (If not, WHY NOT?!)? That should be enough to kill the beast - even if it makes its save, you have a free round of killing it that it can't do jack about.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Considered? Yes. We don't have explosives though. Also, our party being so short on casters, having lots of rounds to buff won't help.

Your realize that explosives aren't strictly necessary to the collapse of a structure? They're just amongst the fastest ways to get the job done.

If anyone in your party is a dwarf he should be able to spot load-bearing points of the structure through his stone-cunning ability as should anyone who's actually put ranks in know (architecture and engineering).

Of course, none of that matters if the DM has little to no understanding of architecture. :smalltongue:

[Frosty]

I don't have access to the Inquisitor's sheet, so I have no idea what he can do. I don't even know his level.

I'm not sure exactly what type of action (the DM just kind of describes what the enemies do, and doesn't tell me what kind of actions they are. Normally this is not a problem for me), but in the previous fight I'd used my spiked gauntlet to destroy a tentacle grappling me. Then, on the demon's turn a sacrifice would be consumed, the tentacle gets restored, and then the restored tentacle immediately makes a slam attack vs me (if it hits, get to grapple me as a free action). The other tentacles get to do their thing.

Kelb_Panthera: We don't have a dwarf either :smallfrown: None of us have knowledge (engineering).

[olentu]

Look Frosty, you seem to be going about this the wrong way. You are trying to figure out the point of the "good" part of the alignment system, the goal that all those pointless arbitrary rules are supposed to be driving good characters toward beyond the goal of following pointless arbitrary rules just because. However this presupposes that such a goal exists. Certainly it is possible that one did exist but if that is the case then it would seem to me that it was lost as various people chipped in with their own view of the situation leaving the jumbled and rather incoherent mess that we have today.

That being said you seem to be playing pathfinder and I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of their alignment system and where it may deviate from the D&D alignment system.

[Pickford]

Ah still mistakenly drawing equality between the terms assassination and murder. I would ask again what part of the rules supports the equality but I doubt you will answer any more then you did in the past.

How interesting. It would seem that you are taking the stance that the only possible reason for doing anything is personal gain. Now before we get into a discussion about who decides the motivations of a player's character and the like I want to be sure that this is what you desire. While this would certainly make killing the child murder it would likewise make the killing of any intelligent creature, except for possibly the case of some effect such as mind control, murder.

No, I don't equate the two, Assassination is a type of murder. All assassinations are murders but not all murders are assassinations. Does that clarify?

Second paragraph, again no. What I am suggesting that is the betraying of ones guiding principles to reach a desired end is selfish.

In the case of the child, or any other creature that has not actually done anything wrong (even an evil aligned orc for example), killing them would be murder and evil. It's only not murder when there's a reasonable justification (i.e. in war; in self defense; etc...) and killing isn't evil in select scenarios (defending another's life). Pro-active killing is generally evil, reactive killing is generally not. I'm sure someone being clever can find exceptions, but these would be good guidelines to start with.

Coidzor:

Arguing that doing something because it's viewed as the greater good is doing it for personal gain is a bit wonky. :smallconfused:

My apologies if I didn't explain well enough. It's the betraying of ones espoused beliefs to achieve a desired goal that makes it selfish. A subtle distinction, but a differentiating one.

ArcturusV: I am taking the long view that BoED expounds on. That is to say, evil acts taken to achieve good ends corrupt those ends inextricably. Corruption is as bad as the original evil, therefore nothing was gained, everything lost. A Fighter can use ends justify the means, a Paladin can't.

Frosty: There's a lot of conflation here. The use of 'best' refers to most preferable among perceived possible outcomes, which is not the same thing as saying the 'most good' or 'most righteous' choice, but in this case seems to reflect the 'most expedient' choice. Expedience is a fine thing, but it is rarely capable of mirroring the most good choices. In the case of the Paladin, most good can be conflated with 'best' and 'correct'. In the case of say, an Assassin (the PrC), best will more likely conflate with most expedient.

Bakeru: Please refrain from being so pointlessly confrontational.

Book of Exalted Deeds even has "the slayers of Domiel", which are pretty much "Assassin, but good" - they require you to be Lawful Good, but are still stealth-based "kill enemies without giving them a chance to resist" characters.

After reading the entry several times, nothing in the text supports your added value. (Bolded)

Secondly, the BoED which is 3.5 material contradicts the BoVD somewhat with this passage on pg. 11 under Crime and Punishment:

When the adventure takes place in a city and the opponents are citizens of the city (rather than evil monsters from the sewers or deeper underground), subduing opponents and turning them over to the city watch is preferable to killing them and possibly being forced to stand trial for murder. (Bolding of the word murder mine)

And it's actually it's act with honor. There is no 'u' in the PHB spelling. And there's nothing in the paladin code that prevents a chaotic act.

In the classic rail-road example on one side it's usually someone you know personally to see how many others you would sacrifice to save their lives. i.e. Your parent/sibling/best friend is tied to the tracks the train is currently on, you are at the track switcher and see the runaway train (no brakes, egad!) coming. You have just enough time to pull the lever moving the train to the other track. However, down the line you see X number of people who're stuck for (ARBITRARY REASON HERE) and will certainly die in your estimation if the switch is made.

In this case it's a fork between loyalty to those you know and the general conceit that we as humans want to do the right thing (TM) and be good people (TM) who our family would be proud of (TM).

In any event, pulling the lever to proactively cause the deaths of people would be evil. Not touching the lever would not be because it's simple recognition that not everyone 'can' save everyone.

Purely in my opinion, the right choice is to move to rescue someone tied to either track and possibly die trying.

Nerd-o-rama: :smallsmile:

dascarletm: I am largely in agreement with your assessment of the paladin choice.

To OP, is this a 'summoned' creature? And if so, what level is the Paladin? Because if it's a summons, they can rescue the entire group of people with a circle of protection or the spell holy sword. I guess it really depends on the level of the paladin in question as to if these abilities (which are basically designed for this kind of predicament) come into play.

[olentu]

No, I don't equate the two, Assassination is a type of murder. All assassinations are murders but not all murders are assassinations. Does that clarify?

Second paragraph, again no. What I am suggesting that is the betraying of ones guiding principles to reach a desired end is selfish.

In the case of the child, or any other creature that has not actually done anything wrong (even an evil aligned orc for example), killing them would be murder and evil. It's only not murder when there's a reasonable justification (i.e. in war; in self defense; etc...) and killing isn't evil in select scenarios (defending another's life). Pro-active killing is generally evil, reactive killing is generally not. I'm sure someone being clever can find exceptions, but these would be good guidelines to start with.

So your argument is that all assassination is done for the purpose of theft, perverse pleasure, or personal gain.

Or perhaps there is some other definition of murder in the D&D books that I am forgetting about.

I suppose that as another option you may be claiming that as a 3.0 source the book of vile darkness is not a valid set of rules for the discussion and/or are claiming the conversational English use of the word. But in that case, lacking the aforementioned definition and classification of murder, it is you that must provide evidence showing what murder is defined as and that all assassinations are a subset of that. Presumably you would wish to do so in a way that still allows good characters to kill enemies.

It is also possible that you may (though I have not noticed any reference to all assassinations being done for money so this is perhaps less likely) be using the slayer of domiel entry to say that all assassination is murder due to the section that says "Assassins, of course, are evil by their nature and the nature of what they do: committing murder for money is a completely evil act." That is unfortunately ambiguous due to it using the word assassin instead of assassination and the existence of the assassin prestige class that is, by nature of the perquisite, evil.

I may also be forgetting a definition on the books of assassination that specifies with sufficient lack of ambiguity that all forms of assassination are also murder.

In what I must assume is the least likely possibility it could be that you are trying to justify your claim under the open-endedness of the definition of murder, but that is unfortunately a case of DM fiat and as such applies only in the particular group.

I certainly am wondering what it is that makes the case so airtight. Also, if it would not be too much trouble, a direction to any out of the way sources would be useful.


You can not use the assumption that the paladin is committing murder to justify the conclusion that the paladin is committing murder. Perhaps you are merely not explaining your reasoning in sufficient detail but so far as I can tell you are assuming the conclusion as part of the premise and that is fallacious reasoning.


Look if you are going to continue to ignore the D&D definition of murder I am going to continue to point out that you are using murder improperly. So long as you continue to make an improper argument your conclusions will be unimportant as they can not be confirmed. They may be wrong, they may be right but with no way to check I see no reason to consider said conclusions to be of import.

Edit: By the by, if you chose to take the position that "as a 3.0 source the book of vile darkness is not a valid set of rules for the discussion and/or are claiming the conversational English use of the word" you would probably do well to note that murder being a D&D evil act is likewise a part of the D&D definition. It rather makes demonstrating that all definitions of assassination are murder useless in an alignment discussion if murder no longer carries any D&D alignment weight.

[Sactheminions]

Shouldn't the rigid, unbending Paladin Code (tm) say that there is only ONE, RIGHT ANSWER to this question? 2 Paladins from the same world shouldn't have 2 different answers to this question?



This is exactly what I was trying to point out: The answer to this question - even for Paladins of the same God - is "quite possibly not" and, moreover, that ambiguity is both nigh-inescapable and useful to a deity who wants to have more than one follower. Even a stereotyped deity like Hieroneous.

If Paladins can serve different deities, even of the same alignment, then the sky is the limit.

Moral questions are hard questions. Having a right answer in every hypothetical is not realistic, let alone expecting the Paladin to actually choose the right answer every time.

(Also, for sane DM's, Paladins lose their powers by performing acts they at least should know better than. Making difficult moral decisions under pressure, and living with the guilt of sometimes being wrong, is what a Paladin is supposed to do. It shouldn't be an automatic-lose-your-divine-grace moment to choose the deities less-preferred route to the greater good. But next time the Paladin discusses with his priest his duty, it should come up.)

[TuggyNE]

So every paladin-trainee needs a graduate degree in philosophy before actually being becoming a paladin? Otherwise it seems like a paladin can't help but fall sometime in his or her adventures.

Yeah, that's why atonement is a thing.

*having trouble keeping up with the rest of the discussion due to recovering from 24h flu*

[Frosty]

This is exactly what I was trying to point out: The answer to this question - even for Paladins of the same God - is "quite possibly not" and, moreover, that ambiguity is both nigh-inescapable and useful to a deity who wants to have more than one follower. Even a stereotyped deity like Hieroneous.

If Paladins can serve different deities, even of the same alignment, then the sky is the limit.

Moral questions are hard questions. Having a right answer in every hypothetical is not realistic, let alone expecting the Paladin to actually choose the right answer every time.

(Also, for sane DM's, Paladins lose their powers by performing acts they at least should know better than. Making difficult moral decisions under pressure, and living with the guilt of sometimes being wrong, is what a Paladin is supposed to do. It shouldn't be an automatic-lose-your-divine-grace moment to choose the deities less-preferred route to the greater good. But next time the Paladin discusses with his priest his duty, it should come up.)And what about deific fallibility? Can even the gods with Good in their portfolios get it wrong sometimes? And if so, are there any implications for the lowly mortals that serve them?

[ArcturusV]

Every time a Paladin compromises to evil, even for "The Greater Good", the Nine Hells and Abyss get stronger. The "greater good" may outweigh the immediate evil action, but the concession and admittance that there is no "Good" resolution, especially from a bastion of Good, shifts the cosmological whole of the world toward Evil.

See, that's my thing. Compromising and such.

It's just how I see most of these discussions going.

"Evil is about to happen. You might need to bend the rules this one time to stop evil."

That's usually the scenario given, boiled down to brass tacks.

Now, most proponents of what the Paladin should do to avoid falling involves, more or less, "Walk away, it's a no win scenario, let evil win so you don't fall".

... how is letting evil take the day at all proper for a Paladin? Or not a grand victory for Evil? But that's usually the line that's toted from what I've seen.

"Get someone who doesn't have a rigid moral code to do what you could have done anyway except for risk of Falling". That's usually the secondary option. But again... I mean you're still going for the "bend the rules" option. Just you're trying to say that you remain pure by getting someone else to do it for you... you're using other people for your own benefit... hmm... sounds like textbook Evil description.

So it just kind of occurred to me as I was reading the description of Good vs Evil. The "Good" action is actually to bend the rules, KNOWING it may risk causing a fall. You might be punished for it. You go seek out Atonement afterwards and do some quest of forgiveness. I mean... you know you're risking that. You're accepting that as the price of admission. If you fall? That's just a heroic sacrifice and gives you something to work towards regaining. But it definitely seems the least evil of the various options in these various scenarios. And less down to having some ace up your sleeve and a permissive DM.

[Frosty]

"Get someone who doesn't have a rigid moral code to do what you could have done anyway except for risk of Falling". That's usually the secondary option.And if you're going to do that, then why shouldn't the king just send a Crusader to do your job in the first place?

See, this is why I say that it is arguable that the world is better off with no paladins, so we don't have heroes who are too busy worrying about their own shiny powers rather than saving people.

[hamishspence]

It's worth noting, that the paladin's code demands that a paladin "punish those that harm or threaten innocents".

Conclusion- "harming an innocent" be it murder, manslaughter or whatever, is a punishable offense, from a paladin's point of view.

[ArcturusV]

One of those many things that tends to have problems. It goes right up there with things like Wish (Or ways to get Wish), Deck of Many Things, etc. Basically there's always one guy at the table who's kind of a jerk and is just waiting for a chance to screw with ya by those sort of tools. Not always the DM either.

But I mean, at it's simplest, you'd think this would be the chief decision for a Paladin:

"Will this action do good? Am I unduly putting others at risk to accomplish this good?"

I'm actually starting to think it's really that simple. This does mean that yes, you can't babicide the whole world (Unduly putting others at risk to accomplish Good). It'd lead to situations like Paladins used to be in, where they were First of Fight, Last to Leave (Earlier editions had rules for things like a Paladin couldn't retreat unless it was an unwinnable fight, and you had to do your best to cover the retreat of other allies/innocents). Simple metric that wouldn't require DM fiat or having the Phylactery of Faithfulness to basically keep asking your DM "Will this make me fall?" over and over. It does mean you'd act heroically, putting yourself at risk, rather than putting others at risk.

Eh. It's an idea. It smacks of being a good guideline to me.

[hamishspence]

One of those many things that tends to have problems. It goes right up there with things like Wish (Or ways to get Wish), Deck of Many Things, etc. Basically there's always one guy at the table who's kind of a jerk and is just waiting for a chance to screw with ya by those sort of tools. Not always the DM either.

But I mean, at it's simplest, you'd think this would be the chief decision for a Paladin:

"Will this action do good? Am I unduly putting others at risk to accomplish this good?"


There's also "Is this action evil"?

Some acts are "Always Evil" (harming or destroying souls, according to BoVD, torture, according to BoED)- hence "will it do good" doesn't come into it.

[ArcturusV]

Eh. Even the "Always Evil" things are kinda vague.

I mean, undead are listed as "Always Evil". Though there's quite a few things that are undead and not evil. Elves in Faerun with their Good Liches. The Dry Lich from Walker in the Waste isn't necessarily evil at all. Nevermind things like the Risen Martyr PrC, undead and Exalted Good. Even the "Harming or Destroying" thing, they have a PrC who gets a spell to steal souls and change the soul against it's will in the same book.

So I wouldn't say it. It opens up too many cans of worms. Particularly things like the "Is this murder?" thing that's been going on for the past few pages.

[Miranius]

If i`d play the paladin, faced with the choices of failing my oath and falling from grace or letting evil run rampant, i think going into "denial" would be the only option.
The paladin would try to convince himself that nothing is set in stone, maybe research previous prophecies that were prevented / failed to come true, and not stray a step from the childs side until the point of danger is past.

Not much fun from a roleplaying point-of-view, but maybe a "way out" from two bad choices.

[hamishspence]

Eh. Even the "Always Evil" things are kinda vague.

Acts, not creatures. Creatures, according to the MM, can have exceptions to alignment, even if they're described as "Always X alignment'.

And in the case of the Sanctify spell, the argument of Good beings would be that "changing an evil soul for the better does not count as harming it".

[Pickford]

So your argument is that all assassination is done for the purpose of theft, perverse pleasure, or personal gain.

Do you know a 'type' of assassination that isn't one of those things? Please explain specifically why it's not one of those.


Or perhaps there is some other definition of murder in the D&D books that I am forgetting about.

Incidentally though you only list those '3' types, the definition includes "and the like" which means: Anything we forgot to mention.


I suppose that as another option you may be claiming that as a 3.0 source the book of vile darkness is not a valid set of rules for the discussion and/or are claiming the conversational English use of the word. But in that case, lacking the aforementioned definition and classification of murder, it is you that must provide evidence showing what murder is defined as and that all assassinations are a subset of that. Presumably you would wish to do so in a way that still allows good characters to kill enemies.

Good characters can kill any enemy they like under the appropriate circumstances. Absent those circumstances they're committing murder and are criminals and likely not quite 'good' anymore.


It is also possible that you may (though I have not noticed any reference to all assassinations being done for money so this is perhaps less likely) be using the slayer of domiel entry to say that all assassination is murder due to the section that says "Assassins, of course, are evil by their nature and the nature of what they do: committing murder for money is a completely evil act." That is unfortunately ambiguous due to it using the word assassin instead of assassination and the existence of the assassin prestige class that is, by nature of the perquisite, evil.

Slayer of Domiel is, imo, a color-class meant only to provide for a non-evil assassin prc. It's poorly thought out and has virtually no fluff associated reading as a very throwaway concept. More to the point, if they're killing people in contravention of the law it's evil. So interesting idea, but totally unworkable within the context of the game rules.


You can not use the assumption that the paladin is committing murder to justify the conclusion that the paladin is committing murder. Perhaps you are merely not explaining your reasoning in sufficient detail but so far as I can tell you are assuming the conclusion as part of the premise and that is fallacious reasoning.

If the paladin is harming the child the paladin 'is' committing murder. Evil = Evil. In logic that's called a tautology.

Edit: ArcturusV: It's arguable that murdering the villagers to prevent their being consumed 'is' failure, just worse because now whoever did that has stained their soul.