PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Lifeboat Situations In D&D - How Does One Avoid Committing An Evil Act?



hamishspence
2014-03-12, 12:45 PM
This is of particular relevance when one is a character that gets penalized for committing Evil acts (paladin, paladin of freedom, various PRCs, has at least one exalted feat, etc).

The goal is to find a reasonable metric for such situations, that doesn't wreck the game.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 12:50 PM
This is of particular relevance when one is a character that gets penalized for committing Evil acts (paladin, paladin of freedom, various PRCs, has at least one exalted feat, etc).

The goal is to find a reasonable metric for such situations, that doesn't wreck the game.

Why? In real life these situations are complex and even people that believe in absolute morality are very likely to differ in interpretation. In fact in the other thread there are pages on pages on pages of people arguing over the same sentence in text.


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

That one in fact, over whether you can "kill somebody" through inaction, whether that would be outside neutral, whether you have responsibility for that sort of thing, at what point the compunctions would overwhelm you.

If we can pages on pages of arguments that have went on for days. I'm sure that in-universe (provided with the same objective information) there would arguments that would go on for years. Just because the alignment system is objective and there is a right answer doesn't mean that anybody short of an Overgod knows what it is. And there is likely to be debate. Exactly like real world philosophies that believe in absolute objective morality, they argue all the time.

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 12:53 PM
Why? In real life these situations are complex and even people that believe in absolute morality are very likely to differ in interpretation.

Mostly because, in games, these situations crop up now and again - and having a baseline to work with - may cut short the debates.

If a DM causes a Paladin to Fall for recommending the drawing of straws, and participating - is that DM being unreasonable?

AMFV
2014-03-12, 12:57 PM
Mostly because, in games, these situations crop up now and again - and having a baseline to work with - may cut short the debates.

If a DM causes a Paladin to Fall for recommending the drawing of straws, and participating - is that DM being unreasonable?

Nope, but Paladins are held to a higher standard anyway, and this sort of situation would require adherence to the tenants of their faith. But I imagine that a Paladin would need to atone for that, since again they are held to the highest standard.

Edit: Also the differing interpretations is why I think it might be interesting to have an all-Paladin game with different orders, since that would be really fascinating I imagine.

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 12:58 PM
How about a servant of The Forces of True Neutrality (as exemplified by the Rilmani, or gods like Silvanus and Obad-Hai) who is under an obligation to refrain from Good and Evil acts?

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:00 PM
How about a servant of The Forces of True Neutrality (as exemplified by the Rilmani, or gods like Silvanus and Obad-Hai) who is under an obligation to refrain from Good and Evil acts?

They're in trouble if there is no way to violate that obligation. If they only have to balance out they're fine, all they have to do is cosmically keep an even keel. Also even neutral Gods don't demand that their priests never commit a non-neutral act.

Mando Knight
2014-03-12, 01:02 PM
I would say that if there was a situation where you were in a group of people had to choose one of your own to die (and otherwise all members of the group are equally vital to the group's survival as a whole), the Good solution would be to volunteer yourself. Agreeing/proposing to select the victim randomly or by rationally calculating the "optimal" choice would be Neutral. Getting it over with by gutting the guy next to you is an obvious Evil choice.

How about a servant of The Forces of True Neutrality (as exemplified by the Rilmani, or gods like Silvanus and Obad-Hai) who is under an obligation to refrain from Good and Evil acts?
What makes a Good man turn Neutral?

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 01:03 PM
Also even neutral Gods don't demand that their priests never commit a non-neutral act.

May depend on the deity.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.


I would say that if there was a situation where you were in a group of people had to choose one of your own to die (and otherwise all members of the group are equally vital to the group's survival as a whole), the Good solution would be to volunteer yourself. Agreeing/proposing to select the victim randomly or by rationally calculating the "optimal" choice would be Neutral. Getting it over with by gutting the guy next to you is an obvious Evil choice.
The trope might be called:

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

Mando Knight
2014-03-12, 01:07 PM
The trope might be called:

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

The calculation that states one must die may be cold, but colder still is the one that dooms them all.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:09 PM
May depend on the deity.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.


Well in a scenario like that they're going to have a moral crises, since there is not an option that conforms to their particular set of ideals.

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 01:10 PM
The calculation that states one must die may be cold, but colder still is the one that dooms them all.

Indeed. Imagine that the sinking ship was only carrying paladins (on a mission to another country). All refuse to get on the lifeboat since "by doing so they'd take a seat that another could have used". All die.

Is each refusal a good act? Or a Senseless Sacrifice that actually shows disrespect for life?

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:15 PM
Indeed. Imagine that the sinking ship was only carrying paladins (on a mission to another country). All refuse to get on the lifeboat since "by doing so they'd take a seat that another could have used". All die.

Is each refusal a good act? Or a Senseless Sacrifice that actually shows disrespect for life?

That's not the same case, and that would be a senseless sacrifice, they would have the most junior members of the order (or however their system dictates since it would have a method for this) board the lifeboats till there was no room left, once there was no room left then they'd set off. The seniors would voluntarily lay down their lives, which allows the juniors not to have the same degree of responsibility, since nobody is being denied a chance to board the lifeboats (although I imagine they'd still be wracked with guilt).

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 01:17 PM
they would have the most junior members of the order (or however their system dictates since it would have a method for this) board the lifeboats till there was no room left, once there was no room left then they'd set off.

The problem is that each junior member would be deciding "I'll volunteer not to board - so someone else can".

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:18 PM
The problem is that each junior member would be deciding "I'll volunteer not to board - so someone else can".

They don't get to, because it's lawful. They can object, but I think that they might even be forcibly placed on the boats, and I don't think there's a problem with that. Chaotic wise the best method would probably be the aforementioned lots. Since that's equal fairness for everybody instead of seniority, or whatever other method a lawful individual might have.

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 01:20 PM
So - if you're ordered to save your own life - then even if "saving your own life" will result in another person dying - it's not Evil?

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:23 PM
So - if you're ordered to save your own life - then even if "saving your own life" will result in another person dying - it's not Evil?

You're not acting in your own interests, that's what defines the good evil split. Also as you've pointed out they aren't being ordered to do something that results in somebody dying, since the static state for the paladin boat is that nobody boards. But to save their own lives.

Amphetryon
2014-03-12, 01:24 PM
There is no reason the drawing of lots is Chaotic rather than Lawful that I can see within the Alignments as detailed in the RAW.

A person ordering another person to die is - per metrics established elsewhere on the boards today - fundamentally murdering that person via an Evil act; a Paladin who gave such an order would therefore fall and, in falling, lose the rank and right to give such an order to her former junior Paladins.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:26 PM
There is no reason the drawing of lots is Chaotic rather than Lawful that I can see within the Alignments as detailed in the RAW.

A person ordering another person to die is - per metrics established elsewhere on the boards today - fundamentally murdering that person via an Evil act; a Paladin who gave such an order would therefore fall and, in falling, lose the rank and right to give such an order to her former junior Paladins.

Not so, and that's presupposing things about the order, firstly that they've not discussed this scenario. And as I've pointed out the static state for the Paladins is nobody boards, so you can order somebody not to commit suicide, which isn't evil.

And yes, drawing lots could be lawful also, I just assumed that the Paladins would have a more structured system in place for that sort of thing.

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 01:27 PM
The good/evil split isn't just to do with selfishness.

A completely altruistic act can be an Evil one (murdering one stranger in order to save the life of another stranger).

Conversely, a selfishly motivated act can be a nonevil one (although going by BoED it can't normally be a Good one).

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:29 PM
The good/evil split isn't just to do with selfishness.

A completely altruistic act can be an Evil one (murdering one stranger in order to save the life of another stranger).

Conversely, a selfishly motivated act can be a nonevil one (although going by BoED it can't normally be a Good one).

Yes, a selfish act that doesn't cause direct harm is neutral, it's pretty much textbook neutral. I'm not sure if I agree that altruism can be evil though. That scenario doesn't really have much meat to it, what's the remainder of it.

Also for the Paladin scenario, they don't have direct responsibility, since if they didn't board the lifeboat, nobody would, so it's not a they live and somebody else dies scenario, it's an everybody would die, but they are being forced to live.

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 01:31 PM
I'm not sure if I agree that altruism can be evil though. That scenario doesn't really have much meat to it, what's the remainder of it.

It's a generic one - any case where saving a person requires the destruction of another person.

One is being altruistic toward the saved person.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:34 PM
It's a generic one - any case where saving a person requires the destruction of another person.

One is being altruistic toward the saved person.

No... Altruism involves self sacrifice. There is no self-sacrifice there in that scenario. I'm not even what that would constitute, I cannot imagine a scenario that fits that criteria, that's why I asked, because I think there is no scenario where you murder an innocent or somebody else dies are the only options.

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 01:37 PM
Two identical twins are in hospital - one of a minor complaint, one with a badly damaged heart. There are no anti rejection drugs - the only kind of transplant that will work is one from such a twin.

The "self-sacrifice" bit comes from the fact that the doctor knows that if they do it - they will be caught, tried, and convicted - they have no experience of concealing such an action.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:39 PM
Two identical twins are in hospital - one of a minor complaint, one with a badly damaged heart. There are no anti rejection drugs - the only kind of transplant that will work is one from such a twin.

The "self-sacrifice" bit comes from the fact that the doctor knows that if they do it - they will be caught, tried, and convicted - they have no experience of concealing such an action.

That's not even a little bit altruistic. At best you'd wind up with a moral wash, however I would suggest that the arrogance in making such a decision should be weighted in, since pride is a factor here. That would make it at least slightly self-serving, ergo evil. Otherwise why would spare one and not the other (an argument could be made for chaos if it's random, or lawful if there's a matter of law at stake). But if neither is the case, then it'd be evil.

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 01:42 PM
Lets say the doctor - not being proud - tells the healthy twin of the possibility.

The healthy twin, after a bit of agonising, decides "I won't sacrifice my life to save his - my interest comes first".

Has he committed an evil act?

Jacob.Tyr
2014-03-12, 01:42 PM
This brings me back to SOSC class, good times...

I'm of the opinion that, in the case of the lifeboat situation, the only good act one can commit is to refuse to board it them self. Most of the time no one should decide death for others and claim themselves to be Good. You can try to be fair and wind up neutral, or you can just gut the guy next to you and ensure that there is room and be evil, but you can't make the decision for someone else to die and be "Good".

If it was a group of Paladins I think the only outcome would be them actually forcing each other into the lifeboat, winding up with an outcome where only the weakest paladins are in the boat despite fighting against this outcome.

But that is just my viewpoint on the situation, and I have heard good arguments for other ways to structure the moral situation. You might be Pragmatic Good, and choose the most good option, judging who gets to go based on some sort of value of worth that I'm personally not willing to make myself.

NOTE: I am assuming that this is just a matter of space for X on the lifeboats, X+n people on the boat where n is a positive integer. One of my favorite variants, however, is where you add in bad weather and change up the physical characteristics of the people. Lets say the life boat can carry 10 of the 20 people on your boat, the weather is terrible, and unless you put the 8 strongest/best at sailing/etc people on the life boat it will almost assuredly go down.

What if those 8 were paladins, and everyone on the boat is innocent and good? Do they condemn 10 people to die to save themselves and 2 others? Should they let 10 innocent people risk the sea, despite the fact that 20 people die then?

Manly Man
2014-03-12, 01:43 PM
One thing that I've always loved about playing with folks who are exceptionally imaginative is that, when presented with two options that both lead to being ultimately evil acts, they either come up with a third option, or make one.

For example, I remember reading a /tg/ thread (please bear with me, it was actually pretty good) about having a good mind flayer, and the most likely class it would be for being good-aligned was a Paladin. They were presented with the problem of a baby tiefling that was going to be used in a ritual to summon an evil god, and was to choose between either killing the baby, or letting it live and allow the ritual to continue.

Staying in-character with how the crazy minds of most aberrations work, even the lawful ones, the mind flayer decided to set himself on fire and run into the room while the ritual was being performed, so as to disrupt it and then let the party dispatch the enemies while he put the fire out and escaped with the infant. The ritual was ruined (and I believe it was one of those 'when the planets align' sort of rituals), the baby was saved, and all's well that ends well.

That's the kind of role-playing I just love to see in most games, and I actually lean in their favor a little more than usual if they come up with such creative answers to what are otherwise lose-lose problems.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 01:46 PM
Lets say the doctor - not being proud - tells the healthy twin of the possibility.

The healthy twin, after a bit of agonising, decides "I won't sacrifice my life to save his - my interest comes first".

Has he committed an evil act?

A minor evil act yes. At least by the definitions in the rules. I would say it's not major, certainly not egregious but it is evil as per the rules, provided of course that the sick twin is innocent of wrongdoing and deserves to live. Since Neutral people do not kill innocents and by inaction he is allowing him to die. Now as to whether I'd think it's right or wrong real world. I'm not going to address that, but suffice it to say that I would call it very minor.

Amphetryon
2014-03-12, 01:48 PM
A Paladin on a battlefield is handed a Heavy Crossbow, that's been enchanted with True Strike, by his CO, and is ordered to shoot an unarmored Longbow user who appears to be drawing a bead on the Paladin. If he shoots, he will be committing murder and placing his own life over that of another person - posited as an Evil act. If he does not shoot, he may be guilty of needless Self Sacrifice (nothing says the Longbow is as likely to hit as the enchanted Heavy Crossbow) as well as directly ignoring a direct order (though previous arguments about the validity of any such order apply).

Please describe the Paladin's legitimate response that does not contradict currently established metrics on Good/Evil and prevents the Paladin from Falling.

Jacob.Tyr
2014-03-12, 01:51 PM
A minor evil act yes. At least by the definitions in the rules. I would say it's not major, certainly not egregious but it is evil as per the rules, provided of course that the sick twin is innocent of wrongdoing and deserves to live. Since Neutral people do not kill innocents and by inaction he is allowing him to die. Now as to whether I'd think it's right or wrong real world. I'm not going to address that, but suffice it to say that I would call it very minor.
I would say the doctor has committed and evil act by presenting this situation, and that not willingly killing yourself to save someone else is definitely neutral. As per above

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Yeah, neutral people have commitments to others via personal relationships. But I would argue that this often precludes making "sacrifices to protect or help others" and I'm pretty sure RAW is on my side.

Felhammer
2014-03-12, 01:52 PM
You have two options - Kill yourself to provide food for the others or make it so everyone starves. If another character kills a different character on the boat then the Paladin is obliged to kill the killer, since he cannot associate with evil characters (not to mention he stood by and watched another character kill someone).

Jacob.Tyr
2014-03-12, 01:55 PM
A Paladin on a battlefield is handed a Heavy Crossbow, that's been enchanted with True Strike, by his CO, and is ordered to shoot an unarmored Longbow user who appears to be drawing a bead on the Paladin. If he shoots, he will be committing murder and placing his own life over that of another person - posited as an Evil act. If he does not shoot, he may be guilty of needless Self Sacrifice (nothing says the Longbow is as likely to hit as the enchanted Heavy Crossbow) as well as directly ignoring a direct order (though previous arguments about the validity of any such order apply).

Please describe the Paladin's legitimate response that does not contradict currently established metrics on Good/Evil and prevents the Paladin from Falling.
I'm pretty sure that trying to kill a paladin constitutes an evil act, and the paladin wouldn't fall by stopping this person from committing an evil act. I would say that he can shoot, feel bad about it, and atone later because killing a sentient being is something a paladin should probably always atone for.

Or he can shoot, and then rush over and try to stabilize the man he just shot, leaving him alive but unable to fight any more for the day.

Or shoot to disable, if we're using called shot rules. That +20 from true strike makes this pretty plausible.

If he kills the man out of anger for daring to attack him, or just in cold blood without remorse, then he falls no questions asked.

Amphetryon
2014-03-12, 01:55 PM
You have two options - Kill yourself to provide food for the others or make it so everyone starves. If another character kills a different character on the boat then the Paladin is obliged to kill the killer, since he cannot associate with evil characters (not to mention he stood by and watched another character kill someone).

Does that not make the Paladin guilty of killing? If the killing of another person is Evil, then you're describing a(nother) situation where the Paladin has no option but to Fall.

EDIT: @Jacob.Tyr - response noted, but I suspect your POV on Good/Evil is different than that of AMFV, who plainly stated that putting your own interests over those of another is an Evil act.

hamishspence
2014-03-12, 01:57 PM
A minor evil act yes. At least by the definitions in the rules.

What part of the rules?

"Harming innocents" is evil - but "choosing not to give somebody your own heart" might not really be what's meant by "harming".

Enixon
2014-03-12, 03:48 PM
A Paladin on a battlefield is handed a Heavy Crossbow, that's been enchanted with True Strike, by his CO, and is ordered to shoot an unarmored Longbow user who appears to be drawing a bead on the Paladin. If he shoots, he will be committing murder and placing his own life over that of another person - posited as an Evil act. If he does not shoot, he may be guilty of needless Self Sacrifice (nothing says the Longbow is as likely to hit as the enchanted Heavy Crossbow) as well as directly ignoring a direct order (though previous arguments about the validity of any such order apply).

Please describe the Paladin's legitimate response that does not contradict currently established metrics on Good/Evil and prevents the Paladin from Falling.


Well they're on a battlefield which implies that they are at war, the longbowman is an enemy combatant not an innocent. Paladins are first and foremost holy warriors and a key part of being a warrior is "kill the enemy"

I forget how they worded it but the 2nd Edition Complete Paladin's Handbook had a section about Paladin's on the battlefield and how in times of war it was okay for them to fight for their country even though it means killing folks in the enemy army that aren't necessarily evil, and indeed may even be Paladins themselves

Segev
2014-03-12, 03:54 PM
A Paladin on a battlefield is handed a Heavy Crossbow, that's been enchanted with True Strike, by his CO, and is ordered to shoot an unarmored Longbow user who appears to be drawing a bead on the Paladin. If he shoots, he will be committing murder and placing his own life over that of another person - posited as an Evil act. If he does not shoot, he may be guilty of needless Self Sacrifice (nothing says the Longbow is as likely to hit as the enchanted Heavy Crossbow) as well as directly ignoring a direct order (though previous arguments about the validity of any such order apply).

Please describe the Paladin's legitimate response that does not contradict currently established metrics on Good/Evil and prevents the Paladin from Falling.
This falls firmly under "self-defense," in which Paladins are absolutely permitted to engage. They're a class that has a whole lot of martial training; they're not expected to be pacifists.

If you have a situation where one must die, the paladin will offer up himself before he will agree to drawing straws. If he faces disagreement from other people who would rather give their lives than allow the paladin to die, he might then propose drawing straws with them, unless he has reason and justification to deny them that choice more forcefully (at which point he might knock them out or induce another party member to do so to slip them onto the boat).

There's a reason these situations are dramatic and enticing to watch in movies and the like; the ways people deal with the tough choices are interesting, and there are multiple good-aligned outcomes (if no "good" in the "happy ending" sense outcomes).

I can think of good reasons a paladin might NOT sacrifice himself, as well. They'd usually be corner cases, but they can exist.

A good-aligned person could, provided there was a fair (as fair as is possible) determination that they should be one of those on the life boat, non-evilly refuse to give up his seat, too. It would be more good of him to do so than not, but it is at worst a neutral act when he has done nothing "wrong" to get the seat in the first place. Good people don't just live for themselves; sometimes, the judgment that your life is valuable to others means you don't simply sacrifice it for no reason other than some stranger might survive.

A paladin almost certainly still would. They're all but Exalted Good characters. But it is at worst neutral to refuse to offer oneself up in place of another, barring circumstances that make that other's plight one's own fault.

Amphetryon
2014-03-12, 04:03 PM
This falls firmly under "self-defense," in which Paladins are absolutely permitted to engage. They're a class that has a whole lot of martial training; they're not expected to be pacifists.

If you have a situation where one must die, the paladin will offer up himself before he will agree to drawing straws. If he faces disagreement from other people who would rather give their lives than allow the paladin to die, he might then propose drawing straws with them, unless he has reason and justification to deny them that choice more forcefully (at which point he might knock them out or induce another party member to do so to slip them onto the boat).

There's a reason these situations are dramatic and enticing to watch in movies and the like; the ways people deal with the tough choices are interesting, and there are multiple good-aligned outcomes (if no "good" in the "happy ending" sense outcomes).

I can think of good reasons a paladin might NOT sacrifice himself, as well. They'd usually be corner cases, but they can exist.

A good-aligned person could, provided there was a fair (as fair as is possible) determination that they should be one of those on the life boat, non-evilly refuse to give up his seat, too. It would be more good of him to do so than not, but it is at worst a neutral act when he has done nothing "wrong" to get the seat in the first place. Good people don't just live for themselves; sometimes, the judgment that your life is valuable to others means you don't simply sacrifice it for no reason other than some stranger might survive.

A paladin almost certainly still would. They're all but Exalted Good characters. But it is at worst neutral to refuse to offer oneself up in place of another, barring circumstances that make that other's plight one's own fault.
I have seen more than one LG Paladin Code that firmly forbids clearly suicidal actions, so I'm not at all convinced that "the Paladin will offer himself up before he will agree to draw straws" is in any way a universal truth about Paladins or Good.

Jeff the Green
2014-03-12, 04:28 PM
Mostly because, in games, these situations crop up now and again - and having a baseline to work with - may cut short the debates.

If a DM causes a Paladin to Fall for recommending the drawing of straws, and participating - is that DM being unreasonable?

If drawing straws is consented to by everyone, then it's hardly evil. No more so than asking some friends to go on a desperate mission that will put their lives in danger but increase the chance you'll make it out alive.

Granted, the paragon of paladinhood would volunteer to die for the others in the absence of other factors, but you don't fall for not living up to that idea.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 07:48 PM
What part of the rules?

"Harming innocents" is evil - but "choosing not to give somebody your own heart" might not really be what's meant by "harming".

Yes... this is what led to an 8-page debate. Which I really don't necessarily think we should be trying to repeat. I argued that you can harm somebody by inaction like a child through neglect, they argued "inaction doesn't count" and you have no responsibility to act..

It's like the difference between Murder laws in New York and in Pennsylvania. One requires action, the other does not, to imply that action is required in all cases by all reasonable people is not exactly reasonable, since there are clearly reasonable and intelligent folks that define murder the way that I do.


I have seen more than one LG Paladin Code that firmly forbids clearly suicidal actions, so I'm not at all convinced that "the Paladin will offer himself up before he will agree to draw straws" is in any way a universal truth about Paladins or Good.


YOU'VE SEEN A PALADIN CODE THAT FORBIDS KILLING YOURSELF TO SAVE SOMEBODY? I don't think that exists, and if it does, it's wrong, that can happen. this isn't selfish suicide but a reasonable action under the circumstances.

Amphetryon
2014-03-12, 07:53 PM
YOU'VE SEEN A PALADIN CODE THAT FORBIDS KILLING YOURSELF TO SAVE SOMEBODY? I don't think that exists, and if it does, it's wrong, that can happen. this isn't selfish suicide but a reasonable action under the circumstances.
I sure have. I didn't even need to use all capital letters to say so. :smallwink: I also disagree - strenuously - that this portrayal of a Paladin's Code is categorically wrong.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 07:59 PM
I sure have. I didn't even need to use all capital letters to say so. :smallwink: I also disagree - strenuously - that this portrayal of a Paladin's Code is categorically wrong.

Well if my interpretation of RAW is correct then yes, it is. I'll agree that not under all interpretations of the moral code it would be. But under mine it would be.

Amphetryon
2014-03-12, 08:02 PM
Well if my interpretation of RAW is correct then yes, it is. I'll agree that not under all interpretations of the moral code it would be. But under mine it would be.

As has been noted several times, your interpretation of the RAW of Alignment appears to be a minority view.

Felhammer
2014-03-12, 08:17 PM
Does that not make the Paladin guilty of killing? If the killing of another person is Evil, then you're describing a(nother) situation where the Paladin has no option but to Fall.

EDIT: @Jacob.Tyr - response noted, but I suspect your POV on Good/Evil is different than that of AMFV, who plainly stated that putting your own interests over those of another is an Evil act.

But class abilities are useless when you're dead! :smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:

veti
2014-03-12, 08:55 PM
I just popped in to say, the mental image of a troop of paladins fighting each other over who gets to stay on the sinking ship...

... is priceless.

I'm now thinking of the rookie who, knowing he has no chance in a stand-up fight, concludes that their most honourable option is to sneak off to hide below decks. The invincible O'Chul, subduing his teammates one by one and physically flinging them onto the lifeboat. The vainglorious Miko slashing the lifeboat itself to pieces, so that none of the paladins may disgrace themselves by surviving.

Don't ever change, guys.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 09:02 PM
As has been noted several times, your interpretation of the RAW of Alignment appears to be a minority view.

I see three people arguing against me, that's not really a strong majority, I'll take being in a 25% minority. Of course weight of numbers is COMPLETELY, I say again, COMPLETELY irrelevant to a discussion of morality. Just because something is widely done or widely believed does not make it moral or ethical.


I just popped in to say, the mental image of a troop of paladins fighting each other over who gets to stay on the sinking ship...

... is priceless.

I'm now thinking of the rookie who, knowing he has no chance in a stand-up fight, concludes that their most honourable option is to sneak off to hide below decks. The invincible O'Chul, subduing his teammates one by one and physically flinging them onto the lifeboat. The vainglorious Miko slashing the lifeboat itself to pieces, so that none of the paladins may disgrace themselves by surviving.

Don't ever change, guys.

I don't think they would actually fight each other, if this occurred to us online in the short span of time we've had, it would have definitely occurred to an order of religious folks, and they would have discussed what was moral or not in that scenario and laid out a set of rules for it. That's generally how lawful folks operate is on formal interpretation and precedent.

AMFV
2014-03-12, 09:07 PM
Does that not make the Paladin guilty of killing? If the killing of another person is Evil, then you're describing a(nother) situation where the Paladin has no option but to Fall.

EDIT: @Jacob.Tyr - response noted, but I suspect your POV on Good/Evil is different than that of AMFV, who plainly stated that putting your own interests over those of another is an Evil act.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I'VE SAID, I'VE SAID PUTTING YOUR INTERESTS OVER ANOTHER WHERE IT IS HARMFUL IS AN EVIL ACT.

Sorry about that, I've just had so many people misinterpret my position and then attempt to present it as the fact of my position particularly to others. It is evil if it involves
hurting, oppressing, and killing others. That's what makes it evil. If your actions don't harm another then you have no responsibility. If you want to work 50 hours a week to make more money, then that does not directly harm another. If you want to lay around all day and not contribute productively, it doesn't harm another, and is fine even though it involves putting your own interests first.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-12, 09:17 PM
I just popped in to say, the mental image of a troop of paladins fighting each other over who gets to stay on the sinking ship...

... is priceless.

I'm now thinking of the rookie who, knowing he has no chance in a stand-up fight, concludes that their most honourable option is to sneak off to hide below decks. The invincible O'Chul, subduing his teammates one by one and physically flinging them onto the lifeboat. The vainglorious Miko slashing the lifeboat itself to pieces, so that none of the paladins may disgrace themselves by surviving.

Don't ever change, guys.

I know right? its just so unreasonably stupid, that no human being would actually do this and its becomes hilarious.

"No I should die!"
"No I should die!"
"No, I should die rather than you!"
"LIVE YOU HONORABLE FOOL! LIVE!"
"YOU FIRST!"
*fight ensues*

AMFV
2014-03-12, 09:20 PM
I know right? its just so unreasonably stupid, that no human being would actually do this and its becomes hilarious.

"No I should die!"
"No I should die!"
"No, I should die rather than you!"
"LIVE YOU HONORABLE FOOL! LIVE!"
"YOU FIRST!"
*fight ensues*

I would do it, and I've known people to argue over who should take the most risks. The scene in Saving Private Ryan where they argue over who should run past the sniper is a prime example, you'll notice that they were all trying to take the risk so their buddies wouldn't have to.

People have certainly fought with people to keep them alive or to allow them to live if that men the other dying. "I'm going for a short walk, I don't know when I'll be back" this is a way people have actually behaved, in real life.

qwertyu63
2014-03-12, 10:13 PM
This post is being made after reading only the first post. Apologies if it is off topic now.

My rule of thumb is this: If all possible actions are "evil", then none of them are "Evil".

AMFV
2014-03-12, 10:20 PM
This post is being made after reading only the first post. Apologies if it is off topic now.

My rule of thumb is this: If all possible actions are "evil", then none of them are "Evil".

That's absurd though, particularly since while it is possible to have a scenario where you are forced to make a morally compromising choice, it does not deprive that choice of being morally compromising. Furthermore I can't think of a scenario where ALL the options are evil, at least not evil by the standard presented in D&D.

The only exception is some bizarre hostage scenario where you'd be forced to kill one random hostage or they'd kill another. And since you have no action you can take that would change the scenario, in that case you'd be right, since there is no action or lack of action you can make that would change things. However outside of that extremely, and I mean extremely contrived scenario I can't think of another case that's the same.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 02:21 AM
I just popped in to say, the mental image of a troop of paladins fighting each other over who gets to stay on the sinking ship...

... is priceless.

I'm now thinking of the rookie who, knowing he has no chance in a stand-up fight, concludes that their most honourable option is to sneak off to hide below decks. The invincible O'Chul, subduing his teammates one by one and physically flinging them onto the lifeboat. The vainglorious Miko slashing the lifeboat itself to pieces, so that none of the paladins may disgrace themselves by surviving.

Don't ever change, guys.

More Hero Than Thou (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreHeroThanThou), indeed.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-13, 02:26 AM
I would do it, and I've known people to argue over who should take the most risks. The scene in Saving Private Ryan where they argue over who should run past the sniper is a prime example, you'll notice that they were all trying to take the risk so their buddies wouldn't have to.

People have certainly fought with people to keep them alive or to allow them to live if that men the other dying. "I'm going for a short walk, I don't know when I'll be back" this is a way people have actually behaved, in real life.

yes and? they weren't in a time critical situation. stopping to argue over who dies while the entire ship sinks means EVERYONE dies because they took too long to decide, therefore by stopping to decide, you murder everyone.

therefore going for the lifeboats first is morally higher.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 02:35 AM
yes and? they weren't in a time critical situation. stopping to argue over who dies while the entire ship sinks means EVERYONE dies because they took too long to decide, therefore by stopping to decide, you murder everyone.

therefore going for the lifeboats first is morally higher.

Not correct at all... Sinking ships often take days to months to even years sometime to finish sinking. Even a fast sinking ship is done in hours not minutes, unless it's capsized and then nobody's getting to the lifeboats anyhow.

Furthermore in the Saving Private Ryan example, which actually involved running past a tank, they were being shot at, it was extremely time critical, since they would have died if they hung around.

Yes, if you stall for several hours it's not really a very good outcome, not tantamount to evil though, since you aren't putting your desires over others (probably, there could be certain intentional aspects that could make it evil), but assuming the intention is good, as I was, then if everybody dies because they were arguing over it, it's not murder, stupid, yes, but it's not evil. And maybe not even stupid, just wasteful.

Also if you add the ship sinking too fast for everybody to get on the boats anyways, that fundamentally changes the morality of the associated scenario, as I've said changing the scenario involves changing what is moral in it. So don't apply the things I've said to a changed scenario without also respecting the fundamental principles that I underlay them.

GrayGriffin
2014-03-13, 03:08 AM
I just popped in to say, the mental image of a troop of paladins fighting each other over who gets to stay on the sinking ship...

... is priceless.

I'm now thinking of the rookie who, knowing he has no chance in a stand-up fight, concludes that their most honourable option is to sneak off to hide below decks. The invincible O'Chul, subduing his teammates one by one and physically flinging them onto the lifeboat. The vainglorious Miko slashing the lifeboat itself to pieces, so that none of the paladins may disgrace themselves by surviving.

Don't ever change, guys.

Someone needs to draw this.

Also, I think the lifeboat situation may also depend on other circumstances. For example, I wouldn't begrudge someone with a dependent claiming spaces for both their dependent and themselves.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 03:09 AM
For an example of "no chance whatsoever to survive if you don't get to the escape vehicle" - how about a damaged space station and its escape pods?


yes and? they weren't in a time critical situation. stopping to argue over who dies while the entire ship sinks means EVERYONE dies because they took too long to decide, therefore by stopping to decide, you murder everyone.
A good example of "By arguing, you kill everyone" might be Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

imagine that, rather than Spock & McCoy, you had two Vulcans there - each with equal ability to save the ship.

How do they resolve the situation without "one causing the other's death through inaction"?

Assuming that the situation will not be in any way improved by both going in together - only one "saver" is needed.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 03:24 AM
For an example of "no chance whatsoever to survive if you don't get to the escape vehicle" - how about a damaged space station and its escape pods?


A good example of "By arguing, you kill everyone" might be Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

imagine that, rather than Spock & McCoy, you had two Vulcans there - each with equal ability to save the ship.

How do they resolve the situation without "one causing the other's death through inaction"?

Assuming that the situation will not be in any way improved by both going in together - only one "saver" is needed.

That isn't a good example because it didn't happen as I said there literally hundreds of ways one could decide (quickly too). Lots, Rock-Paper-Scissors, Seniority, Who is more likely to succeed (since in real life exactly even chance almost never happen), rank (that's the most likely option with the lower ranking person being ordered to stay).

There seems to be this frame of mind that exists in this argument where some people are arguing that no person would ever be so inclined as to argue over whether it was worth dying, and then that any person that would is going to be stupid enough to let themselves both die because they can't agree on it. While that's a possible scenario, I don't think it's a likely one.

Edit: Also we're making the rather unusual assumption that somebody who is willing to die to protect the other person would not render them unconscious to protect them, which is if I recall what happened, and what I assume would happen with two vulcans, they aren't immune to their own nerve pinch, and the survivor would be the one that acted second (oops).


Someone needs to draw this.

Also, I think the lifeboat situation may also depend on other circumstances. For example, I wouldn't begrudge someone with a dependent claiming spaces for both their dependent and themselves.


I actually touched on that in the other thread, where I said that surviving for the sake of your children is probably less evil, if evil at all. Now if your children don't need you to survive, then it's probably a smidge evil, since you are still elevating the interests that are important over others but definitely justifiable, but it's less evil than the other option even. But I'd say even then it's still questionable, now for example if you are nursing, and your children therefore would die without you on the lifeboats then you have a responsibility to them, and that takes precedence over even your own interests.

Driderman
2014-03-13, 05:21 AM
Mostly because, in games, these situations crop up now and again - and having a baseline to work with - may cut short the debates.

If a DM causes a Paladin to Fall for recommending the drawing of straws, and participating - is that DM being unreasonable?

In my D&D Paladins volunteer themselves when drawing straws in a life or death situation is suggested, and any paladin who would suggest it himself isn't really worthy of the title.

And no, rationalizing one's own survival by arguing that they'll be able to do more good by surviving, or others depend on it doesn't work, Paladin's can only be ethical utilitarians if they one who is sacrificed for the good of the many is themselves :smallsmile:

CalamaroJoe
2014-03-13, 06:33 AM
In my D&D Paladins volunteer themselves when drawing straws in a life or death situation is suggested, and any paladin who would suggest it himself isn't really worthy of the title.

...and if more than one person volunteers: or they find a way to agree on who goes and who dies, or they draw straws.
Any other case must be argued case by case with the evaluation of all the stakes.

Regarding the twin's hearts and similar situations. I think refusing to be killed to save one person is not exactly killing by inaction.

Amphetryon
2014-03-13, 06:40 AM
That isn't a good example because it didn't happenSo, no hypothetical situations are good examples in which to discuss morality, because they didn't happen? Really?

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 07:06 AM
.Edit: Also we're making the rather unusual assumption that somebody who is willing to die to protect the other person would not render them unconscious to protect them, which is if I recall what happened, and what I assume would happen with two vulcans, they aren't immune to their own nerve pinch, and the survivor would be the one that acted second (oops).

A case could be made that denying another person their right to sacrifice themselves - by attacking them first - is not exactly paladinly.

We've had the argument about whether "letting an innocent die" always qualifies as an Evil act or not.

What about directly killing an innocent?

The Dread Emperor is attacking you - you know that the only way to survive is to kill the children tied to him along with him. You take the shot - and it kills all of them. Your motive was pure survival.

Was that an Evil act?

Or, does the responsibility solely lie with the person using the Human Shields - and not the person defending their own life?

AMFV
2014-03-13, 07:19 AM
A case could be made that denying another person their right to sacrifice themselves - by attacking them first - is not exactly paladinly.

Rights are not relevant, Soldiers don't have rights, you have forfeited the right to disobey your superiors and your order to sacrifice yourself, by becoming a Paladin. Furthermore, putting somebody under anesthetic isn't evil. Ask a rescue swimmer what they do to save somebody who's thrashing, the answer usually involves rendering them unconscious.

Edit: It's fine for a Paladin to do that, there is no fundamental right to self-sacrifice, at least not good-evil axis wise.



We've had the argument about whether "letting an innocent die" always qualifies as an Evil act or not.

What about directly killing an innocent?

The Dread Emperor is attacking you - you know that the only way to survive is to kill the children tied to him along with him. You take the shot - and it kills all of them. Your motive was pure survival.

Was that an Evil act?

Or, does the responsibility solely lie with the person using the Human Shields - and not the person defending their own life?

It's absolutely an evil act, completely and explicitly check the BoVD on sacrificing to save yourself, that one is easy very easy, very evil.


So, no hypothetical situations are good examples in which to discuss morality, because they didn't happen? Really?

Hypothetical situations are fine. But they need to be coached as such. You'll note I discussed the scenario in my post. Pretty thoroughly too, but it isn't an example of of that occurrence.

I could tell that my watching of Babe, would be a good example of pigs flying, because I had envisioned that happening in the film, but it doesn't change that it didn't. And it needs to be presented as a hypothetical not a concrete example since it is not.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 07:35 AM
Rights are not relevant, Soldiers don't have rights

Actually they do. They have the right - indeed - the responsibility - to refuse to obey illegal or immoral orders.



It's absolutely an evil act, completely and explicitly check the BoVD on sacrificing to save yourself, that one is easy very easy, very evil.



BoED takes the general approach that "Killing in self-defence is not evil".

Why should the fact that the Villain is using a Human Shield change that?

Telonius
2014-03-13, 07:43 AM
Every Paladin should take one of these (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness), and apply it to the forehead with Sovereign Glue.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 07:44 AM
Actually they do. They have the right - indeed - the responsibility - to refuse to obey illegal or immoral orders.


And that order is neither. If you're going to follow my moral system to it's logical conclusion at least use my precepts. If they are both on the boat refusing to get on the lifeboat, then ordering to get on the lifeboat does not result in death of the other (he was dying anyways and would not attempt to get on the boat), but rather in the saving of the one individual. There's nothing evil about that since there is no selfishness at the cost of harming others, at worst, at worst, getting on the lifeboat is neutral, in this case.




BoED takes the general approach that "Killing in self-defence is not evil".

Why should the fact that the Villain is using a Human Shield change that?

Because the BoVD adjusts this. Also it's not killing in self-defense, if it were then the lifeboat scenario would also be killing in self-defense. Yes you are killing to preserve your own life, but that isn't self-defense unless you are acting to stop a violent individual.

So not only is this addressed in a specific situation (sacrifices and the like), but there is no new information added by the BoED in regards to this that would supplant the statement in the BoVD

Drynwyn
2014-03-13, 07:51 AM
In the original scenario, I would say the following actions are Good:

-Determining who will most likely have the least Good impact on the material plane and leaving them behind, even though by it's nature it is unlikely that the paladin would be left behind. (Pragmatic Good, may be considered chaotic however.)

-Volunteering oneself.

In the paladins-on-a-sinking-boat-scenario, I would say that might also put those most essential to the future on the lifeboats, not the most junior members.

CalamaroJoe
2014-03-13, 07:54 AM
But one can argue that the Dread Emperor MUST be stopped.
If it was only for self defense, I can agree that a paladin should perhaps accept to be killed, but in a battle (or in a similar situation) no one can accept that the Emperor destroys an army because everyone is too good to attack him.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 08:02 AM
But one can argue that the Dread Emperor MUST be stopped.
If it was only for self defense, I can agree that a paladin should perhaps accept to be killed, but in a battle (or in a similar situation) no one can accept that the Emperor destroys an army because everyone is too good to attack him.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, I will append however that intent matters, if the Paladin believes that the Dread Emperor will continue to harm children and kill them if he doesn't stop him, then it might be justifiable (if only barely) such a thing would definitely be painful for one's conscience though, and it should be.

Jacob.Tyr
2014-03-13, 08:14 AM
But one can argue that the Dread Emperor MUST be stopped.
If it was only for self defense, I can agree that a paladin should perhaps accept to be killed, but in a battle (or in a similar situation) no one can accept that the Emperor destroys an army because everyone is too good to attack him.
I'm all for giving Paladins a pass on collateral damage, so long as there is atonement/remorse. Forgive me for what I must do sort of scenario. This does require some roleplaying to work, but it makes sense.


In the original scenario, I would say the following actions are Good:

-Determining who will most likely have the least Good impact on the material plane and leaving them behind, even though by it's nature it is unlikely that the paladin would be left behind. (Pragmatic Good, may be considered chaotic however.)

-Volunteering oneself.

In the paladins-on-a-sinking-boat-scenario, I would say that might also put those most essential to the future on the lifeboats, not the most junior members.

I agree with this entirely. Consequentialist vs non-consequentialist morality will determine which of these a Good person would do, and since there really isn't any real answer to which of these viewpoints is "correct" despite centuries (millenia?) of debate I'd say that an order of Paladins may be one or the other. Ask your DM if the ends justify the means, everyone! Saves headaches later on.


I'm now thinking of the rookie who, knowing he has no chance in a stand-up fight, concludes that their most honourable option is to sneak off to hide below decks. The invincible O'Chul, subduing his teammates one by one and physically flinging them onto the lifeboat. The vainglorious Miko slashing the lifeboat itself to pieces, so that none of the paladins may disgrace themselves by surviving.

This is exactly what I imagine would happen in this situation, oddly. O'Chul of course survives due to plot armor being just that badass, but no way he's going to be on that lifeboat. I can even understand where Miko is coming from in this hypothetical, so long as none of them want to be on the lifeboat because they want to save their honor.
It is definitely a funny image, though.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 10:31 AM
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, I will append however that intent matters, if the Paladin believes that the Dread Emperor will continue to harm children and kill them if he doesn't stop him, then it might be justifiable (if only barely) such a thing would definitely be painful for one's conscience though, and it should be.

The Dread Emperor busts into a "weapon shop" and starts firing at the owner.

The owner ducks under the counter, grabs a weapon, and fires back.

That, I'd say, is true "self-defence" regardless of the issue of the innocents tied to the Dread Emperor's life force.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 10:53 AM
The Dread Emperor busts into a "weapon shop" and starts firing at the owner.

The owner ducks under the counter, grabs a weapon, and fires back.

That, I'd say, is true "self-defence" regardless of the issue of the innocents tied to the Dread Emperor's life force.

Yes, and self-defense is justified for other reasons, as I just pointed out in the other thread. Because if somebody is attempting to murder you and you don't deserve it, it is not unreasonable to suspect that would do the same to others, so it's a moral wash, because it's not simply motivated by self-interest but rather societal obligation and self-interest.

If the store owner is firing into civilians he is wrong, absolutely an unequivocally wrong. That is not appropriate in self-defense, not even a little bit, if he is aware of the Emperor's predilection for torturing children and murdering them and is acting to prevent that then it is justifiable, otherwise, no.

Pocket lint
2014-03-13, 12:57 PM
Generally speaking, morality in RAW seems to be Kantian rather than consequentialist or utilitarian, and focuses more on active actions than passive ones. Refusing to sacrifice yourself is neutral, not evil, as long as you don't cause active harm. So the example with the identical twins fails - refusing to offer yourself up may not be Good, but it's at least Neutral, which is permitted even for a paladin. Even something as trivial as failing to give to a beggar is Neutral even for paladins.

An important factor here is the personal cost - failing to save another if there's no cost to yourself is Evil. If there is a cost, especially risk of physical harm, it's Neutral. (Remember previous debate about how courage affects alignment). I'd argue that with no cost it becomes a choice between Neutral (act) vs Evil (don't act) and with a cost it becomes the usual Good (act) vs Neutral (don't act).

Choosing who will board the lifeboats: A paladin would (as played by me - YMMV) help organise an orderly (remember, lawful) boarding of the lifeboats, and then lead the remaining people in constructing rafts, summoning friendly dolphins or whatever the player can think of. I can't see a paladin letting someone else die in his place, but as the gods smile on them he's got a decent chance of being washed ashore someplace. Even if he's more selfish than that and boards a lifeboat, this is no cause for falling.

In the funny example of a shipful of paladins, the highest ranking one will probably send all his lower-ranking ones to the boats. There's also a decent chance that one of them will sucker-punch / talk him into leaving and send him off on the boats in her place. Otherwise the embarkation will proceed as above.

Surviving while having limited resources: Create water is on the paladin spell list, so all they need is to fish. Should be doable. This is also an argument for actually boarding the boats; a paladin will increase their chance of survival.


In the second example of the Dread Emperor with the Armour of Orphans, a paladin would have to try for a called shot (A ring of True strike helps here) or subdual damage. This is where a paladin is different from a generic LG type - a paladin must not harm innocents, even when this would benefit the larger cause. Save the world or not, if the paladin intentionally strikes through an orphan to kill the BBEG, he falls, period. Atonement goes some way towards rectifying this, but will be required in that case. Even a generic LG type would drop to LN, as he's manifestly prepared to commit evil acts to serve good.

Intent matters too - if the BBEG has a delayed action to throw an orphan in front of him to absorb the strike, the paladin does not fall if his blade kills the child. Sadly, nothing compels a pally to be particularly bright, so this goes even for the second time around.


Thirdly, to some extent a paladin may get away with having limited knowledge. If he's looking for the BBEG and sees a guy wearing the Black Spiky Armour of Spikyness waving a sword at him, it does not matter that he later find out that it's just a charmed Commoner. No fall. However, this is a gray area - if the DM rolls a 19 to hit and still misses, it can be argued that a trained warrior should see that this isn't what it appears to be. The DM shares a responsibility here to ensure that the player has enough be suspicious. This is a different debate though; when does failing to clue in to hints become reckless carelessness and grounds for falling?

AMFV
2014-03-13, 01:05 PM
Generally speaking, morality in RAW seems to be Kantian rather than consequentialist or utilitarian, and focuses more on active actions than passive ones. Refusing to sacrifice yourself is neutral, not evil, as long as you don't cause active harm. So the example with the identical twins fails - refusing to offer yourself up may not be Good, but it's at least Neutral, which is permitted even for a paladin. Even something as trivial as failing to give to a beggar is Neutral even for paladins.

Not necessarily and Kantian morality doesn't work for this particular scenario, for reasons I can't touch on, you'd have to PM me.

The thing is that while refusing to sacrifice yourself is neutral, causing harm is explicitly evil, in fact as per the BoVD even using others for your personal gain is evil. You got on the lifeboat that's an action, you did that. There's no avoiding that you have actively done something in this scenario. So it's a good-evil split. If harm was not involved it might be neutral. For example one could have enough lifeboats. Or there could be weight on the other side, then staying back to help with evacuation is good, getting on the lifeboat is neutral, and pushing past people because you think you might not get a spot, is evil. But as it stands, getting on the boat is an evil action.



An important factor here is the personal cost - failing to save another if there's no cost to yourself is Evil. If there is a cost, especially risk of physical harm, it's Neutral. (Remember previous debate about how courage affects alignment). I'd argue that with no cost it becomes a choice between Neutral (act) vs Evil (don't act) and with a cost it becomes the usual Good (act) vs Neutral (don't act).

Cite RAW? It doesn't say that a personal cost obviates one's moral responsibility to the contrary, it says that using another for personal gain is evil, regardless of the effect.



Choosing who will board the lifeboats: A paladin would (as played by me - YMMV) help organise an orderly (remember, lawful) boarding of thew lifeboats, and then lead the remaining people in constructing rafts, summoning friendly dolphins or whatever the player can think of. I can't see a paladin letting someone else die in his place, but as the gods smile on them he's got a decent chance of being washed ashore someplace. Even if he's more selfish than that and boards a lifeboat, this is no cause for falling.


It certainly is a cause for falling, Paladins are held to a higher standard, if they get on a lifeboat and there are people that die because they did so... then they should fall harder than a ton of bricks. Because they failed in their moral responsibility.

Pocket lint
2014-03-13, 01:29 PM
I think to simplify the discussion, let's start by clarifying the scenario. All the lifeboats have been filled, except for one slot. There are a bunch more people left on the boat, including the paladin. Give up your spot or go, dooming the rest?


The thing is that while refusing to sacrifice yourself is neutral, causing harm is explicitly evil, in fact as per the BoVD even using others for your personal gain is evil. You got on the lifeboat that's an action, you did that.

So blame the weather gods, not the paladin. Getting on the lifeboat doesn't kill anyone - it merely fails to save someone at severe cost to the paladin.


Cite RAW? It doesn't say that a personal cost obviates one's moral responsibility to the contrary, it says that using another for personal gain is evil, regardless of the effect.


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

That's pretty much what I'm on about. The paladin is not causing the active harm - the shipwreck is. Failing to commit personal sacrifice is Neutral. Stabbing others to make room would be evil, even if the outcome is the same as leaving them behind.


It certainly is a cause for falling, Paladins are held to a higher standard, if they get on a lifeboat and there are people that die because they did so... then they should fall harder than a ton of bricks. Because they failed in their moral responsibility.

Are you talking about LG or the Code of Conduct here? I agree that getting on the lifeboat is not-Good, but I still maintain that it's Neutral. If a paladin makes a habit of chickening out I can see a fall being in order, but a single case of not doing the ultimate sacrifice? Not so much.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 01:39 PM
Surviving while having limited resources: Create water is on the paladin spell list, so all they need is to fish. Should be doable. This is also an argument for actually boarding the boats; a paladin will increase their chance of survival.

Unless the paladin is very low level (or very low WIS).


In the second example of the Dread Emperor with the Armour of Orphans, a paladin would have to try for a called shot (A ring of True strike helps here) or subdual damage. This is where a paladin is different from a generic LG type - a paladin must not harm innocents, even when this would benefit the larger cause.
Actually, that's not what the code says. It says they "must punish those who harm innocents"

If harming an innocent as an unavoidable side effect of doing something nonevil happens (remember, the children are magically tied to him - so you can't hit him and not hit them) - it might not turn the nonevil act into an Evil one.

Segev
2014-03-13, 01:47 PM
And no, rationalizing one's own survival by arguing that they'll be able to do more good by surviving, or others depend on it doesn't work, Paladin's can only be ethical utilitarians if they one who is sacrificed for the good of the many is themselves :smallsmile:

Mostly true.

The 10th Doctor was not espousing a virtuous view when he said that Wilf was old and almost done. Ordinary. "But I could do So Much More!"

At the same time, he was under no obligation, there. His choice was heroic, but refusing would not have been evil.

Now, where this is wrong is if our hypothetical paladin has a specific good he must still perform. It can be as simple as "getting home to care for his family who are depending on him" to as dire as "I am the only ordained Order member who can activate the seal to keep the Evil Overdemon from escaping its prison," but there CAN be "my life is not mine to sacrifice at this time" situations for the Paladin.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 01:48 PM
I think to simplify the discussion, let's start by clarifying the scenario. All the lifeboats have been filled, except for one slot. There are a bunch more people left on the boat, including the paladin. Give up your spot or go, dooming the rest?

That is the scenario, yes.



So blame the weather gods, not the paladin. Getting on the lifeboat doesn't kill anyone - it merely fails to save someone at severe cost to the paladin.

It does kill somebody because if you did not do it, then somebody would be alive, that's very clear to me. That is causing a death, just because the circumstances that led up to it were not of your making doesn't mean that you didn't cause it.



That's pretty much what I'm on about. The paladin is not causing the active harm - the shipwreck is. Failing to commit personal sacrifice is Neutral. Stabbing others to make room would be evil, even if the outcome is the same as leaving them behind.

Failing to commit personal sacrifice is neutral, killing somebody or causing somebody to die while avoiding personal sacrifice is evil. There is no difference between stabbing somebody and getting on the lifeboat. The intent is the same, the degree of action is the same (since you are getting on the boat), the result is the same (the other guy dies), the only difference is a knife. There is no moral difference in that scenario, except that stabbing somebody might keep them from dying slowly in the water, that is actually more moral.




Are you talking about LG or the Code of Conduct here? I agree that getting on the lifeboat is not-Good, but I still maintain that it's Neutral. If a paladin makes a habit of chickening out I can see a fall being in order, but a single case of not doing the ultimate sacrifice? Not so much.

A Paladin is not allowed a single evil act. And this is evil. So they'd fall.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 01:50 PM
It can be as simple as "getting home to care for his family who are depending on him" to as dire as "I am the only ordained Order member who can activate the seal to keep the Evil Overdemon from escaping its prison," but there CAN be "my life is not mine to sacrifice at this time" situations for the Paladin.

Indeed:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

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



A Paladin is not allowed a single evil act. And this is evil.

According to you. Not necessarily according to other DMs.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 01:51 PM
Mostly true.

The 10th Doctor was not espousing a virtuous view when he said that Wilf was old and almost done. Ordinary. "But I could do So Much More!"

At the same time, he was under no obligation, there. His choice was heroic, but refusing would not have been evil.

I disagree, at least with regards to D&D evil but I don't suppose that's news. Although since he did not chose to sacrifice Wilf, we can't be sure of what his intent would have been and that does matter.



Now, where this is wrong is if our hypothetical paladin has a specific good he must still perform. It can be as simple as "getting home to care for his family who are depending on him" to as dire as "I am the only ordained Order member who can activate the seal to keep the Evil Overdemon from escaping its prison," but there CAN be "my life is not mine to sacrifice at this time" situations for the Paladin.

Agreed, and I've stated as much, although I'm not sure if I have in this thread, acting in a manner that harms others to protect others is probably more neutral than evil. Although I would expect a Paladin would have a rough time of that, internally.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 01:56 PM
The closest thing to a clear "list of Evil acts" in D&D (since the BoVD ones are subject to much DM interpretation) is in Fiendish Codex 2.

There, "Murder", "Cold-Blooded Murder" and "Murder for Pleasure" as well as "Stealing from the Needy" are listed as Corrupt Acts.

But there's nothing there about "Voluntary Manslaughter" or "Involuntary Manslaughter".

(and you can be sure that "getting on a lifeboat when there are too few seats for everyone" isn't even those, let alone Murder).

Segev
2014-03-13, 02:08 PM
It does kill somebody because if you did not do it, then somebody would be alive, that's very clear to me.You're very wrong, however, because your act doesn't kill anybody.

To kill somebody, you must be able to name the specific person for whose death you are responsible.

So, in this scenario, which of the passengers did your paladin kill?


Failing to commit personal sacrifice is neutral,True.


killing somebody or causing somebody to die while avoiding personal sacrifice is evil.Not quite so true.


There is no difference between stabbing somebody and getting on the lifeboat.Utterly false.


The intent is the same,If the intent were the same, the paladin would stab the person to prevent them from being able to get on the life boat in order to take the spot. Since this does not happen, it is not possible to state that the intent is the same.


the degree of action is the same (since you are getting on the boat),Again, false. "I climb on a boat," and "I pull out my sword and stab somebody" are not in any way the same degree of action wrt the other person dying.


the result is the same (the other guy dies),Not quite; the "other guy" can be defined when there is somebody you specifically stab; which of those people did the paladin doom by getting on the boat? Specifically, which one?


the only difference is a knife.There is also a difference of actively killing somebody versus not saving somebody. The logic that the paladin is murdering somebody by getting on the boat also states that you murder somebody every time you spend money on your own survival (or worse, comfort) rather than donating it to buy a starving man some food.


There is no moral difference in that scenario,Demonstrably - and demonstratedly - false.


except that stabbing somebody might keep them from dying slowly in the water, that is actually more moral.Interesting argument. So the paladin should slaughter everybody left behind on the boat, in your world-view? I suppose Dr. McCoy's emotional torment over the fact that his father's disease had a cure developed a month or two after McCoy euthanized him is silly, then, since the chance at survival by simple virtue of living long enough for a fortuitous event to happen is not worth it.




But seriously. There is a difference between not saving somebody and actively killing them. The former is neutral under most circumstances. The latter is evil under most circumstances. (Exceptions exist in almost any broad statement; killing somebody in self-defense or in defense of an innocent is not inherently evil, and one could be reasonably argued to have slipped into evil when saving somebody would have required minimal to no effort nor sacrifice on your part and you knew it.)

Now, I will agree that most paladins probably should be giving up their seat on the boat to save even just one more person. I would also grant that the paladin probably has the right to decide who is going to take their place, if they have a preferred charge, ward, loved one, friend, or the like whom they would see survive.

By the logic presented, though, let's remove "paladin" from the equation: Anybody who does not GET OFF the life boat to allow somebody else on is murdering whoever doesn't get on the life boat by this logic. Moreover, since each person's sacrifice could only save one other person, it is impossible to say which of those who are left behind are murdered by which person who refuses to give up his seat.

One might claim my point breaks down if there is only one person more than can fit on the boats, but it doesn't. How do you decide which person on the lifeboat is duty-bound to sacrifice himself? Are all of them evil because they weren't the ones to die? Are they each responsible for the one man's death?

No. This situation is a tragedy, but there is no evil in following agreed-upon procedures that save your own life, even if others die. It is heroic to sacrifice yourself to save others (generally; exceptions again exist), but it is not evil to refuse to unless you're neglecting a duty you took upon yourself willingly. (Even CN people who took a duty upon themselves willingly are responsible for those duties when it comes to whether fulfillment of said duties will spare others from harm. Chaos is not freedom from all responsibility, not by itself. It is merely freedom from externally-imposed responsibility, and from nit-picky definitions getting in the way of the spirit of what you say you'll do.)

Pocket lint
2014-03-13, 02:22 PM
To change the discussion somewhat, the paladin's code is not a bludgeon to force the paladin to keep getting into situations of "Fall or Die". In my book, there simply is no situation where that choice is applicable. Bear in mind, many paladins may choose "Die" anyway, but they have no compulsion to do so. The heroic sacrifice should always be a choice, not a rules-based compulsion. While paladins may be held up as ideals for making that choice, they tend to be done so... posthumously.

Failing to save everyone is not a cause to fall. Even given the hard choice of saving just yourself or one other is not cause for this. Choosing to sacrifice someone because it was easier? Cheaper? Now we're talking.

It was interesting reading the TVTropes page on the Cold Equation - apparently, there have been court cases that came to much the same conclusion. Even a life or death situation is no excuse for actively killing someone. However, leaving someone behind is not the same thing - or you would be forced to conclude that every single Titanic survivor is a murderer.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 02:27 PM
You're very wrong, however, because your act doesn't kill anybody.

To kill somebody, you must be able to name the specific person for whose death you are responsible.

That is absurdly untrue. If I poison several bottles of water I can't name who it may or may not kill, but I'm still a murderer. If I fire a weapon into the air and it kills somebody then it's still murder.



So, in this scenario, which of the passengers did your paladin kill?


The one that didn't get to board the boat because there wasn't enough seats.



True.

Not quite so true.

Utterly false.

You are mistaken sir, inaction or leaving somebody in a scenario where they are going to die to preserve yourself, is tantamount to killing them



If the intent were the same, the paladin would stab the person to prevent them from being able to get on the life boat in order to take the spot. Since this does not happen, it is not possible to state that the intent is the same.


He doesn't need to, he's on the lifeboat, randomly stabbing somebody is a different matter entirely. But getting on the lifeboat that's self-preservation, the intent is the same, even if he doesn't have to stab somebody.
Again, false. "I climb on a boat," and "I pull out my sword and stab somebody" are not in any way the same degree of action wrt the other person dying.



Not quite; the "other guy" can be defined when there is somebody you specifically stab; which of those people did the paladin doom by getting on the boat? Specifically, which one?

I've never heard the "you must be able to name who you kill" statement ever, you can pick any of the passengers left and it could be them, but you are killing ONE OF THEM. You don't need to be able to identify who you are killing to know that your actions will result the death of one person.



There is also a difference of actively killing somebody versus not saving somebody. The logic that the paladin is murdering somebody by getting on the boat also states that you murder somebody every time you spend money on your own survival (or worse, comfort) rather than donating it to buy a starving man some food.

No, because if I cease to spend money on my survival nobody lives because of that. If I donate all of my money, I will eventually starve and then those people who depend on me will then also starve. You don't have a responsibility to act, beyond your knowledge and means, this is different in that it is a single specific action that kills somebody, not an intangible potential action, that may or may not be causing harm to somebody, this is explicit.



Demonstrably - and demonstratedly - false.

Interesting argument. So the paladin should slaughter everybody left behind on the boat, in your world-view? I suppose Dr. McCoy's emotional torment over the fact that his father's disease had a cure developed a month or two after McCoy euthanized him is silly, then, since the chance at survival by simple virtue of living long enough for a fortuitous event to happen is not worth it.

No, if you'd have read what I've posted there are other reasons to board the lifeboat which are not evil. Being a child, being a nursing mother, being a doctor, having responsibilities that you have to attend to that are worth killing over.




But seriously. There is a difference between not saving somebody and actively killing them. The former is neutral under most circumstances. The latter is evil under most circumstances. (Exceptions exist in almost any broad statement; killing somebody in self-defense or in defense of an innocent is not inherently evil, and one could be reasonably argued to have slipped into evil when saving somebody would have required minimal to no effort nor sacrifice on your part and you knew it.)

Killing someone in self-defense is different and was addressed on this very page. I don't have the energy to retype it a fifth time.



Now, I will agree that most paladins probably should be giving up their seat on the boat to save even just one more person. I would also grant that the paladin probably has the right to decide who is going to take their place, if they have a preferred charge, ward, loved one, friend, or the like whom they would see survive.

I disagree.



By the logic presented, though, let's remove "paladin" from the equation: Anybody who does not GET OFF the life boat to allow somebody else on is murdering whoever doesn't get on the life boat by this logic. Moreover, since each person's sacrifice could only save one other person, it is impossible to say which of those who are left behind are murdered by which person who refuses to give up his seat.

False, it's only murder if you are causing the death, if enough people volunteer to stay behind, then you aren't preventing anybody from surviving, except by your existence and that cannot be traced to a single act on your part and therefore is not that something that is morally culpable. Furthermore intent is important and so there are a series of intentions that could change the morality of the scenario.



One might claim my point breaks down if there is only one person more than can fit on the boats, but it doesn't. How do you decide which person on the lifeboat is duty-bound to sacrifice himself? Are all of them evil because they weren't the ones to die? Are they each responsible for the one man's death?


They are all duty bound to offer, just because one of them draws the short straw, doesn't mean that they shouldn't all offer, and at that point there is no more fault in the scenario, since again existence and being on the boat at all is what is causing the death, that and the moral fiber of the person volunteering, they are sacrificing themselves.



No. This situation is a tragedy, but there is no evil in following agreed-upon procedures that save your own life, even if others die. It is heroic to sacrifice yourself to save others (generally; exceptions again exist), but it is not evil to refuse to unless you're neglecting a duty you took upon yourself willingly. (Even CN people who took a duty upon themselves willingly are responsible for those duties when it comes to whether fulfillment of said duties will spare others from harm. Chaos is not freedom from all responsibility, not by itself. It is merely freedom from externally-imposed responsibility, and from nit-picky definitions getting in the way of the spirit of what you say you'll do.)

And you have a responsibility to all people, that's a fundamental part of being good, and in this case a neutral has to make a choice between an evil act or a good one.

Of course agreed on procedures make the decision as to who should sacrifice themselves more easy, lots, women and children first (good for a lot of reasons in this case), seniority, that means that everyone is willing to sacrifice themselves but there is a system to determine who does. Which helps with the morality of the situation. Simply going for a lifeboat with no thought to the others is indifference to human life and that is equivalent to murdering somebody since they die due to your indifference.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 02:29 PM
The closest thing to a clear "list of Evil acts" in D&D (since the BoVD ones are subject to much DM interpretation) is in Fiendish Codex 2.

There, "Murder", "Cold-Blooded Murder" and "Murder for Pleasure" as well as "Stealing from the Needy" are listed as Corrupt Acts.

But there's nothing there about "Voluntary Manslaughter" or "Involuntary Manslaughter".

(and you can be sure that "getting on a lifeboat when there are too few seats for everyone" isn't even those, let alone Murder).

In New York depraved indifference which results in death is murder. Murder isn't even defined well across different jurisdictions. And using that definition, knowingly allowing somebody to die so that you can live, is pretty much cold blooded murder.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 02:31 PM
To change the discussion somewhat, the paladin's code is not a bludgeon to force the paladin to keep getting into situations of "Fall or Die". In my book, there simply is no situation where that choice is applicable. Bear in mind, many paladins may choose "Die" anyway, but they have no compulsion to do so. The heroic sacrifice should always be a choice, not a rules-based compulsion. While paladins may be held up as ideals for making that choice, they tend to be done so... posthumously.

Failing to save everyone is not a cause to fall. Even given the hard choice of saving just yourself or one other is not cause for this. Choosing to sacrifice someone because it was easier? Cheaper? Now we're talking.

Failing to make an attempt is cause to fall, especially when it is something with a 100% success rate, if you attempt even at all then the other person will get on the boat.



It was interesting reading the TVTropes page on the Cold Equation - apparently, there have been court cases that came to much the same conclusion. Even a life or death situation is no excuse for actively killing someone. However, leaving someone behind is not the same thing - or you would be forced to conclude that every single Titanic survivor is a murderer.

If they did not offer then yes, they are.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 02:34 PM
depraved indifference which results in death is murder.

And getting in a lifeboat when there are others still aboard, does not necessarily qualify.

Amphetryon
2014-03-13, 02:37 PM
And getting in a lifeboat when there are others still aboard, does not necessarily qualify.

Or, if it does, every survivor of every sinking ship should be tried and convicted of murder - not just manslaughter, but murder - on the basis of depraved indifference.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 02:40 PM
And getting in a lifeboat when there are others still aboard, does not necessarily qualify.

True, if there are enough lifeboats, or if you are not aware that there are not, certainly it wouldn't, there are other reasons, but those are the most immediate that come to mind.


Or, if it does, every survivor of every sinking ship should be tried and convicted of murder - not just manslaughter, but murder - on the basis of depraved indifference.

It would be impossible to prove since intent is important, but for your conscience that doesn't matter. There are reasons to board the ship that are not depraved indifference (I've pointed several of them out in this very thread), but only you can know. If you are boarding the lifeboat to survive and are willing to survive at the expense of others then that is indifference to the lives of others.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 02:42 PM
If you are boarding the lifeboat to survive and are willing to survive at the expense of others then that is indifference to the lives of others.

But not depraved indifference - indeed - one can value all life - and one's own life a tiny bit more.

AMFV
2014-03-13, 02:44 PM
But not depraved indifference - indeed - one can value all life - and one's own life a tiny bit more.

I disagree. Also exactly what that would constitute would lead to a heavy debate. Certainly it is not likely provable in a court of law, unless you had intimated that you intended to board the lifeboats and that you didn't care if the others died, but legal culpability and moral culpability are different.

The reason I bring up legal culpability is because, even that is difficult to pin down, so when you say "cold blooded murder" it can mean many many many different things, while our personal opinion regarding that may be different, if there isn't even a legal consensus on murder (and there isn't) that means that morally it's going to be even more difficult.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 02:46 PM
If you look at the description:

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

the act has to be the kind of act that, if it doesn't result in death, would qualify as "reckless endangerment".

Pocket lint
2014-03-13, 02:48 PM
Failing to make an attempt is cause to fall, especially when it is something with a 100% success rate, if you attempt even at all then the other person will get on the boat.

And you won't.


If you are boarding the lifeboat to survive and are willing to survive at the expense of others then that is indifference to the lives of others.

And failing to board is indifference to your own.

In both of these cases you are ignoring the factor of personal sacrifice. It matters - I've already quoted the portion of RAW that states this, but even without it, the consequences become ludicrous. Failing to make the heroic sacrifice is not evil. Failing a will save (and thus not having the courage to face monster/torture/whatever, see previous debate) is not evil. The lives of others absolutely matters, but so does your own. And making a one-for-one trade may be a tragic choice, but it's not evil no matter which way you go.


By the way, weren't you the guy who said suicide was evil?

Jacob.Tyr
2014-03-13, 02:58 PM
Many very smart people have spent most of their lives trying to come up with internally consistent moral theories that come up with incredibly different opinions regarding this hypothetical. I guess the real question at hand is what view of morality does the hypothetical person on the boat subscribe to? If it is a Paladin, then they almost definitely have such a concrete code to fall back on. It may vary from order to order, god to god, and world to world. If you have a Paladin I think it would be in order to determine this before actually starting a campaign, at least to prevent issues with your DM later on.

Amphetryon
2014-03-13, 03:02 PM
I'm getting this darkly funny image of a Paladin standing guard by the lifeboat as the ship sinks, acting as judge, jury, and executioner of anyone who 'attempts to murder the other passengers' by getting on the lifeboat.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 03:32 PM
BoED p 6:

"Altruism is tempered by respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings, and good characters balance their desire to help others with their desire to promote goodness and life"

This is a hint that altruism is not the only priority.


BoED p5:

"Many characters are happy to rattle off long lists of sins they haven't committed as evidence that they are good. The utter avoidance of evil, however, doesn't make a character good - solidly neutral, perhaps, but not good"

This is a hint that it is possible to "utterly avoid evil" and yet not be good.

Amphetryon
2014-03-13, 03:51 PM
It would be impossible to prove since intent is important, but for your conscience that doesn't matter. There are reasons to board the ship that are not depraved indifference (I've pointed several of them out in this very thread), but only you can know. If you are boarding the lifeboat to survive and are willing to survive at the expense of others then that is indifference to the lives of others.
There are no reasons to board the lifeboat that do not include what you have termed the depraved indifference to the death of every other passenger who is unable to do so, at least tangentially. If you are willing to survive and there are fewer lifeboat spaces available than there are passengers, you're indifferent to their lives, by your logic. This makes you guilty of depraved indifference by your own metrics.

hamishspence
2014-03-13, 04:01 PM
I agree that getting on the lifeboat is not-Good, but I still maintain that it's Neutral. If a paladin makes a habit of chickening out I can see a fall being in order, but a single case of not doing the ultimate sacrifice? Not so much.

That sounds about right.

Aedilred
2014-03-13, 07:51 PM
That is absurdly untrue. If I poison several bottles of water I can't name who it may or may not kill, but I'm still a murderer. If I fire a weapon into the air and it kills somebody then it's still murder.
It might be physically impossible, but it's not logically impossible. You've killed everyone who drank the water and died as a result. Assuming an omniscient, objective viewpoint - a D&Desque afterlife, your victims can fairly trivially be identified.

In the lifeboat scenario, your victim is an unspecifiable one of the remaining survivors.


The one that didn't get to board the boat because there wasn't enough seats.
That's assuming there's only one space short on the lifeboat, which does alter the parameters of the scenario. But if there's more than one person remaining, it's impossible to say which of those you killed.


You are mistaken sir, inaction or leaving somebody in a scenario where they are going to die to preserve yourself, is tantamount to killing them
Only if you've assumed responsibilty over them. This is why starving a child to death is killing them - because you have either been entrusted with or have assumed responsibility for the child.

There is no corresponding responsibility between me and the other members of the boat. There is a degree of mutual responsibility, as there is across the whole of society, but at a much lower level. In general, that responsibility amounts to "don't break the law". In particular, we don't take individual responsibility for strangers' lives (which is why not donating your food to the starving is not killing them; you don't have that responsibility).

And this is indeed at the crux of neutrality:


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the compunctions to make sacrifices to help or protect others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he will not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

Neutral people may consider themselves to have responsibility (and therefore make sacrifices for, etc.) family members, their country, maybe their friends... but not strangers.


No, if you'd have read what I've posted there are other reasons to board the lifeboat which are not evil. Being a child, being a nursing mother, being a doctor, having responsibilities that you have to attend to that are worth killing over.
I have a responsibility to continue this discussion and enlighten the forum. I don't want to, but I feel compelled. Gimme a spot on the lifeboat. Non-evil.


Killing someone in self-defense is different and was addressed on this very page. I don't have the energy to retype it a fifth time.
I'll refer you back to the logical conundrum presented in the other thread on this point.

1. Boarding a lifeboat is killing someone else.
2. It's ok to kill in self-defence.
3. Everyone getting on a lifeboat is killing someone else.
4. If I don't get on the lifeboat, I will be one such person.
5. Killing other people to get on the lifeboat is therefore self-defence.
6. It's ok for me to get on the lifeboat.

As it happens, I disagree with (1), but anyway.



And you have a responsibility to all people, that's a fundamental part of being good, and in this case a neutral has to make a choice between an evil act or a good one.
Again, you're saddling the Neutral with the responsibilities of the Good. Just because Good people have assumed a responsibility to all people doesn't mean that Neutral people have. The assumption of that responsibility is arguably the defining feature between Good and Neutral.


In New York depraved indifference which results in death is murder. Murder isn't even defined well across different jurisdictions. And using that definition, knowingly allowing somebody to die so that you can live, is pretty much cold blooded murder.
As we've previously discussed, I disagree with your interpretation of the NY penal code.

In particular, I disagree with the assumption that boarding a lifeboat is necessarily acting with "depraved indifference", or for that matter malice. Acting in full knowledge of the consequences of your actions is not necessarily depraved, malicious or reckless.

Further, the NY penal code provides the following:

it is an affirmative defense that:
(a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be.
If fleeing for your life from certain death doesn't qualify, I'm not sure what does.

Incidentally, you keep mentioning that the BoVD supports your case, but I haven't yet seen you quote the relevant section or provide a reference. Please do; it's difficult to make an argument against something when you don't know what it is, and all the RAW we've seen so far has been, to be generous, disputed in its interpretation.



I'm getting this darkly funny image of a Paladin standing guard by the lifeboat as the ship sinks, acting as judge, jury, and executioner of anyone who 'attempts to murder the other passengers' by getting on the lifeboat.
You may jest, but this has indeed been effectively suggested as the most Good action to take in this scenario.

TheStranger
2014-03-13, 09:51 PM
A thought on this, and apologies if this has been mentioned.

Paladins should fall sometimes. Not just as a plot device, or a tragic backstory, but because they should do what they think is right even if it's not 100% capital-G Good. Paladins should fall sometimes for doing something that they would do again in a heartbeat because they honestly feel it's the right thing to do.

A paladin faced with a moral dilemma, whose thought process is "how do I avoid losing my paladin powers," is doing it wrong. If a paladin allows needless death because otherwise he might have to do something that a certain type of sadistic GM would cause him to fall for, he didn't deserve to be a paladin in the first place.

As for who gets on the lifeboat, the paladin should do what he thinks is right. If that means drawing straws, fine. If that means volunteering to stay behind, fine. If that means jumping on a half-full lifeboat because the other passengers absolutely refuse to wait any longer, fine. You can argue all day about what right is in that situation (as you indeed have). As long as the paladin is doing what he thinks is right at the time, because he thinks it's right at the time, I'm okay with that. If philosophers over thousands of years, and the internet's finest minds over several pages of thread, can't agree on the right answer here, you can't expect the paladin to figure it out while the ship is sinking.

As for whether the paladin falls, consider this: surviving a lifeboat situation in the real world is an incredibly traumatic experience; people can struggle with guilt over that for the rest of their lives. A paladin who happens to survive in that situation arguably should fall, because that sort of thing should shake him to the core. I wouldn't spin it as "your god has abandoned you for your evil acts," but "you've lost your moral anchor because of your guilt" seems appropriate. And after he falls, he should atone, or not, as his character growth demands.

As for the "ship full of paladins" problem, you can load the lifeboat any way you like, but if the solution doesn't involve a full lifeboat, every paladin involved should fall for putting their pride above human life, then be put on latrine duty in the (lawful good) afterlife.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 02:20 AM
Incidentally, you keep mentioning that the BoVD supports your case, but I haven't yet seen you quote the relevant section or provide a reference.

It was in the first chapter- Intent and Context "Sacrificing yourself to save others is an good act, sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act"

That is pretty much it.


Paladins should fall sometimes. Not just as a plot device, or a tragic backstory, but because they should do what they think is right even if it's not 100% capital-G Good. Paladins should fall sometimes for doing something that they would do again in a heartbeat because they honestly feel it's the right thing to do.

A paladin faced with a moral dilemma, whose thought process is "how do I avoid losing my paladin powers," is doing it wrong. If a paladin allows needless death because otherwise he might have to do something that a certain type of sadistic GM would cause him to fall for, he didn't deserve to be a paladin in the first place.

I could see that working for "grossly violating the Code but in a non-evil fashion"

However - if you believe BoED, every Evil act has consequences for the entire multiverse, tilting the whole thing a bit more toward Evil.

Aedilred
2014-03-14, 04:32 AM
You're very wrong, however, because your act doesn't kill anybody.

To kill somebody, you must be able to name the specific person for whose death you are responsible.

So, in this scenario, which of the passengers did your paladin kill?
I was thinking about how to explain this last night while I couldn't sleep, and how it can be demonstrated.

(If anyone knows a lot more about probabilities than me and wants to rectify any of this, please do so).

Let's say we have 80 people on our ship, and 60 lifeboat spaces.
Let's also say, for the sake of sanity and to reduce the variables a little, that everyone has an exactly equal chance of making it onto a lifeboat, and also that everyone is functionally identical (thus taking up the same amount of space on a lifeboat).
Let's further confirm the implicit assumptions that getting on a lifeboat is the only way to survive the scenario, and that none of the lifeboats will leave unless full.

At the time the ship starts to sink, the probability of survival of any given person on the ship is (l/n)*100, where l = lifeboat spaces and n = people on board ship. So (60/80)*100 = 75%.

I am the first person to reach a lifeboat and board, taking up a space. The probability of survival of any remaining passenger now drops to (l-1/n-1)*100; 74.68%, a relative drop of 0.99%.

So while in theory, occupying a lifeboat space is depriving someone else of their chance to survive, in fact any given individual's chance to survive has changed hardly at all, by under 1% no matter which way you look at it.

And so it continues: l-2/n-2, l-3/n-3, etc. The chances of survival drop by a larger fraction each time, but never by more than 50%. In short, there is no one individual whose boarding makes it more likely that any other person will die than that they will live.

There is an exception, though, to the rule that no single lifeboat boarder reduces the chance to survive by more than 50%, and that's the last person to board, who reduces the probability from, in this case, 1/21 to 0/20, a relative drop of 100%. So that makes it look like the last person to board the lifeboat has in fact killed all twenty remaining passengers! But we know that's not true, because even had they chosen not to board, nineteen of those passengers would still have died. It's just impossible ever to know which nineteen, and who would have lived.

In fact, at the time of his boarding, each of those passengers had a less than 5% chance of survival anyway. So, taking the view that removing a chance of survival is the same as killing someone, what he's actually done is killed 4.76% of each of those people, rather than 100% of one of them.

And this holds true almost irrespective of the numbers you put in. No given boarder of the lifeboat can ever reduce the chances of another passenger from "more likely to survive than not" to zero. Even if there is only one space too few, the last two passengers have only a 50% chance of survival. Anyone you deprive of a space was by definition more likely than not to die anyway.

Even if you exempt yourself from the running by giving up your spot, changing the formula to l/n-1 at the outset and decreasing by one with each boarder, at the start of the scenario you raise the probability of another individual's survival only to 75.95% (relatively, by about 1%). You can maximise the effect of your sacrifice by waiting until the end of the lifeboat race to declare your hand, but even then it amounts to no more than about 5%.

Going back to our original figures, where "our hero" has just killed about 5% of twenty people... that can't be right either, can it? You either kill someone or you don't. To quote Ira Gaines, "you can't be 'sorta dead'". It's an absolute state, but this is a question of degrees.

And herein lies the problem. At what point does it become "killing" to reduce somebody else's probability of survival? The fact of the matter is that we take such actions all the time, without even realising it, reducing others' survival chances around us by minute amounts simply by being alive. Even a Paladin weighing up the odds might not identify the difference between a 99.6% chance of survival for innocents and a 100% chance - it's little more than a rounding error - and even if he did he might well figure it's a chance well worth taking anyway.

If taking any act to reduce the life expectancy of another is Evil, then we're all Evil, all the time. The only way to break out of this is to try to spend as much time doing Good as possible to counterbalance the Evil... but this isn't allowing any room for Neutral. It's assuming rather that the default state of the universe is Evil, which isn't the case. The only logical assumption therefore is that reducing another's chance of survival is not inherently Evil at a low level.

The lifeboat scenario looks scary because the numbers are relatively large - integers in some cases, but in the 60/80 set of figures, even if you board when it will have maximum effect on others, you're not depriving anyone of the chance to live who wasn't 95% certain to die anyway. It's not you that's killing them, it's the circumstances. You can insert other variables, of course, and in reality people will never all have an exactly equal chance of survival, but this actually reduces the impact you can have in any individual case more.

Compare that to the scenario where you're sacrificing another to save yourself. In that situation your victim's chances of survival before you get involved are very good - we can assume very close to 100%. This includes a situation where someone has already boarded a lifeboat and you throw them overboard to make room for yourself. Your action then reduces their chances of survival to 0% - a drop of about 100% whichever way you look at it. There's no way around that; you're responsible.

But let's tweak the numbers in the lifeboat scenario just once more to maximise the possible impact of our hero's choice. In this scenario there is now only one space too few for all our passengers, and he arrives at the boat at roughly the same time as another person. They are identical, remember, so no greater good will accrue to society from having either one of them on board compared to the other. It's a straight 50-50. Is our hero evil for increasing his speed ever so slightly to get there first, for wanting to live, for valuing his own life even a bit more than this guy he's never met?

I'd say no, because the morality of the situation is broadly equivalent to a self-defence scenario. Each of them wants to live and they can only live at the expense of the other. If you take the view that boarding the boat is tantamount to killing, they're each trying to kill each other! So it's a moral wash. Is it a Good act? No, getting on the lifeboat in this scenario is probably never a Good act. But is it Evil? I really don't see it, even in this instance.

TheStranger
2014-03-14, 06:41 AM
I could see that working for "grossly violating the Code but in a non-evil fashion"

However - if you believe BoED, every Evil act has consequences for the entire multiverse, tilting the whole thing a bit more toward Evil.

That's why the paladin should fall, not why he shouldn't act. If fate, prior foolishness, internet philosophers, or a particular brand of jerk DM has put a paladin in a situation where his only options are a greater or lesser evil, he should choose the lesser one and deal with the consequences. If he can find a viable third option, great, but if he honestly can't, and the consequences for failure are high, he should suck it up, put the good of the many over his own personal purity, and do what needs to be done. Then he should fall so hard he leaves a crater. The BoED theory doesn't change that - there's still less evil in the multiverse than the alternative.

Yes, doing something evil because of the greater good is anathema to being a paladin. That's why this hypothetical paladin falls. That doesn't mean he's wrong to do it if there weren't any better options in front of him. The class features aren't making this choice; the choice is made by a person who's committed to doing the right thing. If that person, faced with a decision, is asking "how will this affect me?" he shouldn't have been a paladin in the first place.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 06:54 AM
That works for the paladin. For the player, however, who is not keen on the idea of playing the next session or two with a big handicap, it may be a consideration.

TheStranger
2014-03-14, 08:07 AM
That works for the paladin. For the player, however, who is not keen on the idea of playing the next session or two with a big handicap, it may be a consideration.

I sincerely hope that these no-win situations seldom, if ever, come up outside of theoretical discussions, because I would never want to play with a DM who created situations just for a paladin to fall. I would like to imagine that those DMs are not as common as the internet makes them out to be.

Segev
2014-03-14, 09:05 AM
That is absurdly untrue. If I poison several bottles of water I can't name who it may or may not kill, but I'm still a murderer. If I fire a weapon into the air and it kills somebody then it's still murder.If you poison water (assuming no unspoken conditions such as you having taken precautions to prevent it from being drunk and somebody else circumventing them), then you are directly responsible for EVERY death caused by drinking that water. Each person who dies of the poisoned water is your fault. If you did NOT poison the water, nobody would have died of the poisoned water.

The same claim cannot be made of taking a seat on the lifeboat: at best, giving up your seat saves one life. You cannot, under any circumstance, be accused of being personally responsible for every death of those who are left behind. Not even by the flawed logic you're using here. At most, you're responsible for one death. Therefore, a being with perfect knowledge of the causal chain could trace your action to that death, with no intervening agents making any decisions that change the responsibility for the outcome.

So, who did you murder? Who would have gotten on if it weren't for you? Is the person who takes your seat evil for having condemned you to death? If the answer is "no" because you volunteered, is he evil for condemning whoever would have taken HIS place on the boat if HE refused to death?




The one that didn't get to board the boat because there wasn't enough seats.Which one? If there's only one, is he evil for taking your seat when you offer?




You are mistaken sir, inaction or leaving somebody in a scenario where they are going to die to preserve yourself, is tantamount to killing them


You don't have a responsibility to act, beyond your knowledge and means, this is different in that it is a single specific action that kills somebody, not an intangible potential action, that may or may not be causing harm to somebody, this is explicit.You contradict yourself between these two statements.

Your single specific action of spending your money on a new TV or a movie ticket or on anything other than the bare necessities means there is less charity given to those who are starving. You have less money to buy one more homeless child a bowl of soup. You are as responsible for that one child's starvation as you would be for the one nameless "somebody" who would have taken your seat on the boat.

To be clear: the contradiction is that you first claim (correctly) that inaction is not the same as action, but then go on to declare that choosing to do something for yourself in a situation where resources are finite is action...but only sometimes.

(I actually know somebody who honestly and consistently believes this philosophy, by the by. He is one of the most miserable people I know, because he genuinely believes that any time he buys a hamburger from McDonald's, not only is he starving somebody who could have eaten more if he'd donated that to charity, but he's participating in the exploitation and abuse of the employees at that McDonald's.)



He doesn't need to, he's on the lifeboat, randomly stabbing somebody is a different matter entirely. But getting on the lifeboat that's self-preservation, the intent is the same, even if he doesn't have to stab somebody.This contradicts itself so badly that I don't even know to which sentence(s) to respond.

Is it different, or the same?

Wait, there is another part that I know I wrote that you haven't quote-blocked. I think you messed up your reply and my comment here; that may explain the contradiction. I'll not try to untangle it, because I don't want to put words in your mouth accidentally.


I've never heard the "you must be able to name who you kill" statement ever, you can pick any of the passengers left and it could be them, but you are killing ONE OF THEM. You don't need to be able to identify who you are killing to know that your actions will result the death of one person.You're missing the point. We're discussing hypotheticals, so we have tools we wouldn't if limited to real-world evidence.

To have responsibility for an event, there must be a causal chain leading from an agent - that is, a being with agency to choose their actions - to that event, unbroken by any other agent's choices. (There are more complex arguments to be made for multiple agents' choices leading to joint or shared responsibilities, but we're not in that sort of scenario at the moment.)

For example, if I - with no unspoken ignorance - choose to push the button of a bomb that causes rocks to cascade down a mountain onto a cantilever, which pulls up a rope that causes a door to open and water to flood out of a dam onto a school and drown a bunch of innocent children, then I am responsible for those deaths. There is no agent other than myself in the causal chain. The rocks, the cantilever, the rope, the door, and the water are all non-agents; they act according to their nature in a predictable fashion with no ability to choose otherwise.

If, on the other hand, I push the button, but somebody else tied the rope to the door either after I pushed it or without telling me (so I had every reason to believe that no harm would come from my actions), then it is that agent who tied the rope surreptitiously who is responsible. (If I knew and was cooperating, both of us would be to blame, as we'd be accomplices.)

If you stab somebody, you have a direct causal chain from your action to every element that leads to the death of the person you stabbed. If you get on a lifeboat, there is a lack of connection between you and your supposed victim by virtue of there being an element that was always outside your control which causes the death.

Moreover, if you stab somebody or if you poison one of a few glasses of water which then get mixed up, an investigator with perfect knowledge of the situation can trace a causal chain from you to your victim. The one you stabbed, or the one who drank your poisoned water, is YOUR victim. If you get on a lifeboat, there is no causal chain to a specific victim or group thereof. Again, if you poison multiple glasses of water, you're individually responsible for each death that results. All deaths could have been prevented if you hadn't taken that action. You are not able to make that claim if you had chosen not to get on the life boat. And there is no causal chain of events with no other agents involved between you and whoever would have gotten on the boat.




No, because if I cease to spend money on my survival nobody lives because of that.That is not necessarily true; if you gave your money and food and possessions away to those who would die without them, you would save lives.


If I donate all of my money, I will eventually starve and then those people who depend on me will then also starve.Weren't you the one arguing that the Paladin can't argue that he could do so much good and save so many more people if he lived?


You don't have a responsibility to act, beyond your knowledge and means, this is different in that it is a single specific action that kills somebody, not an intangible potential action, that may or may not be causing harm to somebody, this is explicit.I've been saying all along you don't have a responsibility to act in order to be non-evil. The more good you are, the more you will act to help others at greater cost to yourself, but refusal to do so is not evil.


No, if you'd have read what I've posted there are other reasons to board the lifeboat which are not evil. Being a child, being a nursing mother, being a doctor, having responsibilities that you have to attend to that are worth killing over.That seems like a double standard, and rather arbitrary. Why is "Being a child" enough to absolve you of guilt? What defines "Child" versus "not-child" in this situation? Why does the doctor get a free pass, but the paladin does not? IT's arguable that the paladin saves more lives than the doctor by virtue of taking out threats which would cause more deaths than the doctor ever even sees in patients.

You're veering into utilitarianism, here, which is highly incompatible with the claim that it is evil to not give up your seat, period.


Killing someone in self-defense is different and was addressed on this very page. I don't have the energy to retype it a fifth time.By the definitions you've used, it is murder for anybody to take a seat on the life boat when somebody else wants it. Defending yourself against murder is the definition of self-defense. Whoever would take the hypothetical "last man's" place if he unselfishly gave it up would be committing murder if he took it when that "last man" didn't want to give it up. Therefore, it is self-defense to keep your seat on the boat, because you're defending yourself against the murderer who would take your place.




Now, I will agree that most paladins probably should be giving up their seat on the boat to save even just one more person. I would also grant that the paladin probably has the right to decide who is going to take their place, if they have a preferred charge, ward, loved one, friend, or the like whom they would see survive.
I disagree.With what part? That a paladin probably should give up his seat as a good action-choice? That he has a right to choose which life is worth the most to take his place?

The first is what you've been arguing must be done by any good person, so I am not sure why you'd disagree with it. The second... who gets to choose, then? And by what right?



False, it's only murder if you are causing the death, if enough people volunteer to stay behind, then you aren't preventing anybody from surviving, except by your existence and that cannot be traced to a single act on your part and therefore is not that something that is morally culpable. Furthermore intent is important and so there are a series of intentions that could change the morality of the scenario.You just argued my point for me. Whether people volunteer to stay behind or not, you're not responsible for anybody's death except by your existence, and that cannot be traced to a single act on your part and therefore is not something that is morally culpable.




They are all duty bound to offer, just because one of them draws the short straw, doesn't mean that they shouldn't all offer,And if the ones who draw the short straws accept the offer, are THEY evil?

If you exercise the logic that "everybody who stayed behind volunteered" is enough to absolve those who left, then you must logically conclude that it is not evil for the people who draw the short straw to accept the offer of a volunteer who drew a long straw to give up their seat.

However, this leads to the absurd situation where the only people who would be saved, if there were exactly enough seats on the life boats to preserve half the passengers who are in danger, are those who drew the "you're to be saved" straws. Which simply inverts it, because now the "doomed" straws will, on a boat full of good people, be the ones who are automatically saved. This means that, by logical algebraic reduction, they know when they draw it that they're actually drawing the "I get a seat" straw. Therefore, their acceptance of the offer is equivalent to a refusal of offering to give up their seat.

By THAT logic, though, accepting the offer is also evil. Which means that nobody gets on the life boat, because anybody who does is evil for having accepted an offer of salvation when another could have.


and at that point there is no more fault in the scenario, since again existence and being on the boat at all is what is causing the death, that and the moral fiber of the person volunteering, they are sacrificing themselves.But in accepting the volunteering, the person who made the acceptance refused to sacrifice themselves.

Moreover, there now is a direct identifiable "they died so I could live" link: the specific person who volunteered to die so you could get your seat would be alive if you hadn't accepted.


And you have a responsibility to all people, that's a fundamental part of being good, and in this case a neutral has to make a choice between an evil act or a good one. Again, yes, it is good to volunteer. It is neutral, not evil, to refuse to volunteer. Or to accept the volunteered offer.

Evil requires actively forcing people to their death to preserve your life. Not passively accepting salvation that could go to another.


Of course agreed on procedures make the decision as to who should sacrifice themselves more easy, lots, women and children first (good for a lot of reasons in this case), seniority, that means that everyone is willing to sacrifice themselves but there is a system to determine who does.Except, by the logic that refusing to give up your seat means you're murdering somebody, the women and children are evil for accepting that system which gives them preferential treatment. To actually preserve them, if they are to not bear the stain of murder, one would have to make the men and such go first so those men could volunteer their seats. But even then, in accepting the volunteering, the women and children would be evil. Your premises lead to a logical loop where anybody who survives is responsible for the deaths of those who do not, unless they fought and were overpowered and forced into the boat against their will.


Which helps with the morality of the situation. Simply going for a lifeboat with no thought to the others is indifference to human life and that is equivalent to murdering somebody since they die due to your indifference.
Nobody spoke of "simply going to the lifeboat with no concern for others." That's a new condition you're adding.

Even so, that is neutral. Indifference is not depraved indifference. You are (materially, at least) indifferent to those who are less well-off than you every time you buy a luxury rather than buying somebody else a necessity. You are only showing depraved indifference if you choose not to throw somebody a rope because it's your rope and it might get frayed if they climb it to get off of that cliff over which they're hanging while their fingers slowly lose their grip on the precarious, crumbling ledge.

Segev
2014-03-14, 09:18 AM
I was thinking about how to explain this last night while I couldn't sleep, and how it can be demonstrated.

(If anyone knows a lot more about probabilities than me and wants to rectify any of this, please do so).

Let's say we have 80 people on our ship, and 60 lifeboat spaces...

(excellent stuff)

...The lifeboat scenario looks scary because the numbers are relatively large - integers in some cases, but in the 60/80 set of figures, even if you board when it will have maximum effect on others, you're not depriving anyone of the chance to live who wasn't 95% certain to die anyway. It's not you that's killing them, it's the circumstances. You can insert other variables, of course, and in reality people will never all have an exactly equal chance of survival, but this actually reduces the impact you can have in any individual case more.Very good analysis. I think the biggest part is the fact that it's the circumstances, not you, that's killing the victims, but it is all very, very well put.


Compare that to the scenario where you're sacrificing another to save yourself. In that situation your victim's chances of survival before you get involved are very good - we can assume very close to 100%. This includes a situation where someone has already boarded a lifeboat and you throw them overboard to make room for yourself. Your action then reduces their chances of survival to 0% - a drop of about 100% whichever way you look at it. There's no way around that; you're responsible. Yep. The moment you actually HARM somebody directly - by forcing them out of the lifeboat, by stabbing them before they can get there, by tying them up so they can't even try - you're probably guilty of that person's demise. But let's take a look at your last bit, as it addresses whatever concerns might remain:


But let's tweak the numbers in the lifeboat scenario just once more to maximise the possible impact of our hero's choice. In this scenario there is now only one space too few for all our passengers, and he arrives at the boat at roughly the same time as another person. They are identical, remember, so no greater good will accrue to society from having either one of them on board compared to the other. It's a straight 50-50. Is our hero evil for increasing his speed ever so slightly to get there first, for wanting to live, for valuing his own life even a bit more than this guy he's never met?

I'd say no, because the morality of the situation is broadly equivalent to a self-defence scenario. Each of them wants to live and they can only live at the expense of the other. If you take the view that boarding the boat is tantamount to killing, they're each trying to kill each other! So it's a moral wash. Is it a Good act? No, getting on the lifeboat in this scenario is probably never a Good act. But is it Evil? I really don't see it, even in this instance.

I agree. It would be a Good act to volunteer to give up your chance at that spot. It would be neutral to try your best for it.

If one tries to view not volunteering to die as evil murder to save oneself, then it is self-defense (which nobody in this thread has claimed is an invalid time to use lethal force) to stop him from killing you by taking that last spot. Therefore, your action in taking that last spot is not evil. But then, by the mirrored nature of the situation, it is self-defense for him to do the same to you, and his action is therefore not evil.

So the paradox of assuming that it is evil to preserve oneself in this scenario is that the self defense exception makes it not evil.

So, if it is not evil, there is no paradox. It's just neutral. If it is evil, the paradox arises because it makes it not evil.

In either case, it's not evil to retain your seat, nor even to do all in your power to obtain one (all else being equal).

RedMage125
2014-03-14, 09:52 AM
Yes, and self-defense is justified for other reasons, as I just pointed out in the other thread. Because if somebody is attempting to murder you and you don't deserve it, it is not unreasonable to suspect that would do the same to others, so it's a moral wash, because it's not simply motivated by self-interest but rather societal obligation and self-interest.
Actually, you provided a convoluted reasoning why YOU think killing in self-defense was justified, NONE of which is RAW.

RAW supports that "killing in self-defense is not Evil" from the BoED.

Ergo, that is true.

Your points about "intent" and "prevention of potential harm to others" is using word semantics -none of which are explicit in the RAW, btw- to twist the FACT of "killing in self-defense is not Evil" into support for YOUR case about the lifeboat.

Killing in self defense is not an Evil act. And has been pointed out numerous times, one could make a valid case for self-defense by boarding a lifeboat, even using YOUR standard of "getting on a lifeboat is tantamount to killing someone". Which, btw, Aedilred and I disagree with, but can still humor you on that point and STILL prove that getting on a lifeboat is non-evil.

RedMage125
2014-03-14, 10:01 AM
AMFV, I'm going to re-post my last few posts from the other thread, since they were never responded to, and they more appropriately belong here.


I've never claimed that it was neutral, EVER, not once, just that there was no neutral option I've presented RAW to show that it would be evil. There is no RAW to show that it's neutral.
There absolutely is. The bolded statement, above, is flat-out false. The PHB says that a Neutral person may sacrifice their ownlife for a loved one, but not a complete starnger. That in the context of defining what Neutral on the Good vs. Evil axis means.


Again for emphasis...

Killing another to save yourself is evil. Sacrificing to save another is good, if those are your only options there are no neutral options.
But you have not proven that RAW says that "refusal to sacrifice yourself" is equal to "killing".

You have used real-world examples (that are NOT in keeping with D&D morality) to show when responsibility for the life of another is present. But ignoring responsibility to one who is dependent on you in all ways (like a child) is different from refusing to die to save the life of an adult stranger. And no court of law would try you for murder if you boarded a lifeboat in a fair and orderly fashion, just because some other people did not get a spot and died because a ship sank.


No I am saying that in this case there is no neutral option, there are only two options, that means that all three ranges in the alignment scale cannot be covered by two options, one has to be excluded, by definition.
Except that you haven't shown that "refusal to sacrifice" is the same as "killing". SO the one that gets left out is Evil. If you have fairly aquired a spot on one of the lifeboats through non-evil means, your only remaining options are Good (give up your spot for someone else) or Neutral (stay on the lifeboat).


No, evil is a specific type of behavior in D&D. As I've said, I've only argued that acting in the manner you describe is evil, not that self-sacrifice was neutral, why are you accusing me of saying that, there is no neutral option in that scenario.
How did you read what I said as saying that "self-sacrifice was neutral"? That's not what I said at all. Please re-read it.
Self sacrifice for another is Good. I have never contested that.

My opinion is completely within the moral framework of D&D. Because as I've said that act is definitionallly evil, I've posted that line from the SRD more than five times now here I'll post it again...

There you go that is a strong indication that if your actions are killing another person for selfish reasons you are RAW acting in a manner that is evil. That's all there is to it.
But "my actions" aren't what kills them, the sinking ship is, which is a neutral agency. The only way that "my actions" kill someone is if that person would have lived in the absence of "my action". Otherwise, I have not "killed" them.

Your view is only true if one accepts that "causing the death of someone by virtue of not commiting suicide" equates to "killing that person".

This is why Aedilred and I were so adamant about pointing out the difference between "choosing to kill someone to live" and "choosing to not sacrifice your life for another". The difference is in whether or not saving that person would cost you your life. And that's a HUGE difference. So different, in fact, that those are entirely different moral acts. If the choice is "kill another person to continue living" your options are either Evil (kill someone who would have lived) or Neutral (die without having commited murder). Neither of those is Good, because even by sparing the person, you haven't committed an act of Good, you've simply refused to commmit Evil. On the other hand, if you are both going to die, and you simply "refuse to sacrifice yourself to save the life of another", your options are either Good or Neutral. The other person is in imminent danger of dying without your agency entering the picture at all. There is no Evil option (short of murdering the person yourself before the imminent danger carries them off), because all you have done is refuse to commit a Good act. That a life ends because of that is regrettable, and you may feel guilty. But by D&D standards, you have not "killed" them.

This is why your repeated SRD quote means nothign in this context. You have not proven that "refusal to end my life for theirs" equates to "killing" in the same way that "killing someone by stabbing them" is "killing".

How is it not? You are directly responsible, you acted and they died because you acted, that is direct responsibility. You chose to put your life over theirs in value, that is a direct choice that leads to that responsibility. Your action resulted in a death that would not have occurred if you had not acted, I don't see how that at could be not a direct responsibility.
You have yet to show that it IS. You can't just say "it's a given that this is true, and therefore, by what the RAW say, I'm right". There are no "givens" in this scenario, other than what RAW says. Since RAW does not say "failing to save someone's life, even if it costs you your own, counts as 'killing them'" that is not a valid "given" starting point of assumption for this scenario.

Furthermore, in a discussion with Aedilred, you stated that the text missing from the SRD that is present in the PHB is somehow "proof" that the SRD trumps the PHB.

It does not.

The SRD is meant to be applied to other games that are not D&D. Things exclusive to D&D are excluded, which is why the individual alignment references to the iconic D&D characters are missing. For example, in the SRD, Tenser's Floating Disk is simply Floating Disk, removing the D&D specific element of that. Does that mean that the spell in D&D is no longer properly Tenser's Floating Disk? No. For D&D-world based discussions, you use D&D RAW, not game-generic source documents. In this instance, the PHB (with errata) trumps the SRD. If you could prove that the errata to the PHB removed that line, you would have more support for your case.

It depends, it could certainly be valid, you are talking about a specific case, it could certainly be evil, if it was done for the wrong reasons, on your part at least. Just because you've increased cosmic good (a nebulous and arbitrar concept anways) does not mean that you've improved yourself morally, so you could continue to fall.
In correct, and you continue with semantics and dodging instead of acknowledging the meat of the issue.

The BoVD states that killing a demon is not Evil. The person in the example is claiming the exact text of the RAW that you are that says "Evil implies killing others". Specific trumps general. Killing others is Evil, but killing a demon is emphatically NOT Evil.

Because the issue of how self-sacrifice comes into the issue, we must look at if and where the RAW explicitly covers refusing sacrificing oneself to save another. Oh, look at that, the RAW says it's Neutral.

An evil person is capable of doing things that wind up having good results. Intent matters and motivation matters. Demons can be evil and do evil to each other and it's still evil even though the cosmic force might balance out because the intention is evil. In fact I reject the cosmic force argument out of hand it's nonsensical, because again Demons and Devils would be good since they have destroyed more of each other than ever possible for a good individual to do, it is therefore requisite that the matter is more complex than you are assuming.
You are attempting to change the scenario to prove your point. This is either issue-dodging word semantics, or moving the goalposts, take your pick. Either way, not constructive. I didn't ask you to change the scenario to make you right, I created a scenario and asked you about it. Your answer in keeping with your view was in violation of the RAW. Ergo, your view is not always in keeping with the RAW.
I did.

You still have responsibility because it's still your action, the boat sinking sets that into motion but it doesn't remove responsibility from you, any more than a doctor who decapitates me when I come in with a severe injury is exempt from malpractice.The doctor (by virtue of being a doctor, having taken a Hippocratic Oath, and presumably working in a medical facility) is obliged to help you, and decapitating you is murder. So this example is non-sequitur


Because your desire to live is selfish, that's the rules, thems the breaks.
Neutral on the Good/Evil axis is a little bit selfish. "Neutral people are commited to others by personal relationships", a quote from the PHB that is ALSO in your much-vaunted SRD. A Neutral person has no commitment (and therefore no responsibility) towards strangers. You can be a little bit selfish without being Evil. That's what Neutral is. Looking out for yourself and those you care about, while trying not to hurt others if that is possible, but not actively caring about others enough to go to extreme ends for them. If keeping yourself or those you care about means letting others be harmed by things that are out of your control (and I mean if that it literally the only option, then oh well. That's Neutral. Thems the breaks.

As I said before:
By your standards, there are 3 kinds of people on the moral axis of D&D: 1)Those who are Good 2) Those who are Evil and 3)Those who are evil (little "e"), but not as evil as those in category 2. And that is simply not true in D&D. That may be your view of them, which is as valid as any opinion, but it doesn't hold as objectively true in the moral/ethical framework of D&D. I'm not saying that "your opinion is wrong", or that you should change it. I'm just saying that your opinion is not a fact in regards to the facts of the objective moral/ethical framework of D&D.

Because you see fit to judge ANY level of selfishness, even simple self-preservation, as "Evil", there can be no neutral in your view.


Acting to kill another to preserve your life is evil, whether or not you're acting in an orderly fashion or panicking. It's the same exact result as throwing somebody off, the same exact intent (screw these people, I'm living), so I fail to see how a minor difference in methodology makes a moral difference here.
Are you f-ing serious? You think "throwing someone into the water where they will die" and "sitting quietly in a lifeboat" are minor differences in methodology? That's not even logical, by any standards.

It's not the same result, because the person I refuse to vacate my spot in a lfieboat for may find a spot on one of the other, remaining lifeboats. Just because I know SOME people on the ship will die doesn't mean I know WHICH people on the ship will die. Throwing that person off myself ENSURES that they will die, and thus they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

And it's not "acting to kill another" to preserve your life. It's "refusing to give up your own life", which is different.

No you are morally obligated to save lives when it is reasonably in your power to do so, as I said.
Then, once again, where do YOU draw the line at "reasonable"?

Because it is, you have a 100% chance of saving somebody if you get off the lifeboat, and 100% that that person would die, there is no question of skill or knowledge here, you know that somebody is dying so that you can live and you are doing nothing about it. It is clearly an evil act.
Prove it. Show, in RAW, where it says that if someone's life is on the line in a manner that costs me my own, it is an Evil act to not save them. Ver batim. Find it in the rules, or admit it's your opinion.

No, I've pointed out that is not the logical conclusion. It is only when your direct action saves somebody or dooms them.

You've been arguing that "failing to act when you could have saved them" is the same as "directly acting to harm/kill them". So yes, it IS the logical conclusion.
Because by sitting the lifeboat when I have already fairly earned a spot on the boat, I am not "dooming anyone by direct action", only by the indirect action of "not giving up my life for them".
If "not giving up my life" is direct action that dooms them, by your claim, then so is easting when you KNOW there are starving people in the world. Any food that you eat is food that you had the opportunity to give to someone else, and chose instead to eat for yourself. By your logic, selfish and Evil.
Now, if you are saying that eating is NOT selfish and Evil, then at point, exactly, is self-interest not Evil? Because there has to be some level of self-interest that has to be Neutral.

Look if you are not going to pay attention to my points, then I can't debate with you. I've pointed out why that was different more than two times in this very thread. You are still causing a death it doesn't matter if "they were probably going to die anyways" because then no murder is a crime, and the only crime is giving birth.

You have a responsibility if you are good to act in a way that accords to that, and that would be sacrificing yourself, if you are evil you are likely to act selfishly to preserve yourself, if you are neutral, you'd pick one of those two options either/or, and you've move a little bit in that direction.
I have been paying attention. You haven't. Either that, or you are intentionally putting on blinders to the contradictions in what you say.
You said:
"If you don't know about something or you don't have an ability to change it you don't have a responsibility to it."
I don't have the power to stop the ship from sinking. The sinking of the ship is what is going to cause these people's deaths. Ergo, using your words, I am absolved of responsibility for those people's deaths.

If I board the first lifeboat, and it fills up. And a complete stranger wants to board and I say "I'm not giving up my spot, there's another lifeboat near the forecastle", and they run off to find it, and my lifeboat takes off. Have I committed an Evil act? After all, when I boarded, there were other lifeboats available (although I know not enough for EVERYONE). I refused to sacrifice my life, but tried to help this stranger to the best of my ability without sacrificing my own life, which I value. I am not a doctor, but I have a wife back home whom I want to see again.

If my lifeboat takes off and I never know what happens to that guy, does the moral weight of my choice change based on what happens to him afterwards? For example, let's say he finds a lifeboat because of my directions and gets on and is saved.
Or, conversely, he gets there and THAT one is full, and none of those people gave up a spot, either. Assuming this guy then dies on the sinking ship, who caused his death? Just me? Or everyone in my lifeboat who also didn't vacate? Or is it just the people in the last lifeboat he tried to board and was refused from? Have we all "killed" him, by your view?



Not necessarily, then you'd have a contradiction the BoVD rule, there isn't really a way to have all of the alignment supported in a scenario where there are only functionally two options.
You STILL missed what he said. He said IF YOU ASSUME that "sacrificing another to save yourself" and "not sacrificing yourself to save another" are DIFFERENT, then there is no contradiction.

PLEASE, try reading through that section of the BoVD again, with an open mind and assuming (even as a hyopthetical) that the above assumption is true. You will see no contradiction with the BoVD.

And I know you're talking about the Zophas examples. Keep in mind a few things, first, that the first example (taking an action to save yourself that ended up harming/killing innocents) was explicitly not evil. Also, Zophas is a paladin and held to a higher standard than anyone else. And third, that the commoners in the hut are not analogous to the people on the boat, because the people in the hut were not also in mortal danger before Zophas acted.


The problem is that causation is confusing as I pointed causation is complex, and you have a responsibility even in scenarios that you did not directly cause.
It is YOUR MORALS that dictate your responsibiltiy to those other people. You have very high ideals and are probably Good in alignment (were you to exist in a D&D world). I am genuinely impressed at your devotion to altruism.

By your morals, everyone has those same responsibilities.

But D&D does not present such a myopic scope of obligation and responsibility. It allows for people who DO NOT believe that they have a responsibility to anyone other than those they personally care about, and are also not Evil in alignment.


No I just didn't think that it was relevant to the discussion at this point.

It was relevant, and you did miss the point of the rope illustration. It was a metaphor for the way Good and Evil acts are judged, irrespective of contributing or exemplary factors.


I haven't rejected my own theory of causation with any scenarios. Ever, seriously I'll take that we can disagree, but I have not been inconsistent at all. My position has been extremely consistent, and that is a serious accusation. I've stated that if you have an ability, knowledge and the ability to prevent death inaction is tantamount to directly acting to kill somebody, refusing is acting.
Except the burning building. If you could run into it, costing you your life, to save someone else, and did not, then by your definition that's Evil.

In the other cases, eating you can't save somebody by not eating, it's not equivalent. In the brushing past the guy scenario, I agreed that there was some responsibility but knowledge and intent are lacking.
The eating thing is absolutely a prallel, and you're putting on blinders so you won't have to see your own argument's flaws.
The parallel is that food is a spot on the lifeboat.
You having food is getting on the lifeboat.
You eating the food for yourself instead of giving it to someone else is you staying in the lifeboat instead of giving up your spot.
You have the OPPORTUNITY to give your food away to other people. There are people all over this country that are going hungry. Any food that you have COULD be given to them.

Bottom line: If ANY action taken for your own interest-EVEN TO SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE-is Evil, then it is Evil across the board. You can't say that the food example doesn't fit just because you don't want to. You get judged by the same scale you want to put everyone else on. If eating food -instead of giving away every scrap of food you buy- is not Evil, then it means there is some "cutoff point" at which is becomes acceptable (i.e. Not Evil) to act in your own self-interest.

The new question Aedilred and I have asked you multiple times and you refuse to answer is: According to your value system, where is the line drawn at which one can act in their own self-interest without it being Evil?

I'm not arguing for pacifism, and as far as I can tell nobody else is. I've even pointed out the moral why self-defense is justifiable for me. I'm not sure what you're addressing here.
You also used semantics to dodge the question about self-defense that I posed to you.

For crying out loud, answer honestly, and don't dance around it.

If you killed a lich and were carrying around his crown as a trophy, and a paladin, having used detect evil and under the mistaken belief that you were Evil, was attacking you with lethal force, and you defended yourself, got in a lucky shot and killed her, have you committed an Evil act?

THAT is the situation, and the paladin is just as I described before. Do not alter the situation to "well, if it's a fallen paladin" or "I must be Evil, then". That is not the scenario. I am presenting THIS scenario. Respond.

Because by the RAW, no. Killing in self-defense does not equate to "murder", which the BoVD defines as "killing another for selfish or nefarious purposes".

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 10:36 AM
I sincerely hope that these no-win situations seldom, if ever, come up outside of theoretical discussions, because I would never want to play with a DM who created situations just for a paladin to fall.

Sometimes things tend to produce a Moral Dilemma without too much interference from the DM.

RedMage125
2014-03-14, 12:49 PM
That is the scenario, yes.
That's actually CHANGING the scenario, btw. Nothing in the original scenario specified that we were AT ALL discussing "taking the very last spot on the very last lifeboat".

If that's what YOU'VE been discussing, we may have nailed down part of the problem. Regardless, I have specified, numerous times, that I am explicitly NOT discussing taking the last spot.

It does kill somebody because if you did not do it, then somebody would be alive, that's very clear to me. That is causing a death, just because the circumstances that led up to it were not of your making doesn't mean that you didn't cause it.
Except that the person would NOT be alive, they'd still be dead. That is very clear to everyone except you. So it is not causing death.

Let's put it this way, for clarification purposes: Of the population of the ship (x), there are enough lifeboats to save all but 20 people. So one way or another, 20 people are GOING TO DIE. Once all the lifeboats are filled to capacity (x-20 people, or "y" for short), the remainder are going to be the ones who die (let's use "z", even though we know z=20).

If you never boarded a lifeboat, can you actually point out the person you saved? No. The person you "saved" is just one of the faceless (y) people that survived. If you were on one of the lifeboats, and then got out to save someone else, you have saved that person by exchanging your life for theirs, a Good act.

If you board one of the lifeboats, and afterwards it fills up and takes off, you have not SPECIFCALLY killed any one of those 20 people who remained on the ship. You have no way of knowing, through intent, direct agency, or through inaction, whether or not any individual who you COULD have saved made it to another lifeboat or not, basically whether or not they made it into group y or group z.

I asked this to you before and you did not answer, so let me rephrase using this means. If I board a lifeboat, and then it fills up, and one more guy comes along, let's call him Skippy. I don't vacate my spot, but I do direct him to one of the other lifeboat sponsons. Skippy makes it to one of those lifeboats, and is part of group y, the survivors. I'm cleared of any evil action by your view, right? I never had any interaction with anyone who remained on the boat and died (group z). Am I, by your definition, absolved of "killing them"?

After you answer that, I'd like to throw another one at you. Suppose once Skippy got to his boat, he was in the same situation.
If Skippy chooses to get out and sacrifice himself for that person, am I now guilty of an evil act because he died? Or am I absolved because he CHOSE to die for another? Does his Good act absolve my "evil" one?
If Skippy chooses not to vacate his spot, and that person becomes one of the 20 who dies, is Skippy the one who committed an evil act? Or am I? Are we somehow both complicit in this person's death, because Skippy never would have been able to make that choice if he had been on my lifeboat instead?

AMFV, I would actually like to hear your response to each seperate question posed here.



Failing to commit personal sacrifice is neutral, killing somebody or causing somebody to die while avoiding personal sacrifice is evil.
This is a contradiction, you know that, right? If failing to commit personal sacrifice is neutral (which is a new stance from you, btw), then it is. Period.

You also have no proof of your additional clause there. Prove, in RAW, where it explicitly states that "causing somebody to die while avoiding personal sacrifice is evil". And don't quote the "killing is evil" thing for the upteenth time. I have already established -several times- that you do not have RAW support for "refusing to sacrifice your life for someone" = "killing". Unless you'd care to find explicit RAW support for that clause.

Please, I would LOVE to see you provide some actual support for your case and debate in a genuine fashion.

Because starting with saying "oh, this is a given that this is true", and debating from there is not a valid way to debate. I challenge your initial assumptions, and call for proof of them.

Either that, or admit that it's your opinion. Because unless you can find explicit support in the RAW that distinctly and without room for error states that "refusing to sacrifice your life to save someone" is teh same as "killing that person" in D&D RAW, then it is not true. Because we DO have explicit RAW taht says that "refusing to sacrifice your life for that of a stranger" is Neutral. Which is, by the way, the only time "not sacrificing yourself" is mentioned.


There is no difference between stabbing somebody and getting on the lifeboat. The intent is the same, the degree of action is the same (since you are getting on the boat), the result is the same (the other guy dies), the only difference is a knife.
The intent is not the same. The intent of one is "I want to live", the intent of the other is "I want this guy to die". The two could be mutualyl exclusive. Your intent could be "I want to live, but I hope that guy finds another lifeboat with a spot open". Which is radically different, and indeed mutually exclusive with "I want this man to die". So your blanket statement that intent is the same as a categorical statement is thus proven false.
The degree of action is not the same. One requires me getting peacefully into a lifeboat and sitting my butt down. The other is violence towards another person. On no level is the "degree of action" the same. That is just categorically untrue.
The result may be the same, but intent, context, and action matter, as per the BoVD. The same page in the BoVD, incidentally, that you say supports you.
The difference is that when Zophas intentionally endangered and caused the deaths of innocents to save his own life, is that those innocents would have lived if he hadn't taken the action he did. If I am already on a lifeboat (let's say for a moment that is IS the last lifeboat), and another individual is not, he is not about to live without my action.
If I am a wizard and am about to die on the sinking ship, and use Baleful Transposition to swap places with someone who is already on a lifeboat and is rowing away, then yes, that would be Evil. THAT is a more accurate parallel with the BoVD scenario regarding "sacrificing another so that you may live"

There is no moral difference in that scenario, except that stabbing somebody might keep them from dying slowly in the water, that is actually more moral.
That has to be hyperbole. You can't honestly believe that such a justification would fly by RAW. Unless the person in question explicitly asks you to end their life quickly (thus making it an act of mercy).

A Paladin is not allowed a single evil act. And this is evil. So they'd fall.
Well, you have not PROVEN that it's evil, by virtue of you not having PROVEN that "refusing to sacrfice you own life" equates to "killing". All you have PROVEN is an Evil act is killing someone. Since you have not shown that the RAW explicitly supports your claim that this scenario counts as "killing", you have not proven that it's an evil act.

HOWEVER, that said, I do agree that Paladins, being hekd to a higher standard, should be expected to sacrifice themselves for others, by virtue of their Oaths. Barring any special circumstances. For example, if the paladin in question is somehow vital to the carrying out of a greater Good. For example, he is carrying information that is the only way to stop a demonic incursion. I know it's in the RAW somewhere that is he's obliged to preserve his own life in order to carry out his mission. I think it may be in the BoED, but I am AFB right now. At any rate, the act is Neutral, and not Evil, so he won't lose his powers. But barring some exceptional circumstance that makes the paladin's own survival necessary for the greater Good, he should give up his own life by virtue of the higher standard he is held to. Paladins don't fall for commiting Neutral acts, or even Chaotic ones, but should always strive to hold up the highest ideals of Good and Law whenever possible.


That is absurdly untrue. If I poison several bottles of water I can't name who it may or may not kill, but I'm still a murderer. If I fire a weapon into the air and it kills somebody then it's still murder.
Half right. If you poison several bottles of water, you are guilty of attempted murder even if no one drinks them. And at least one count of murder if anyone dies from drinking said water. You clearly acted with intent to murder.
If you fire a weapon into the air and it kills someone, you did not have the "intent" of killing someone. Are you guilty of killing someone through gross and malign negligence? Yes. But that's more equivalent to the second Zophas scenario in the BoVD, where Zophas is reckless and indifferent to the possible harm he can cause, as opposed to the third Zophas scenario, where he intentionally endangers an innocent's life. So killing someone because you fired that weapon in the air is an evil act, but slightly less so than the water poisoning.

Regardless, you missed the point about "being able to name the person you killed". He didn't mean "have knowledge of that person", but rather, that after the fact if you could look and be able to tell "that person died because of me, and not anyone else". For example, anyone who dies from poison and had one of those bottles you poisoned. You can tell that you killed them. The person who died when you fired your weapon into the air. Once they can trace that projectile to you, you can "name" that person, in that you can identify a clear cause-effect line between your action and that indivdual's death.


The one that didn't get to board the boat because there wasn't enough seats.
And which one was that? If you board a lifeboat with the intent to live, and no one ever approaches that lifeboat onces it fills up, so you were never even asked to vacate for anyone else, but 20 or so people still died, which one of those 20 people did you kill? That's what he meant.

You are mistaken sir, inaction or leaving somebody in a scenario where they are going to die to preserve yourself, is tantamount to killing them
You say "tantamount" to killing them. But "tantamount to killing" is not "killing". Not by D&D standards.

tan·ta·mount adjective \ˈtan-tə-ˌmau̇nt\ : equal to something in value, meaning, or effect

Equal in value is not equal in action. And actions have moral weight of Good/Evil in D&D.
Equivalent example:
You are a paladin, in a city. You get jumped by about 5 individuals wearing poor quality leather armor and wielding daggers. As they jump you, the leader yells things like "we're gonna gut you and take your stuff". Now, you have been attacked with lethal intent. By D&D RAW, you are entitled to defend yourself with lethal means. Let's say you get a crit on one of them and he dies outright (straight to -10 hp). The rest you subdue (to negative hp, but not dead), and use your Lay On Hands power to keep from dying (1 hp each), and turn them in to the authorities, telling them the whole truth, including that you killed one while defending yourself. But that guy you killed? He was the only father of an infant child who dies of starvation a few days later. What you did is "tanatamount" to starving and killing that child yourself, yes?

More importantly, and to the point: "Tantamount" means equal in value, meaning, or effect. Since I know you will argue that "effect" is not the only deciding factor (as you will contest the above scebario by virtue of you not KNOWING that the mugger had a baby he was caring for), "value" and "meaning" are left. And those are subjective. Your Values anre different from my Values (clearly). You consider some things higher in "value" and "meaning" than I do, and vis versa. D&D morality is objective which means that things that depend purely on subjective perceptions of "value" do not enter into objective D&D moral weight.

YOUR INDIVIDUAL VALUES on human life, and the responsibilities of ALL sentient beings mean that from your perspective, not saving a life when you could have is equal in value to murder. But D&D morality is objective, and is not beholden to YOUR values. In order to BE truly objective, it in fact MUST reject your values and only adhere to absolutes. Someone with your values could certainly exist in a D&D world and feel that way. But by the objective laws of the D&D universe, killing someone with a knife, and getting into a lifeboat to save your own life when it is in danger are NOT the same thing.

He doesn't need to, he's on the lifeboat, randomly stabbing somebody is a different matter entirely. But getting on the lifeboat that's self-preservation, the intent is the same, even if he doesn't have to stab somebody.
Again, false. "I climb on a boat," and "I pull out my sword and stab somebody" are not in any way the same degree of action wrt the other person dying.
This is funny...


There is no difference between stabbing somebody and getting on the lifeboat. The intent is the same, the degree of action is the same (since you are getting on the boat), the result is the same (the other guy dies), the only difference is a knife.
Didn't you say that you've been "consistent the whole time"? And that you have "never contradicted yourself"? Check the bolded parts of both those quotes. That is direct contradiction. In exact words no less.

Please explain.


I've never heard the "you must be able to name who you kill" statement ever, you can pick any of the passengers left and it could be them, but you are killing ONE OF THEM. You don't need to be able to identify who you are killing to know that your actions will result the death of one person.
But if we accept that, then EVERYONE who survived by boarding a lifeboat killed SOMEONE. And thus committed an Evil act. And yet, you said that wasn't the case. So this is another contradiction.

No one person on a lifeboat killed ALL the people who died on the sinking ship, right? I think we at least agree on that. But unless you can specify which one died because of you, it's not fair to say you "killed" ANY of them, unless EVERYONE who survived on a lifeboat has "killed" one of the people who died on the ship. It's one or the other. Because it's ONE objective ruling on the matter. You don't get to claim "this one person committed murder, but all the other survivors didn't because I say so and I want to be right", because that's not how RAW works.

No, because if I cease to spend money on my survival nobody lives because of that. If I donate all of my money, I will eventually starve and then those people who depend on me will then also starve. You don't have a responsibility to act, beyond your knowledge and means, this is different in that it is a single specific action that kills somebody, not an intangible potential action, that may or may not be causing harm to somebody, this is explicit.
Then where do you draw the line? Aedilred and I have asked you about 5 times now, and you keep ignoring the question.
Where do you draw the line at which point acting in your own self-interest (or survival) becomes non-evil?
Because there has to be some point. If ANY action that you EVER take to benefit yourself is at least a little evil, then so is eating. If some means of action in the initerest of oneself are non-evil, then what, exactly is the distinction. Just like the earlier examples, it cuts both ways. You don't get to say "it works X way when I say it does and Y way other times, because: I win". This is why people (not just Aedilred and I, but like 5 posters now) have been saying you are being inconsistent. If you have been confused as to why they have said this, I sincerely hope I have helped you understand why they say so.

No, if you'd have read what I've posted there are other reasons to board the lifeboat which are not evil. Being a child, being a nursing mother, being a doctor, having responsibilities that you have to attend to that are worth killing over.
You created a very narrow set of criteria in order to be Neutral. And those are criteria based on YOUR values, and not based on an objective set of values, specifically not based in RAW. YOU are not the deciding factor of whether or not something is Evil. There are objective forces that do not care about your values that weigh everything objectively. And you seem incapable of separating your won values from your decision making process, even as a hypothetical, to make an objective ruling. D&D morality, including what is and what is not Good or Evil, are objective and not beholden to your personal belief that "everyone has the responsibility to try and sacrifice themself to save someone else".

And you have a responsibility to all people, that's a fundamental part of being good, and in this case a neutral has to make a choice between an evil act or a good one.
Except that you're holding ALL people to the values of Good. I know you say you're not, but from an objective standpoint you are. By claiming that "everyone has this responsibility", when you in fact recognize in your own words (bolded above), that such is a part of being Good, it means you hold EVERYONE to the standard of Good. D&D morality does not do that.
If you hold EVERYONE to the standard of Good it means one of two things(which are, btw, not mutually exclusive):
1) You have a very optimistic view of humanity in general.
2) You are diluting the value of Good in those who truly are Good, because to you, they are just "doing what's expected" instead of "rising above what is expected". This also denigrates the value of "self-sacrifice for another", because it becomes not special, or outstanding in any way.


Of course agreed on procedures make the decision as to who should sacrifice themselves more easy, lots, women and children first (good for a lot of reasons in this case), seniority, that means that everyone is willing to sacrifice themselves but there is a system to determine who does. Which helps with the morality of the situation.
I agree. But then, I too, am Lawful. And I believe that an orderly procedure that creates a "priority list" that determines -objectively- in what order people get to board lifeboats until there are no spots left would be the most beneficial. But that's really more a Lawful thing than a Good/Evil thing. A person who didn't agree with that because their values are different would disagree.

Simply going for a lifeboat with no thought to the others is indifference to human life and that is equivalent to murdering somebody since they die due to your indifference.
There is so much wrong with this last sentence.
Simply going for a lifeboat is survival, not "depraved indifference", and you cannot prove otherwise. Even one example to the contrary proves you false. If I were going to a lifeboat my mentality would be "I want to live, but I want to help as many other people as possible survive while doing that". If I have knowledge of where multiple lifeboats are on the boat (and why wouldn't you? It's good sense, but that could be the Sailor part of me talking), I will try to guide everyone I encounter on my way to one to the one I am going to, or to another one. But I still want to live as well, and I WILL try to survive.
And the BoVD defines murder as "killing someone for selfish or nefarious purposes". As I have not directly or indirectly, through my own action, ended the life of another, for any purpose, I have not "killed" anyone.
I am not "indifferent" to the lives of the others. I just prioritize mine just a little bit higher. If I can help others, I absolutely will. If I know where the lifeboats all are, I consider it my obligation to direct other who seem lost to where some of the lifeboats are. But that's my perception of my responsibility, and it is not way objectively true, by D&D RAW of morality or ethics, that such is my responsibility. But I WILL try and save my own life. My life is no less valuable than anyone else's. Their lives (unless it's my family) are less valuable than mine-TO ME, and I expect that every other person on the boat is acting under the same mindset. They they believe their lives are more valuable than mine. I don't expect anyone to try and actively murder me, but we're all competing for the same limited resources.

You know what? That my be a part of the disconnect with your view of "everyone's responsibilities", vis what everyone here is saying. Because you are Good, you expect that same mindset in others. Because I am Neutral (on the Good/Evil axis), I look with a measure of dispassion at this scenario. I do not charge random strangers with arbitrary "responsibility" based on ym values, I try and be objective, because that's how D&D morality is judged...objectively and with utter dispassion. It's a theory.

RedMage125
2014-03-14, 01:04 PM
Yes, a selfish act that doesn't cause direct harm is neutral, it's pretty much textbook neutral.
Actually, that's not what the book says.
Neutral prefers to not harm others, if they can help it. But if it can't be helped, they will.
Good actively tries to avoid harming others and go above and beyond to help them.
Evil is completely indifferent to the suffering of others, or actively seeks to cause it.

You seem to be judging Neutral as some sort of "Diet Good", where they seek to avoid harming others to the same extent Good does, and just avoids helping. But that view not only narrows what defines Neutral, it also dilutes what defines Good, as it makes Good less special.

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others." A "compunction" is not a prohibition. It means that they woul prefer not to. Having a compunction against doing something doesn't mean they won't do it if it's necessary. Especially when this line from RAw is looked at as a whole, instead of broken up. Because it's one sentence. So the "lack of commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others" is directly related to their "compunction against killing the innocent". This means that while they don't want to end innocent life, neither will they give up their own life to save one.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 01:21 PM
Regarding "letting someone die - for selfish reasons" being argued as "evil by inaction" here's another example.

An honest but selfish doctor is doing their rounds. One of the terminally ill (but still capable of living for quite a bit more time if treated every time their organs fail) patients has a Do Not Resuscitate order.

They start going into a "quickly dying" state. The doctor can stop the process - but - purely because they know that they will get in trouble with both the patient and the hospital - (get sued - be at risk of being Struck Off, etc) - choose to do nothing.

What alignment is that "act of inaction"?

(Not very D&D-ish - but I'm imagining a 21st century D&D-rules campaign).

Segev
2014-03-14, 01:30 PM
An honest but selfish doctor is doing their rounds. One of the terminally ill (but still capable of living for quite a bit more time if treated every time their organs fail) patients has a Do Not Resuscitate order.

They start going into a "quickly dying" state. The doctor can stop the process - but - purely because they know that they will get in trouble with both the patient and the hospital - (get sued - be at risk of being Struck Off, etc) - choose to do nothing.

What alignment is that "act of inaction"?

(Not very D&D-ish - but I'm imagining a 21st century D&D-rules campaign).
I'd say Lawful Neutral, because he's obeying the expressly-written policy and, moreover, his selfish fear is of consequences for violating the Law-as-written.

TheStranger
2014-03-14, 01:42 PM
Sometimes things tend to produce a Moral Dilemma without too much interference from the DM.

Fair enough. I stand by my answer, though. A paladin in a situation where the best option available is still evil should do what he thinks is best, and then he should fall for it. And somewhere in there, there should probably be one or more OOC conversations about what's going on.

Alternately, the paladin should do what he thinks is best, and the DM should cut him some slack. It kind of depends on those OOC conversations. And as with all things, it depends on the group. I will say that, if I'm the DM, the paladin will fall if the player wants it to be that kind of game, and the paladin will not fall if the player doesn't want it to be that kind of game.

Really, this whole thing is an enormous hidden design flaw. I love everything about the paladin fluff, but the idea of inviting one person to judge the morality of another and impose consequences is just asking for trouble in so many ways.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 01:45 PM
I'd say Lawful Neutral, because he's obeying the expressly-written policy and, moreover, his selfish fear is of consequences for violating the Law-as-written.

I could see it being LG for a doctor who did so (even if there weren't any real consequences for not doing so) because they felt that in this case "action would cause unnecessary suffering"

So - here, "an innocent person would be being let die" for LG reasons rather than LN ones.

Shows that one can't assume "letting an innocent die" is always a wrong thing - intent and context matter even in this case.


I love everything about the paladin fluff, but the idea of inviting one person to judge the morality of another and impose consequences is just asking for trouble in so many ways.

That may be why 4E dumped it - no matter what a paladin does, they can't lose their powers and ability to keep levelling.

Amphetryon
2014-03-14, 01:50 PM
Regarding "letting someone die - for selfish reasons" being argued as "evil by inaction" here's another example.

An honest but selfish doctor is doing their rounds. One of the terminally ill (but still capable of living for quite a bit more time if treated every time their organs fail) patients has a Do Not Resuscitate order.

They start going into a "quickly dying" state. The doctor can stop the process - but - purely because they know that they will get in trouble with both the patient and the hospital - (get sued - be at risk of being Struck Off, etc) - choose to do nothing.

What alignment is that "act of inaction"?

(Not very D&D-ish - but I'm imagining a 21st century D&D-rules campaign).
I'm interested to see how those who feel this scenario is/isn't rising to the level of 'depraved indifference for life' shape their arguments.

Segev
2014-03-14, 01:54 PM
I'm interested to see how those who feel this scenario is/isn't rising to the level of 'depraved indifference for life' shape their arguments.

The problem is that, while I personally do think it is a depraved indifference towards life, it is a depravity that is inculcated into our modern culture to a degree that it confounds and plays upon the conscience of even the good and well-meaning.

However, given that conscience-based empathy that makes some feel allowing death over suffering is "good," I can see how it is arguably a good action. I would never forgive myself if I were in an immediate position to save a life through no real sacrifice to myself save time and effort...and I didn't try. But I can see the argument otherwise. I just don't agree with it.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 02:00 PM
The problem is that, while I personally do think it is a depraved indifference towards life, it is a depravity that is inculcated into our modern culture to a degree that it confounds and plays upon the conscience of even the good and well-meaning.

In the context of a D&D-ish world with "objective good and evil" are you arguing that giving a Do Not Resuscitate order to one's guardians/healers is a (very minor) evil act then - as is obeying such an order?

TheStranger
2014-03-14, 02:12 PM
I'm interested to see how those who feel this scenario is/isn't rising to the level of 'depraved indifference for life' shape their arguments.

Depraved indifference is a legal term with a very specific meaning, and it doesn't apply here for a variety of reasons. Legal language is a horrible, horrible vehicle to discuss ethics, anyway.

As for whether it's good or bad, it's probably neutral, with minor leanings either way based on intent.

Segev
2014-03-14, 02:24 PM
In the context of a D&D-ish world with "objective good and evil" are you arguing that giving a Do Not Resuscitate order to one's guardians/healers is a (very minor) evil act then - as is obeying such an order?

I do not like to judge people for such personal choices. However, I do find myself judgmental on this issue, in no small part because I do have a friend I have yet to properly completely forgive for his own suicide. I am not fishing for sympathy, here; it's an old wound and nothing that impedes me today in my life. I am, however, explaining that what I say next will sound harsh, but I hope those who might be hurt by it will understand that I am not trying to personally insult anybody.

Suicide, to me, is an ultimate act of cowardice, unless done in particularly selfless circumstances. (Suicide to protect a secret you think yourself too weak to keep may qualify. Suicide to spare yourself pain does not.) Asking others to aid you in it is suborning murder. It is murder I can understand, much as I can understand murder for revenge, but that does not make it right.

Nonetheless, it is not my place to judge; I am not a lawyer, juror, or judge and I am not writing the laws. I would not wish to be writing laws surrounding this; it would be painful and difficult and ... well, I'm grateful it's not my job.

It gets even more complicated when it comes to reasons for DNR orders. "I just don't want to pay for it" is perfectly valid; nobody has a right to demand anybody enslave themselves or their families or others, and demanding that somebody pay for something they do not want, or that it be paid for by somebody else when the "beneficiary" does not want it, is wrong.

Nevertheless, I do not morally agree with DNR orders as a general rule, particularly when it's mostly for "don't make me live any longer" reasons.

Still, it is an area of such personal choice that I really cannot righteously judge. It is not my place. And mercifully, it is not my job.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 02:30 PM
This would be "respect for life" and "respect for dignity" clashing.

How do you feel when it's an animal, rather than a human, that is being "not resuscitated"?

And if it's a highly intelligent animal like an elephant, dolphin, or chimpanzee?

RedMage125
2014-03-14, 02:34 PM
I sincerely hope that these no-win situations seldom, if ever, come up outside of theoretical discussions, because I would never want to play with a DM who created situations just for a paladin to fall. I would like to imagine that those DMs are not as common as the internet makes them out to be.
Indeed. On the other thread I mentioned this. No-win scenarios where literally every chocie the paladin makes-including doing nothing-result in loss of paladinhood are the result of Jerkbag DMs.

And-in 100% of every such situation that I, personally have ever seen-also result in a deviation from RAW use of alignment.

Sometimes things tend to produce a Moral Dilemma without too much interference from the DM.
The DM still has a hand in it, though.

Fair enough. I stand by my answer, though. A paladin in a situation where the best option available is still evil should do what he thinks is best, and then he should fall for it. And somewhere in there, there should probably be one or more OOC conversations about what's going on.

Alternately, the paladin should do what he thinks is best, and the DM should cut him some slack. It kind of depends on those OOC conversations. And as with all things, it depends on the group. I will say that, if I'm the DM, the paladin will fall if the player wants it to be that kind of game, and the paladin will not fall if the player doesn't want it to be that kind of game.

Really, this whole thing is an enormous hidden design flaw. I love everything about the paladin fluff, but the idea of inviting one person to judge the morality of another and impose consequences is just asking for trouble in so many ways.

The most common one I've seen is the scneario where you have a paladin riding with great haste to a town. The town is minutes away from being hit with a meteor, and only a scroll in the paladin's posession, which must be used at the center of town, can stop it. On the way, he sees an orphan who has fallen into the river and is starting to drown.

People who create this trap maintain that if the paladin stops to save the child, the town dies as a result, and he falls from grace. If he keeps going, and saves the town, then he lets the child die, and falls from grace.

This is bull. For a number of reasons. First off, the paladin class description in the 3.53 PHB says he loses his power if he "willingly commits an evil act". Not "fails to commit a good act when proffered". Not "allows evil to happen through inaction". The act has to be one he has committed. And it must be committed willingly. Finally, the act must be evil. Paladins don't fall for committing a neutral act, nor a chaotic one. And one act does not cause an alignment shift. Even an evil act, willingly committed, that causes a paladin to fall does not change his alignment. Miko, for example, remained LG to the end. Her outlooks and beliefs never changed, she just willingly committed an evil act because of her character flaws. But she had those same flaws when she was a paladin, too. She even asked Soon if she got to be a paladin again (which required her to still be LG), but she did not atone. But Soon told her she would see Windstriker in the afterlife, directly implying that she would be going to the afterlife for LG individuals, despite her flaws.

Either choice results from Good intentions from the paladin in the scenario. Either he was trying to save an innocent orphan (a Good act), or he regrettably had to pass the child by, in order to save a town full of people (a Good act). Either way, both Intent and Action on his part were Good. That the consequence of his choice resulted in one or more deaths is regrettable, and the paladin probably feels guilty. But he has not, by the rules, "willingly committed and evil act" with either choice.

The Bottom Line is that it's a Jerkbag DM who puts a paladin in such a scenario. If that paladin's player is a problem, and his character is skirting the edge of falling, then let him fall when he breaks the rules. If the paladin's player is doing his level best to play his character straight and true, why screw him over with a situation that no matter how hard he GENUINELY TRIES to be Good, he falls? You got a binary situation with 2 choices, both of them are Good chocies, but you can only choose one; the result of the one you did not choose is "evil"? So the only result is evil?. That's Bad DMing there.

Of course, despite decrying utilitarianism in D&D morality, it may be the only way to make such a choice. Saving the town, for example, is the most Lawful thing to do, since the paladin has been charged with delivering and using the scroll. Also, if the paladin is wearing full plate and does not have enough ranks in Swim to counteract the armor check penalty, if he jumps in the water to save the kid, they might both drown, AND the town dies, and how is Good served then? Obviously, in my opinion, a paladin forced into that crappy situation should save the town. But if I was judging that scenario, no choice on the paladin's part is actually Evil, short of firing an arrow from horseback at the drowning child to kill the kid without stopping.

Of course the best answer is that the paladin-without stopping his horse-pulls out his figurine of wonderous power (griffon, fly, owl, dog or elephant), summons the beast, commands it to save the child, and continues on towards town. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 02:39 PM
To quote the 3.0 Paladin & Cleric book Defenders of the Faith:

"You aren't obliged to right every wrong, no matter how small. That way lies madness. You don't live in a vacuum."

and for DMs:

"Don't throw lots of commoners in distress in the path of a paladin on a mission, without making it clear that the commoners are the real mission."

RedMage125
2014-03-14, 02:44 PM
*very personal anecdote*
Segev, I think I understand where you are coming from. In many ways, I feel the same, but I always try to be understanding of others' point of view, even when it differs from my own. I know that just because I value something one way, does not make other, differing opinions "worse", just "different".

In this example, I also, out of respect for the dignity and for their suffering, think that perhaps if they are suffering with no chance of recovery, and that if they feel that they don't want to burden their family with medical expenses that are-essentially-wasted because they will never get better...then a desire to end their own life can be acceptable. Then again, I grew up in Michigan, constantly surrounded with the whole Dr. Kevorkian debate.

Healthy individuals, especially younger ones, who could change their circumstances...I agree with you completely. Especially Teen Angst Suicide. Reminds me of the old StainD song "Waste".

It's kind of like another sensitive issue people have. There is an issue that-morally-I consider murder. But politically, I believe is the legal right of an inidvidual to choose for themself. I believe it should be legal, even though I consider it immoral. If that makes sense.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 02:52 PM
Context may make the "alignment of the act in a D&D world" vary.

Lets say there's no altruistic reasons for the moment - person is rich, but the last of their family - no close friends - have outlived them all.

TheStranger
2014-03-14, 02:55 PM
It's kind of like another sensitive issue people have. There is an issue that-morally-I consider murder. But politically, I believe is the legal right of an inidvidual to choose for themself. I believe it should be legal, even though I consider it immoral. If that makes sense.

I just wanted to praise you for this attitude (in general - this isn't about any specific issue). It's good to see that there are people who believe that something other than their own personal beliefs should be the driver for public policy.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 02:58 PM
Indeed. Don't want the thread to stray into political waters though - prefer focussing on the D&D aspect.

The moral responsibilities of the D&D equivalent of doctors - Healers, Clerics, Bards, Experts with the Heal skill, etc, to avoid "evil action" and "evil inaction" are interesting to imagine.

When is "letting die" not "evil inaction" I wonder?

Frozen_Feet
2014-03-14, 03:13 PM
I didn't read through the whole thread - I just came here to do what I usually do:

To (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_fork) remind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-win_situation) people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_%28logic%29) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock) can't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang) always (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind) win. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice)

Now, there's this persistent myth that a GM needs to be out to get you for these situations to occur. It isn't so. Any code of conduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox)can lead to these sorts of situations all on their own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem). Just like in mathematics, no system of Alignment can be both complete and consistent - there are always paradoxical siutations where alignment can't be determined, or an action counts as two conflicting alignment at once.

Lifeboat situations may be one of those cases. Look at the above list. It could be like Zugzwang in Chess, where the person who takes initiative has to make an evil action. Yes, you read that right - falling can be a factor of unlucky turn order, since turn order is dictated by dice! Or it can be a Hobson's choice, where there's only one option available and it's evil. Or it can be a Morton's Fork, where both acting and not acting lead to same (evil) result. So on and so forth.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 03:19 PM
Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

It's less clear about what defines an act as "evil" and what doesn't, though.

Segev
2014-03-14, 03:32 PM
This would be "respect for life" and "respect for dignity" clashing.

How do you feel when it's an animal, rather than a human, that is being "not resuscitated"?

And if it's a highly intelligent animal like an elephant, dolphin, or chimpanzee?Animals are not sentient. They're not people. I tend to find compassionate "putting down" of animals to be acceptable.

I find no dignity in death, for people or anything else. I am all for protecting people from pain as much as we can, but I do not generally condone euthanasia. Part of it is that the "dignity in death" and "preservation from pain" justifications become far too easy for the healthy to simply start using to talk the sick into doing the easy thing for the healthy. It becomes too easy, when we cheapen human life, to let it become cheaper. (Again, I try not to get into this one, so I'm not going to argue it; I'm just stating where I'm coming from.)


It's kind of like another sensitive issue people have. There is an issue that-morally-I consider murder. But politically, I believe is the legal right of an inidvidual to choose for themself. I believe it should be legal, even though I consider it immoral. If that makes sense.I'm only going to respond to this one once and hopefully somewhat lightly, because it's definitely too close to politics. However: It is worth remembering that there are at LEAST two people, not just one, here, and one of them has no power to voice their choices at all, but is the one most impacted by the decision. So don't forget that the "right to choose for themself" is not entirely accurate: they're also choosing for the most helpless kind of person ever.


Context may make the "alignment of the act in a D&D world" vary.

Lets say there's no altruistic reasons for the moment - person is rich, but the last of their family - no close friends - have outlived them all.Then we're back to it being cowardly. Your life is sacred. You should live it as best you possibly can. Seek relief from pain, certainly, but not through death.

"Dignity" in this case is just vanity.


I just wanted to praise you for this attitude (in general - this isn't about any specific issue). It's good to see that there are people who believe that something other than their own personal beliefs should be the driver for public policy.
That's also a bit dangerous; if we make that argument, then freedom fighters are in the wrong for ever standing up to laws they find unjust or unfair. Paladins seeking to change laws to reflect Good rather than Evil (or even Expedient Neutral) are in the wrong for letting their personal believes drive public policy.

Personal beliefs absolutely should drive how you see public policy. If your personal beliefs conflict with the public good, then you should be reconsidering those beliefs. Just because something is hard doesn't make it wrong to fight for it.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 03:37 PM
Then we're back to it being cowardly. Your life is sacred. You should live it as best you possibly can. Seek relief from pain, certainly, but not through death.

"Dignity" in this case is just vanity.

Terry Pratchett had some interesting things to say on the subject.

Segev
2014-03-14, 03:38 PM
Terry Pratchett had some interesting things to say on the subject.

I don't think I've read whichever work(s) this showed up in. I've read a decent amount, but by no means the majority, of his works. Have you any suggestions where I might find his commentary on this?

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 03:40 PM
Not his novels - but a TV programme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Pratchett:_Choosing_to_Die

Segev
2014-03-14, 03:54 PM
From that wiki article, I disagree vehemently with his assessment. I do not find the quotes from him persuasive. I do agree that it is the right of anybody to refuse medical care, even if that is tantamount to suicide; it's their life. I do not believe there is any circumstance where mere "dignity" is justification to have somebody else HELP you commit this cowardly act.

There probably is a line beyond which I'd agree a swift death at a friend's hands is acceptable and preferable, but it's a lot sharper and closer to imminent and immediate demise than any of the "assisted suicide" cases covered in any of these controversies.

And I would never suggest that "dignity" is sufficient reason. Again, it is not dignity, but vanity, at that point.



Though I do think we're drifting a lot off topic, and I know we'renot persuading each other. I will stop here; this is where I come from, considering a person's life truly that sacred. Others disagree, and we're not exactly setting public policy here in a gaming forum, so going off-topic to discuss it further seems unproductive at best.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 04:06 PM
this is where I come from, considering a person's life truly that sacred.
Might be why the "inaction" issue keeps coming up, at least.

Focusing on D&D - action that harms the innocent - can it ever be "nonevil"?

I would say that in this kind of situation:

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

when the person is just about to die anyway, and killing them "a few moments early" may save a life - it may be the Non-evil thing to do.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-14, 04:44 PM
I didn't read through the whole thread - I just came here to do what I usually do:

To (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_fork) remind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-win_situation) people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_%28logic%29) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock) can't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang) always (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind) win. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice)

Now, there's this persistent myth that a GM needs to be out to get you for these situations to occur. It isn't so. Any code of conduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox)can lead to these sorts of situations all on their own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem). Just like in mathematics, no system of Alignment can be both complete and consistent - there are always paradoxical siutations where alignment can't be determined, or an action counts as two conflicting alignment at once.

Lifeboat situations may be one of those cases. Look at the above list. It could be like Zugzwang in Chess, where the person who takes initiative has to make an evil action. Yes, you read that right - falling can be a factor of unlucky turn order, since turn order is dictated by dice! Or it can be a Hobson's choice, where there's only one option available and it's evil. Or it can be a Morton's Fork, where both acting and not acting lead to same (evil) result. So on and so forth.

Which is why I choose to live. If I'm going to lose, at least I'll have chosen the option which allows me to keep playing.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 04:46 PM
"Going out on a high note and starting a new character" can work sometimes - but it should be very much the exception rather than the rule.

A good rule I heard once, which may or may not have been in BoED:

"You should never make a paladin Fall for something they have no control whatsoever over."

squiggit
2014-03-14, 04:59 PM
That's why the paladin should fall, not why he shouldn't act. If fate, prior foolishness, internet philosophers, or a particular brand of jerk DM has put a paladin in a situation where his only options are a greater or lesser evil, he should choose the lesser one and deal with the consequences. If he can find a viable third option, great, but if he honestly can't, and the consequences for failure are high, he should suck it up, put the good of the many over his own personal purity, and do what needs to be done. Then he should fall so hard he leaves a crater. The BoED theory doesn't change that - there's still less evil in the multiverse than the alternative.

That sort of situation shouldn't cause the paladin to fall in the first place though. I just don't really see choosing the best option in a bad situation to be the same thing as willfully committing evil. Willful is the key word here.

As nice as "he should choose the better option and deal with the consequences" sounds, the idea of the paladin making the best possible choice he can and then still falling anyways because... of, what? Spite? Just because? Either way that's trending into dickish DM territory.

A paladin falling should be a big deal, not "I got you now you're gonna fall no matter what, lololol".

Similarly the whole "You can't always win" line above is cute, but not really that relevant because forcing the fall doesn't really have to do with whether or not the problem has a clean solution.

That's only true if you entirely decontextualize both the paladin's code and the problem at hand and remove any thought of intent from the issue... which is wrong.

kyoryu
2014-03-14, 05:12 PM
Lets say the doctor - not being proud - tells the healthy twin of the possibility.

The healthy twin, after a bit of agonising, decides "I won't sacrifice my life to save his - my interest comes first".

Has he committed an evil act?

Not by any reading I've ever made.

*Not* sacrificing is neutral - it's just letting nature take its course.

Now, if the unhealthy twin murdered the healthy one for his heart, that *would* be an evil act.

Driderman
2014-03-14, 05:18 PM
You're very wrong, however, because your act doesn't kill anybody.

To kill somebody, you must be able to name the specific person for whose death you are responsible.

So, in this scenario, which of the passengers did your paladin kill?

True.

Not quite so true.

Utterly false.

If the intent were the same, the paladin would stab the person to prevent them from being able to get on the life boat in order to take the spot. Since this does not happen, it is not possible to state that the intent is the same.

Again, false. "I climb on a boat," and "I pull out my sword and stab somebody" are not in any way the same degree of action wrt the other person dying.

Not quite; the "other guy" can be defined when there is somebody you specifically stab; which of those people did the paladin doom by getting on the boat? Specifically, which one?

There is also a difference of actively killing somebody versus not saving somebody. The logic that the paladin is murdering somebody by getting on the boat also states that you murder somebody every time you spend money on your own survival (or worse, comfort) rather than donating it to buy a starving man some food.

Demonstrably - and demonstratedly - false.

Interesting argument. So the paladin should slaughter everybody left behind on the boat, in your world-view? I suppose Dr. McCoy's emotional torment over the fact that his father's disease had a cure developed a month or two after McCoy euthanized him is silly, then, since the chance at survival by simple virtue of living long enough for a fortuitous event to happen is not worth it.




But seriously. There is a difference between not saving somebody and actively killing them. The former is neutral under most circumstances. The latter is evil under most circumstances. (Exceptions exist in almost any broad statement; killing somebody in self-defense or in defense of an innocent is not inherently evil, and one could be reasonably argued to have slipped into evil when saving somebody would have required minimal to no effort nor sacrifice on your part and you knew it.)

Now, I will agree that most paladins probably should be giving up their seat on the boat to save even just one more person. I would also grant that the paladin probably has the right to decide who is going to take their place, if they have a preferred charge, ward, loved one, friend, or the like whom they would see survive.

By the logic presented, though, let's remove "paladin" from the equation: Anybody who does not GET OFF the life boat to allow somebody else on is murdering whoever doesn't get on the life boat by this logic. Moreover, since each person's sacrifice could only save one other person, it is impossible to say which of those who are left behind are murdered by which person who refuses to give up his seat.

One might claim my point breaks down if there is only one person more than can fit on the boats, but it doesn't. How do you decide which person on the lifeboat is duty-bound to sacrifice himself? Are all of them evil because they weren't the ones to die? Are they each responsible for the one man's death?

No. This situation is a tragedy, but there is no evil in following agreed-upon procedures that save your own life, even if others die. It is heroic to sacrifice yourself to save others (generally; exceptions again exist), but it is not evil to refuse to unless you're neglecting a duty you took upon yourself willingly. (Even CN people who took a duty upon themselves willingly are responsible for those duties when it comes to whether fulfillment of said duties will spare others from harm. Chaos is not freedom from all responsibility, not by itself. It is merely freedom from externally-imposed responsibility, and from nit-picky definitions getting in the way of the spirit of what you say you'll do.)

"Don't worry, it's not REALLY evil if it's just an absence of good", the Baatezu said to the Paladin :smallwink:

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 05:20 PM
Not by any reading I've ever made.

*Not* sacrificing is neutral - it's just letting nature take its course.

Now, if the unhealthy twin murdered the healthy one for his heart, that *would* be an evil act.The argument may be that Natural Can Be Evil - thus letting it "take its course" may be "evil by inaction".

Don't think it's a very good argument in this case though.

The notion that you owe the rest of the universe "your life" - therefore, if some Other needs it, to save them - you must give it in order to avoid doing evil - is a very extreme version of Altruism.

It is, in fact, the kind Terry Goodkind and Ayn Rand characters claim their enemies are propagating.

I used to think it was a bit of a strawman till I saw some of the arguments in this thread.

kyoryu
2014-03-14, 05:21 PM
Might be why the "inaction" issue keeps coming up, at least.

Focusing on D&D - action that harms the innocent - can it ever be "nonevil"?

I would say that in this kind of situation:

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

when the person is just about to die anyway, and killing them "a few moments early" may save a life - it may be the Non-evil thing to do.

The problem with the Safety Rope situation, from the POV of the person on top, is that in reality it's hard to *know* for certain that the other person is absolutely doomed. Unless you're an absolute master of calculating out tensile strengths and the like, it's very difficult to know if you could pull the other person up, if help will arrive in time, etc.

Without that perfect knowledge, for the person on top to cut the rope is an evil act. They are sacrificing the life of another to increase their own odds of survival.

If they had absolutely perfect knowledge that only one can survive, then at best it's a neutral act.

I'd also make an argument that if the Safety Rope situation came about as a result of an action on the part of the bottom person that injured the rights of the person on top, that as a matter of self defense it washes out as neutral, much like self-defense gets tagged neutral.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 05:22 PM
I suppose Dr. McCoy's emotional torment over the fact that his father's disease had a cure developed a month or two after McCoy euthanized him is silly, then, since the chance at survival by simple virtue of living long enough for a fortuitous event to happen is not worth it.

Actually what McCoy did was "switch off the life-support" - not quite the same thing.


The problem with the Safety Rope situation, from the POV of the person on top, is that in reality it's hard to *know* for certain that the other person is absolutely doomed. Unless you're an absolute master of calculating out tensile strengths and the like, it's very difficult to know if you could pull the other person up, if help will arrive in time, etc.

Without that perfect knowledge, for the person on top to cut the rope is an evil act. They are sacrificing the life of another to increase their own odds of survival.


Nobody has "perfect knowledge" - and it's not always required:

Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

Though in the most notable case:

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

the guy who fell - survived. And said that it was exactly the right thing to do.

kyoryu
2014-03-14, 05:36 PM
Nobody has "perfect knowledge" - and it's not always required:

Not saying that it is always required. But for the 'safety rope' scenario, for it not to be an evil (if minor) act, you have to pretty much know for a damn fact that without doing it you'll both die.

A lot of it matters if you approach alignment (especially good/evil) from a utilitarian point of view, or a deontological point of view. I personally prefer the latter, both in life as well as in gaming - it's much easier to adjudicate, and leads to a lot less bizarro results. The only 'weird' results tend to be pretty fuzzy situations anyway, which is okay with me.


Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

Depends on the situation. Killing someone is only ever a neutral act if done in self defense, or defense of another, against someone that has initiated violence. If a Paladin *thought* they were defending someone, but it turns out they were wrong, I certainly wouldn't hold that against them.


Though in the most notable case:

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

And in that case, per the posted link, they had as close to perfect knowledge that not cutting the rope would lead to mutual death as we may ever see in this world. (And, for an extra bonus, even *not* cutting the rope would have likely lead to the bottom person's death apart from the fall!)

So, you're kinda helping my point here ;)

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 05:44 PM
And in that case, per the posted link, they had as close to perfect knowledge that not cutting the rope would lead to mutual death as we may ever see in this world.

True. Still - it's a good place to start from.

If we both agree it's not evil in this case - maybe the principle can be applied to situations which are similar in nature.

kyoryu
2014-03-14, 05:59 PM
True. Still - it's a good place to start from.

If we both agree it's not evil in this case - maybe the principle can be applied to situations which are similar in nature.

Sure. I think it's fair to say that in "either you die, or both of us die", it's a neutral act to choose the former, provided that there's enough knowledge to make sure it's a "you, or both of us" situation, rather than "killing you increases my chances" situation (which is pretty clearly evil).

The safety rope situation is also interesting in that, unlike the lifeboat situation, there is no (realistic) way for the person on top to be the only one that dies. The lifeboat situation is more accurately "one of us dies, or both of us die". In that case, killing the other guy *is* evil. A neutral act would be "we draw straws" (once the 'one of us or both of us point' has been reached), while the good act would be "live a happy life, Rose".

So, here's how I look at good/evil in terms of alignment.

I base it on the idea of natural rights - specifically, the idea that individuals have the right to their body/life (you can't hurt people) and their time (you can't enslave them).

Property falls out of this, as if you can take someone's property, you're effectively taking the fruits of their time/body, and thus effectively enslaving them.

Pursuing your own best-interest while not harming the rights of others is neutral.

Harming the rights of others is evil.

Benefitting others without any benefit to yourself is good.

Defending your own rights from those that would infringe upon them is neutral, even if that ends up harming them.

It's really that simple, and it pretty effectively works in most cases (at the individual level), and the only potentially 'weird' situations are either really artificial, or are extremely fuzzy anyway. It doesn't even require perfect knowledge or the ability to predict the future, unlike most utilitarian schemes.

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 06:06 PM
The safety rope situation is also interesting in that, unlike the lifeboat situation, there is no (realistic) way for the person on top to be the only one that dies.

Bottom, I think - the guy on top is cutting the rope (neutral act) causing the guy on bottom to drop.

Alternatively, if he has no knife but the guy below him does, the guy on bottom is cutting the rope (good act - self-sacrifice - though if he doesn't act he'll die anyway) to save the guy above him, and cause himself to plummet.

There is no realistic way for the bottom guy to make the top guy drop but not himself.

kyoryu
2014-03-14, 06:59 PM
Bottom, I think - the guy on top is cutting the rope (neutral act) causing the guy on bottom to drop.

Alternatively, if he has no knife but the guy below him does, the guy on bottom is cutting the rope (good act - self-sacrifice - though if he doesn't act he'll die anyway) to save the guy above him, and cause himself to plummet.

There is no realistic way for the bottom guy to make the top guy drop but not himself.

Right, and that's why I'm differentiating that situation ("you die, or we both die") from a lifeboat situation ("one of us dies, or we both die").

hamishspence
2014-03-14, 07:04 PM
Getting on the lifeboat first, however, may not involve any violation of the other person's rights - if you're the last two in the queue, only one place is available - the guy in front gets it, and if he got there honestly (no pushing and shoving) he's not violating the rights of the guy left behind.

If they arrive simultaneously however - they have equal right to a place - thus - some resolution, like straw-drawing, is needed.

kyoryu
2014-03-14, 07:23 PM
Getting on the lifeboat first, however, may not involve any violation of the other person's rights - if you're the last two in the queue, only one place is available - the guy in front gets it, and if he got there honestly (no pushing and shoving) he's not violating the rights of the guy left behind.

If they arrive simultaneously however - they have equal right to a place - thus - some resolution, like straw-drawing, is needed.

Agreed.

Usually the setup for the "lifeboat dilemma" involves some kind of simultaneous decision - either they're on the lifeboat already and realize someone needs off, or they all arrive simultaneously, etc.

Aux-Ash
2014-03-15, 06:21 AM
This is an interesting thread full of interesting suggestions...

and yet... the only question on my mind is why the Paladin doesn't try to swim (or other forms of "does not blindly accept death as an outcome"). It might not work, no, but it's worth a shot.

Taking the responsible precautions to save as many as possible... then attempting to save the rest. Including yourself.

Amphetryon
2014-03-15, 07:46 AM
Depraved indifference is a legal term with a very specific meaning, and it doesn't apply here for a variety of reasons. Legal language is a horrible, horrible vehicle to discuss ethics, anyway.

As for whether it's good or bad, it's probably neutral, with minor leanings either way based on intent.

Given that 'depraved indifference' was used specifically in discussion of the lifeboat scenario, it seemed justified in continuing to use the same terms in the DNR scenario. . . unless your argument is that the term is also inapplicable to the lifeboat scenario.

TheStranger
2014-03-15, 08:00 AM
Given that 'depraved indifference' was used specifically in discussion of the lifeboat scenario, it seemed justified in continuing to use the same terms in the DNR scenario. . . unless your argument is that the term is also inapplicable to the lifeboat scenario.

Without going back and checking on the specifics of the lifeboat discussion, yeah, it was probably inapplicable. Depraved indifference refers to a very specific type of murder, which is itself a very specific type of killing. It doesn't apply at all if you're making a considered decision, because it doesn't have much of anything to do with actually valuing or not valuing human life.

Aedilred
2014-03-15, 08:36 AM
Bear in mind also that the "depraved indifference" criterion is a specific condition of one legal code, which only arose because in the thread where this debate started we were trying to find a proper definition for murder. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, that same code acknowledges a complete defence of emotional distress or the like, which the lifeboat scenario would almost certainly fulfil, so isn't necessarily applicable anyway.

With regard to "why doesn't the Paladin swim?" I think the general assumption is that the ship is many miles out to sea and/or in sufficiently cold/turbulent water that swimming offers no realistic prospect of survival. The same goes for trying to construct a makeshift raft, clinging to wreckage or the like. Obviously, if those options are available the Paladin should go for them, but they might well not be.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-15, 03:21 PM
The notion that you owe the rest of the universe "your life" - therefore, if some Other needs it, to save them - you must give it in order to avoid doing evil - is a very extreme version of Altruism.

It is, in fact, the kind Terry Goodkind and Ayn Rand characters claim their enemies are propagating.

I used to think it was a bit of a strawman till I saw some of the arguments in this thread.

Yea.

There is a reason why I try to find the good point in every philosophy while getting rid of the bad ones.

this point of Ayn Rand's that this form of Altruism is a bit too extreme was actually one of the good points. While going fully in the opposite direction and being completely selfish is obviously bad, Randian Objectivism wouldn't have supporters if there wasn't some good points about it.

really, every philosophy is horrible, and thats me speaking as a philosopher. you can't follow any one fully to live a good life, you just have to take the good advice from them to heart and leave the bad advice at the door.

hamishspence
2014-03-16, 03:06 AM
this point of Ayn Rand's that this form of Altruism is a bit too extreme was actually one of the good points. While going fully in the opposite direction and being completely selfish is obviously bad, Randian Objectivism wouldn't have supporters if there wasn't some good points about it.

Indeed. In fact, when one digs around in it - one can extract some strongly "nonevil" basic principles - a Respect For Life that encourages helping people (in non-sacrificial ways) - a Respect for Rights that demands that one not rob other people of what they need to live - even if one is starving oneself - and so forth.

While I've seen it argued much earlier in the thread that it would be Evil in D&D terms, I prefer to think of it as "strongly Neutral" - the kind of thing rilmani and TN deities would teach.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-16, 05:51 AM
Raziere: What you've just said is a philosophy. Therefore, it isn't good and I can't follow it. When I've taken the parts I like and created my own philosophy, it too will be bad and I shouldn't follow it either.



So, how's the discussion going? That's a lot of pages.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-16, 09:17 AM
Raziere: What you've just said is a philosophy. Therefore, it isn't good and I can't follow it. When I've taken the parts I like and created my own philosophy, it too will be bad and I shouldn't follow it either.


See, thats the bad parts I'm talking about. the part where you start taking the philosophy to ridiculous conclusions and extremes that make it unworkable.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-16, 09:47 AM
Well, I wouldn't say your philosophy's conclusion was ridiculous or extreme. It just had a logic glitch.

I'm sorry if pointing that out to you upset you. Try thinking it over more, and working out how to say what you mean to say. That's an important aspect to being a philosopher.

Renegade Paladin
2014-03-16, 10:00 AM
I don't think they would actually fight each other, if this occurred to us online in the short span of time we've had, it would have definitely occurred to an order of religious folks, and they would have discussed what was moral or not in that scenario and laid out a set of rules for it. That's generally how lawful folks operate is on formal interpretation and precedent.
If they made a plan for what to do in case they had to board their insufficient number of lifeboats, why would they not instead simply procure more lifeboats? :smalltongue:

Lord Raziere
2014-03-16, 10:12 AM
Well, I wouldn't say your philosophy's conclusion was ridiculous or extreme. It just had a logic glitch.

I'm sorry if pointing that out to you upset you. Try thinking it over more, and working out how to say what you mean to say. That's an important aspect to being a philosopher.

No, It did not. you made that glitch by taking it to a ridiculous conclusion. that logic glitch is the bad part of the philosophy that needs to be ignored, because it makes it unworkable when you apply it like that, when its not MEANT to be applied that way.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-16, 11:47 AM
If it's not meant to be applied in the way it is written, write it in the way it is meant to be applied.

What you are describing currently does not match what you wrote. I don't know what your philosophy is if it isn't what you wrote, so I can't learn anything good from it.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-16, 12:39 PM
If it's not meant to be applied in the way it is written, write it in the way it is meant to be applied.

What you are describing currently does not match what you wrote. I don't know what your philosophy is if it isn't what you wrote, so I can't learn anything good from it.

thats nonsense, why would write it in a way that I did not intend for it for to be applied? what if I don't know how to write in a way you consider it meant to be applied? what if I don't know the words and your being nitpicky about the letter and ignoring the spirit?

Aux-Ash
2014-03-16, 12:39 PM
With regard to "why doesn't the Paladin swim?" I think the general assumption is that the ship is many miles out to sea and/or in sufficiently cold/turbulent water that swimming offers no realistic prospect of survival. The same goes for trying to construct a makeshift raft, clinging to wreckage or the like. Obviously, if those options are available the Paladin should go for them, but they might well not be.

I understand that. My point was that the entire logical problem is by design reducing the number of options available to the paladin (or whatever). It's set up in a way that assumes the paladin accepts that someone have to die. But why accept that? It might be the likely outcome, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for something better.
You're probably going to fail... but isn't the fact that you try your hardest the important bit (as long as all responsible actions are taken prior to this)?


If they made a plan for what to do in case they had to board their insufficient number of lifeboats, why would they not instead simply procure more lifeboats? :smalltongue:

A very good point I think. Why ever allow yourself to be put in a situation where your code will be to your detriment?

GrayGriffin
2014-03-16, 02:55 PM
A very good point I think. Why ever allow yourself to be put in a situation where your code will be to your detriment?

Lifeboats take up space. There is a maximum amount of space in a boat that can be used. This is a very simple concept.

Aedilred
2014-03-16, 04:36 PM
I understand that. My point was that the entire logical problem is by design reducing the number of options available to the paladin (or whatever). It's set up in a way that assumes the paladin accepts that someone have to die. But why accept that? It might be the likely outcome, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for something better.
You're probably going to fail... but isn't the fact that you try your hardest the important bit (as long as all responsible actions are taken prior to this)?Of course, you should always try your best to achieve the best possible outcome and look for ways around an apparent no-win scenario. But it isn't always possible. Even if there is a third way, its chances of success might be so minutely tiny as to equal almost certain death anyway. There's always a chance (in a fantasy world) that a flying or swimming creature will happen to pass just close enough for you to grab hold of it and ride to safety, but you'd be remarkably foolish to rely on that happening.

This was of course the point in the scenario in the first place, although it wasn't designed to encompass Paladins, merely to illustrate a point about Neutral vs Evil. I wasn't expecting it to be analysed to this degree!

If they made a plan for what to do in case they had to board their insufficient number of lifeboats, why would they not instead simply procure more lifeboats?
A very good point I think. Why ever allow yourself to be put in a situation where your code will be to your detriment?
Again, it isn't always possible to know or plan these things in advance. It was previously suggested (to circumvent a tangential discussion about human error) that there had been enough lifeboats at the start of the voyage, but that they'd been destroyed in the same event that is causing the ship to sink.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-16, 06:01 PM
Raziere: You would write it in a way it is not intended by accident or from lack of proficiency with English (second languages are hard), you don't need to write it to please me but in a way that communicates, and I can't interpret the spirit of your message despite trying and being able to interpret your other posts.

I'm afraid I'm no closer to understanding what your philosophy is. Since you seem to prefer to not have my view or help with the matter, I'd like to retract them.



Lifeboat: What's the debate at the moment? Is it that one from the Avengers film? "You wouldn't have the guts to hold the wire while the other soldiers crawl through it."
"I'd cut the wire."

That is a good philosophy, but as shown in the film it wasn't applicable for the final act (requiring a heroic sacrifice).

veti
2014-03-16, 06:44 PM
Lifeboats take up space. There is a maximum amount of space in a boat that can be used. This is a very simple concept.

Indeed, and for the historically-impaired it should be mentioned that the very concept of a ship carrying "lifeboats" was only introduced in the mid 19th century, well into the age of steam. If you've got even one lifeboat aboard a pre-industrial sailing ship, you're already looking at an anachronism. There really isn't that much deck space to spare.

Having said that - there may be a couple of oar-powered launches used for ferrying people into shallow waters, which would be pressed into service as lifeboats if the worst happens, but that's not their designed use.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-16, 07:29 PM
Depending how close available land or rescue is, anything that floats can be taken into the water in an attempt to avoid sinking (wooden ships have a lot of wood) and reach/await land/rescue. If land and rescue aren't possibilities, people will still cling to stuff that floats to stave off their fate of drowning.

If who gets to be in the boats with the slim chance of survival isn't agreed upon, you might have a fight for it.

hamishspence
2014-03-17, 03:11 AM
Indeed, and for the historically-impaired it should be mentioned that the very concept of a ship carrying "lifeboats" was only introduced in the mid 19th century, well into the age of steam. If you've got even one lifeboat aboard a pre-industrial sailing ship, you're already looking at an anachronism.

That said - some ships had boats used for other purposes that were sometimes pressed into service as lifeboats. Whaling ships, for example. Notable example - the Essex sinking.

Otherwise - it tended to be restricted to the "from ship to shore" ferrying boat - for example, the boat into which the Bounty mutineers put their captain and the few who sided with him.

charcoalninja
2014-03-17, 07:50 AM
In these situations the Paladin has no problems and is at no risk of falling because they will do everything they can, including sacrificing themselves in order to ensure that those around them survive. That`s what LG at the Paladin level means. So the Paladin is the guy who will do everything he can to make them comfortable and is the guy that shoots himself in the head to ensure the remainder can eat his corpse to make it to shore.

Or you know... uses his magic to keep everyone alive without anyone needing to die. Like using Lay on Hands to heal his wounds from carving off fillettes from his chest each day to feed the lifeboat crew.

Neutral characters would probably choose whichever course of action ensured their own survival without coming straight out and killing everyone else, at first anyway. Keep in mind that neutrality isn`t motivated to help people, and is a self interested passive mindset, though not a destructively selfish one. They are just as likley to help someone as to harm them, in that they don`t really do much of either.

Evil would drown the rest and jerky their corpses to ensure that they survived.

hamishspence
2014-03-17, 07:51 AM
In these situations the Paladin has no problems and is at no risk of falling because they will do everything they can, including sacrificing themselves in order to ensure that those around them survive. That`s what LG at the Paladin level means. So the Paladin is the guy who will do everything he can to make them comfortable and is the guy that shoots himself in the head to ensure the remainder can eat his corpse to make it to shore.

Or you know... uses his magic to keep everyone alive without anyone needing to die. Like using Lay on Hands to heal his wounds from carving off fillettes from his chest each day to feed the lifeboat crew.

If the paladin's 1st level, that's not really an option.

Pocket lint
2014-03-17, 10:23 AM
At 1st level, the paladin is barely more than a trainee, so demands are lower. Noone expects a Pal1 to go overthrow the evil ruler of the land, even if this technically violates the Code of Conduct. Similarly, making the paladin fall because they're too low level to cast spells needed for survival goes beyond being a Jerkass DM. (Besides, see my previous comment about fishing. Seriously... feeding yourself while at sea is not such a big deal. Water is a bigger issue)

On this tangent, I usually prefer the UA Prestige Paladin option, meaning that all paladins will be at least level 5, with a decent spread of feats and skills under their belt already. This also serves to make them more of a rare occurrence.

To clarify the moral dilemma, just think of the waters as shark-infested and there you go.

Aedilred
2014-03-17, 10:58 AM
To clarify the moral dilemma, just think of the waters as shark-infested and there you go.

Indeed. The point in the scenario when I mentioned it in the first place was to try to demonstrate the difference between Neutral and Evil, in response to the contention that self-interest is basically Evil. The assumption was that if you get on the boat you live, and if you don't you die, and I think in order for the dilemma to really have the intended meaning that needs to be considered on its own terms.

Of course, it is possible to introduce other variables, but I don't know how useful that is until the core conundrum has been resolved, because they're only going to obfuscate the issue, and, in any case, it's fairly easy to agree on the minutiae without agreeing on the big things. For instance, the question of whether you would allow other lifeboat survivors to eat you to stay alive has come up - but that's only applicable if you've boarded the lifeboat in the first place. Another common one is "find another way out" - great if you can, but what if you can't?

Some of these variables might have importance, mind - the "stormy seas needing strong crew in the boats" variation, for instance, because they have an impact on the core decision. Suddenly it might be necessary for the Paladin to board the boat after all. But in some ways that's then a different scenario altogether!

As I say, though, the scenario wasn't meant to address Paladins, since it was fundamentally about the Neutral/Evil distinction and Paladins shouldn't be flirting with that anyway. In fact if our hero is a Paladin it makes the core conundrum easier to agree on unless further details are added to the scenario, e.g. all the passengers are Paladins; the Paladin is the only person capable of destroying a greater evil somewhere down the line; the lifeboats will probably need a Paladin on board if they're going to survive, etc.

Pocket lint
2014-03-17, 11:20 AM
I think this is mostly an issue when playing with the aforementioned Jerkass DMs, and only when you are playing some sort of class that demands avoiding evil acts. For most people, their alignment is pretty unimportant - you play the way you want to play, and if the DM decides your alignment should shift southwards, so what? Keep playing your usual mostly altruistic self (or however you play it), and ignore the alignment part of your character sheet if you and the DM have different opinions.

Most people here seem to be in general agreement that boarding the lifeboat should be considered neutral. Staying behind would be good, but requiring self-sacrifice would be setting the bar extremely high for staying non-evil.

RedMage125
2014-03-17, 04:13 PM
Most people here seem to be in general agreement that boarding the lifeboat should be considered neutral. Staying behind would be good, but requiring self-sacrifice would be setting the bar extremely high for staying non-evil.

Seems to be the crux of the issue. Both in this conversation and with some Good-aligned characters "in game". People who set the bar for themselves and others so high that they believe that anything that falls short of their ideal of Good must, by extension, be some form of Evil.

Which has the added side-effect of making Good much less special and outstanding, because Good becomes "doing the bare minimum of what's expected".

kyoryu
2014-03-17, 05:16 PM
Indeed. In fact, when one digs around in it - one can extract some strongly "nonevil" basic principles - a Respect For Life that encourages helping people (in non-sacrificial ways) - a Respect for Rights that demands that one not rob other people of what they need to live - even if one is starving oneself - and so forth.

While I've seen it argued much earlier in the thread that it would be Evil in D&D terms, I prefer to think of it as "strongly Neutral" - the kind of thing rilmani and TN deities would teach.

Indeed.

Heck, to put it in non-Randian terms, the thing about "charity" is essentially saying "don't enable ****ty behavior". Which is far less contentious.

Even the self-interest (not *selfish*) bit is supposed to be that you are guided by *enlightened* self-interest - maintaining a good reputation, the health of the community, these are all things that should be considered when deciding on a particular course of action.


I think this is mostly an issue when playing with the aforementioned Jerkass DMs, and only when you are playing some sort of class that demands avoiding evil acts. For most people, their alignment is pretty unimportant - you play the way you want to play, and if the DM decides your alignment should shift southwards, so what? Keep playing your usual mostly altruistic self (or however you play it), and ignore the alignment part of your character sheet if you and the DM have different opinions.

Most people here seem to be in general agreement that boarding the lifeboat should be considered neutral. Staying behind would be good, but requiring self-sacrifice would be setting the bar extremely high for staying non-evil.

Fortunately, last I checked, Paladins are allowed to perform *neutral* acts. They're not allowed to perform *evil* acts. Letting things go up to the straw vote wouldn't cause a fall in any game I ran. It might not be the most Paladin-like behavior, and might be pointed out as a future place for some more goodliness, but it's not, in and of itself, Evil, and therefore wouldn't cause a fall.

Cheating to ensure that you won the straw vote, or pushing someone overboard, *would*.

I don't think that either of those latter two would be contentious.

hamishspence
2014-03-18, 02:25 AM
Even the self-interest (not *selfish*) bit is supposed to be that you are guided by *enlightened* self-interest - maintaining a good reputation, the health of the community, these are all things that should be considered when deciding on a particular course of action.

True. I think the idea of calling it "selfish" all the time, was to reclaim it - make it no longer a "dirty word" so to speak - but just a synonym for "self-interested".

Wardog
2014-03-18, 02:55 PM
I didn't read through the whole thread - I just came here to do what I usually do:

To (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_fork) remind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-win_situation) people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_%28logic%29) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadlock) can't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang) always (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind) win. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice)

Now, there's this persistent myth that a GM needs to be out to get you for these situations to occur. It isn't so. Any code of conduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox)can lead to these sorts of situations all on their own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem). Just like in mathematics, no system of Alignment can be both complete and consistent - there are always paradoxical siutations where alignment can't be determined, or an action counts as two conflicting alignment at once.

Lifeboat situations may be one of those cases. Look at the above list. It could be like Zugzwang in Chess, where the person who takes initiative has to make an evil action. Yes, you read that right - falling can be a factor of unlucky turn order, since turn order is dictated by dice! Or it can be a Hobson's choice, where there's only one option available and it's evil. Or it can be a Morton's Fork, where both acting and not acting lead to same (evil) result. So on and so forth.

I would agree mostly.

No-win (or no-obviously-good-solution) situations occur all the time in real life, and people have to deal with them and the consequences. And games that go out of their way to avoid them tend to seem to me to be unrealistic and break versimiltude.

That said, the consequences to be dealt with should be reasonable, and based on what the actual consequences of the choice would reasonably be. Not "Ha! Gotcha! You fall!".

And of course, there may be a possibility of "taking a third option". And not necessarily the one the DM might expect...

Mass Effect 1 spoiler:
If the Destiny Ascention overloaded its reactors, how many Geth ships could it take out, and might it even be able to breach the Citadel?

Segev
2014-03-18, 04:34 PM
Indeed.

Heck, to put it in non-Randian terms, the thing about "charity" is essentially saying "don't enable ****ty behavior". Which is far less contentious.

Even the self-interest (not *selfish*) bit is supposed to be that you are guided by *enlightened* self-interest - maintaining a good reputation, the health of the community, these are all things that should be considered when deciding on a particular course of action.

Precisely. In fact, if you examine Rand's villains, you find that they're not, in truth, in it for altruistic reasons. They're liars who use a veneer of self-righteousness to justify theft and con artistry, pocket portions of it for themselves, then distribute dregs to "the poor" whom they explicitly look down upon and feel owe them for the largesse and sustenance provided.

In a lifeboat scenario, Rand's villains would be the ones who decided that certain people already on the lifeboat needed to be kicked off. Then sat more comfortably in the more spacious region, and permitted two more people who still won't fit on the boat to cling to the side. And then expected gratitude from those clinging to the side while vilifying the people they threw overboard as selfish for taking up space on the lifeboat.

Lord Raziere
2014-03-18, 09:31 PM
Precisely. In fact, if you examine Rand's villains, you find that they're not, in truth, in it for altruistic reasons. They're liars who use a veneer of self-righteousness to justify theft and con artistry, pocket portions of it for themselves, then distribute dregs to "the poor" whom they explicitly look down upon and feel owe them for the largesse and sustenance provided.

In a lifeboat scenario, Rand's villains would be the ones who decided that certain people already on the lifeboat needed to be kicked off. Then sat more comfortably in the more spacious region, and permitted two more people who still won't fit on the boat to cling to the side. And then expected gratitude from those clinging to the side while vilifying the people they threw overboard as selfish for taking up space on the lifeboat.

Wow, its almost as if Ayn Rand didn't intend for her message to be hijacked by the very people she warned about. :smallwink:

and thats all folks! because anymore about that gets dangerously close to you-know-what.

Segev
2014-03-19, 03:36 PM
Agreed.
With sufficient sesquipedalian loquaciousness to fill the minimum character limit.

GungHo
2014-03-20, 08:32 AM
Indeed, and for the historically-impaired it should be mentioned that the very concept of a ship carrying "lifeboats" was only introduced in the mid 19th century, well into the age of steam. If you've got even one lifeboat aboard a pre-industrial sailing ship, you're already looking at an anachronism. There really isn't that much deck space to spare.

Having said that - there may be a couple of oar-powered launches used for ferrying people into shallow waters, which would be pressed into service as lifeboats if the worst happens, but that's not their designed use.

So... question. Where the hell did they put the "oar-powered launches"? I've never been on an actual sailing ship beyond a floating museum (I've been aboard military ships, but a modern destroyer is obviously a hell of a lot different than a Age of Sail frigate), and they obviously don't need those on a museum ship, and I can't see those things surviving a tow across the ocean, sitting around on deck where people actually need to move around, or hanging off the side to just crash into pieces as soon as you hit heavy water.

Pocket lint
2014-03-20, 10:11 AM
Generally, right side up and tied down with tarpaulin covers along the centre line of the ship. There's not a lot of call for using the very middle of the deck - most of the activity is along the sides, so they share space with extra cargo, chicken coops, entrances to the lower decks and other stuff. When they need to be launched, you hoist them from the rigging and swing them over the side and into the water before boarding. Unless we're talking a full ship of the line (which are non-medieval), the distance to the water isn't that far.

Of course, if you're on a galley, there are none or very few launches. Good luck with escaping from that.