[Alignment help] Paladins and poison plots, oh my!

[Super Evil User]

I'm going to cut my cryptic streak and give you guys as much information as necessary on this quandary.

Let's say we have a paladin dropped into a setting involving vicious, decadent nobles. These nobles have killed not only each other but innocent people (sometimes on purpose) in their plots. Through a divination spell cast by another person, the paladin has learned that within a week's time, their plans will boil over and victimize an even larger portion of the city's lower class. The diviner has already tried to warn people of this impending threat, and no-one has listened because of unrelated reasons. The paladin must stop this.

He is given the opportunity to do so by a vial of deadly poison and an invitation to a party. No-one at the party has detect poison or any equivalent ability besides him, so by the time he is figured out (if ever) the nobles will be long dead. Whether he is found out or not is irrelevant, besides - they will die and the doom will be averted. Hundreds of people can live without fear of suffering simply for being born under the wrong circumstances.

HOWEVER.

There are innocent people (including children) who are also in attendance at the party, who are guilty of nothing besides having horrible parents. He cannot simply slip the poison into individual glasses: if he does, he will be found out before he can do any real harm to them. The point is, he cannot kill the evil nobles without killing the innocent ones, either. Nevertheless, the number of innocent nobles is still significantly less than the number of people who will

Which course of action would cause him to become an ex-paladin? Using the poison and allowing innocent people to die? Or not using it, and in the process dooming countless more in the future?

Side-question: Would I personally have alignment trouble for creating this scenario in the first place?

[ThisIsZen]

Arguably, there's no right solution here among those options present. Either option results in the paladin falling, and he's basically screwed the moment he becomes aware of the problem in the first place. Poisoning innocents, particularly children, would constitute a fall even in my games, and I don't like smacking paladins with the fall stick because I think largely a paladin should fall because a player CHOOSES to have them fall as part of their narrative. Actively choosing to not intercede and dooming more people by his inaction leaves him guilty by association for the crimes to follow. He falls if he deliberately chooses to sacrifice his paladinhood for the greater good - he falls if he isn't willing to make that sacrifice.

However, I think no win situations are total bunk unless the player is the one who painted themselves into a corner. The paladin, by their class choice, is playing the only character class in the game who has a kill switch built in, and that's as much an act of trust as including living family members in your PC's backstory. Being given difficult choices can be okay for a paladin player and I would personally expect it, but arbitrarily losing all of my class features and becoming a worse Fighter than a Fighter because the DM decided that because I CAN lose my class features, I should be put into a position where I MUST lose my class features is not okay.

If this situation already exists, encourage the player to come up with an alternative solution. Paladins are the ones who should always look for the safe exit, the ones who always try to find the one day where everyone lives. Reward creativity on the player's part and be willing to work with them to create a satisfying arc out of the whole thing. On the other hand, if the player IS willing to take the fall, then let them - the Paladin who chooses the poison because they can't find a third way out is narratively interesting, provided the player isn't coerced. If this situation DOESN'T already exist in game, I'd suggest reworking it so that there's a third option. You don't need to make that option obvious, but you should give the player a way to escape from the quandary without getting godzapped to uselessness.

[Yogibear41]

No one listens to the diviner, doesn't mean they won't listen to you. You are a paladin, hopefully you have a decent reputation around town. Put that diplomacy to work, go get the town guard and round them up.

Alternatively, go in and take them out by force before the party even happens, a few 2nd level aristocrats should be easy enough to handle. A paladin should never poison innocents for the greater good.


As a side note, who gave him the poison? You should roll some sense motives, before you make an uh oh.

[Twilightwyrm]

No one listens to the diviner, doesn't mean they won't listen to you. You are a paladin, hopefully you have a decent reputation around town. Put that diplomacy to work, go get the town guard and round them up.

Alternatively, go in and take them out by force before the party even happens, a few 2nd level aristocrats should be easy enough to handle. A paladin should never poison innocents for the greater good.


As a side note, who gave him the poison? You should roll some sense motives, before you make an uh oh.

I'd like to second this notion. Just because a Paladin is given an obvious out with minimal risk to his personal safety does not mean he shouldn't take it. The Diviner has figured out this tragedy will occur, and these people will be responsible. So, presuming the Paladin is high enough level to be a force to be reckoned with, he can simply show up at the party and apprehend all offending nobles for their previous crimes, plus conspiracy to commit X tragedy. Any mercenary guards can be paid off (only illegal forms of bribery would be prohibited by the Paladin's code), and any diehard loyal ones can be apprehended along with their noble masters. Care should be taken to bring the offenders in with minimal bloodshed, but if they fight to the death then they died resisting apprehension.
The downside here is if some but not all are captured, others might escape and seek revenge, but for a Paladin, the machinations of evil men being turned upon him in order to avoid harm to others is a worthy trade to make. He should hound them, hunt them, never let them rest or sleep easy, and every moment they spend fearing or conspiring against him is one not spent towards the deaths of innocents.

[skypse]

Speak with the local city guard and share your knowledge with them. Ask them to follow a simple plan (won't be hard considering the fact that you are a huge charisma character) which involves the following:

1) Throw the party and invite all of them
2) Have the city guard at the party either undercover or by having the seriff as a guest with some personal guards with him
3) Expose the nobles and have the guards arrest them for questioning
4) Use zone of truth and corner them by asking the correct questions until they admit their scheme

It is a long procedure that requires a lot of work but it can work. Even if the nobles get through with their plan because they will put someone else to do it, you still have tried all you can to bring justice to the world and you will hunt down the criminals minds and the executors until Hell freezes over!

[Kelb_Panthera]

Shoot the diviner. He's lying about his knowledge of the future because, and this is important, it's not possible to divine the future reliably.

Ignoring that for the sake of argument, there are --way-- too many factors the paladin -can't- be certain of. He's been told that this future will come to pass. Why should he believe when no one else does? The diviner could be lying, he could be mistaken, or he could be insane.

Even should he accept the diviner's claim, it's up to him to find a non-evil way to thwart the coming doom. Accepting that poisoning an entire villa of party-goers is the only way to succeed is something a paladin simply cannot do.

Finally, if he -does- come to the conclusion that the diviner's poison plan is the only viable plan he still cannot go through with it. While the coming doom is tragic, it's not the paladin's fault even though he had an apparent opportunity to stop it. He could easily fail in such a way that -only- innocents are poisoned, depending on the villains' security-intelligence assets, or, at the very least, in such a way that the key players for the prophecy escape unharmed and super-pissed. The risk is unnacceptable.

And for an extra nail in the coffin of this contrivance, as far as I'm aware, there's no poison that's actually guaranteed to kill anyone though mordayn tea (BoVD) is pretty close.

[Super Evil User]

-snip-


-snip-

The nobles are the government. The system has become so corrupt and they have become so powerful that they can do whatever they want with impunity. That's why it's been going on for so long.


-snip-

The diviner didn't come up with the poison plot, it was given to him (the paladin) by a mysterious benefactor. Also role-playing =/= game mechanics and aristocrats don't have much in the way of Fort saves.

[LoyalPaladin]

No one listens to the diviner, doesn't mean they won't listen to you. You are a paladin, hopefully you have a decent reputation around town. Put that diplomacy to work, go get the town guard and round them up.
I agree here. Any halfway decent paladin should have the diplomacy and charisma to whip some guards into action.

[Yogibear41]

it was given to him (the paladin) by a mysterious benefactor

This is all you need to know. AKA BAD

[Red Fel]

Even assuming that the mysterious benefactor is totally not evil you guys, and that the nobles are pigs in human clothing, I agree with everyone else, for two reasons.

First: Poison is premeditated murder. It's not a lawful execution, it's not a noble gesture or honorable battle. It is pure political assassination, and no matter how naughty the recipient is, it's a dirty deed. Paladins fall for less.

Second: Collateral damage is a thing. A big thing. A Paladin cannot accept the notion of "sacrifices must be made for the greater good," unless he is the only one making them. As soon as he decides that bystanders are a necessary if unfortunate casualty of war, he falls. As soon as he decides that he is willing to risk their lives, he falls. In short, if he undertakes any plan knowing there is a more than slight possibility that his direct actions will endanger or kill innocents, he stops or he falls.

This isn't a guaranteed-fall scenario, in that the Paladin can still find another way. And he needs to. He really, really needs to. This is precisely the situation for which "take a third option" was conceived. But yeah. If he does nothing, he hurts. If he uses the poison, he falls. This is a situation that may punish a less creative player.

[Sith_Happens]

This is a situation that may punish a less creative player.

I wouldn't even say that, considering the first thing that came to my own mind was "Go to town on them with my silverware (assuming they're smart enough to not let me bring an actual weapon)." Not exactly the most unusual of player responses to this kind of situation.

[KillianHawkeye]

First off, I don't believing in punishing a paladin for inaction. The paladin character obviously should want to right wrongs, but they can't be expected to right EVERY wrong they learn about. Some problems are too complex for a single person to solve, and sometimes saving one town means the paladin isn't available to save the next town over.

Secondly, I agree with Red Fel that the paladin falls for poisoning ANYBODY regardless of the potential for collateral damage. There's a big difference between bravely slaying a monster in combat and using dishonorable means to murder a helpless foe. The paladin code is pretty strict, and paladins don't get a free pass to use evil means to defeat evil forces.

That being said, I also agree that we can't assume that the information the character is operating on is totally trustworthy. The guy with the poison seems pretty shady. Actually, the whole situation is shady. And predicting the future is notoriously difficult because just knowing it can cause it to change (like quantum mechanics). The paladin needs to be careful that he isn't getting used by the real bad guys to take down the government.


In my opinion, since a paladin is always walking such a precarious line, each and every one of them should be prepared to fall in order to stop a great enough evil if that's the only way. That's why they have an atonement spell. So if the prediction is truly solid and poison is the only option, I think he should take it and pay the price. Obviously, try to find another option if you can, but as a last resort you gotta do what you gotta do, right?

[Kelb_Panthera]

The nobles are the government. The system has become so corrupt and they have become so powerful that they can do whatever they want with impunity. That's why it's been going on for so long.

The peasantry and the guards are, obviously, aware of coruption on the level you're describing. Time for the shining champion of justice, aka paladin, to organize a peasant revolt against an illigitimate authority structure.



The diviner didn't come up with the poison plot, it was given to him (the paladin) by a mysterious benefactor.

That only makes the contrivance of the situation worse. Now there are at least -two- people potentially working some less than on-the-level angles.


Also role-playing =/= game mechanics

Actually, it does when it comes to alignment. There are guidelines in place thanks to the BoVD and BoED and one point they clear is that it's better for good to do nothing in the absence of certainty and in a case where the only -apparent- actions are all evil.


and aristocrats don't have much in the way of Fort saves.

Irrelevant, nat 20's happen and so do low damage rolls.

[Super Evil User]

Actually, it does when it comes to alignment. There are guidelines in place thanks to the BoVD and BoED and one point they clear is that it's better for good to do nothing in the absence of certainty and in a case where the only -apparent- actions are all evil.


I was referring to the poison. The paladin is in-character: he does not know that the poison will "only" cause 1d6 damage or what have you.

[Blackhawk748]

Ill be honest, ive never had a problem with a Paladin using poison. Then again the only time ive seen it was when one slathered some onto a blade before going into a room full of ogres to slay them and their chief, so you know, context.

As to this situation, i would back away....... slowly. This whole situation looks bad. Now the government probably is corrupt, but the dude handing out poison? Why do i think he is a demon or devil? The diviner seems a bit odd as his "future vision" may actually just be him spying on them and these could be his conclusions. Anyway you slice this i see a peasant revolution as a pretty good solution, because as we all know, once the government cares more about themselves than the people they govern, they are no longer a legitimate government.

[Zakerst]

There are innocent people (including children) who are also in attendance at the party, who are guilty of nothing besides having horrible parents. He cannot simply slip the poison into individual glasses: if he does, he will be found out before he can do any real harm to them. The point is, he cannot kill the evil nobles without killing the innocent ones, either. Nevertheless, the number of innocent nobles is still significantly less than the number of people who will

Which course of action would cause him to become an ex-paladin? Using the poison and allowing innocent people to die? Or not using it, and in the process dooming countless more in the future?

Side-question: Would I personally have alignment trouble for creating this scenario in the first place?

Well lets start with the poison, using it at all is Evil (as per BoED), and slaying innocents is Evil as well, however allowing death and suffering to happen might not be, under normal circumstances. In the case where he kills the children et al he is actively doing Evil, in the case where he fails to stop the powerful few, he has done no Evil as defined, so it looks like he would be more likely to fall by killing children actively. Now with that said there are other possible solutions I'm sure depending more on the circumstances and who and what the pali can call on, and the nature of the plot (the Evil one). Now if you're using Utilitarian ethics then it is very likely that he would be doing the good thing by killing the nobles, but it seems that DND runs on Divine Command Theory ethics so what is Good and Evil are whatever the rules making god(s) say is.

In short doing nothing is not Evil nor Good, and probably a bad thing, but killing the nobles in the manner outlined is Evil outright. In the end though, it comes down to which god(s) the pali is getting his powers from as they're the ones who have final say on when you've fallen. If no god(s) are in play then at the first instance of alignment change. In this case I would rule that even though Evil acts are more opposed to LG the shear magnitude of the Neutral act of allowing that many deaths is likely greater so if he would fall by killing the innocent then he will also fall for failing to save the masses.

As for your alignment no its not in question at least not by me, I do philosophy on the regular and ethics is a subset and a fun one to play with, but you've not caused any harm, nor done any evil by thinking these, unless you take a very strong stance on possible worlds and what not. But then again I've not always been called a moral pillar myself. :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was referring to the poison. The paladin is in-character: he does not know that the poison will "only" cause 1d6 damage or what have you.

He could easily know that there are no poisons that kill 100% reliably and/or that he isn't trained in the proper use of poisons to begin with.

[Bad Wolf]

...Ressurect the innocents after they've been poisoned?

[Milodiah]

Good vs. Evil, don't wanna go much more than putting my toes in the water for that argument...D&D alignment, especially paladin-wise, generally operates on a deontological framework with some minor leanings towards moral absolutism, so a paladin poisoning children should be considered Evil.

However, I will point out this is absolutely 100% non-Lawful...although I don't know exactly how the Nuremberg Defense figures into capital-L Law in the D&D world as opposed to the lowercase-l law. Orders to do this might muddy the water a bit, but we're still talking 95-98% un-Law.

[Jeff the Green]

A Paladin cannot accept the notion of "sacrifices must be made for the greater good," unless he is the only one making them.

Not quite. A paladin can accept the sacrifices of others if they're truly necessary, willingly made, and he shoulders as much of the burden as possible. For example, in the Forgotten Realms, Torm (the primary patron of Paladins and basically paladinness incarnate) absorbed the souls of all his worshipers in the city of Tantras to give him the strength to a protect a McGuffin, the city, and, importantly, their children from the avatar of Bane (god of tyranny). Likewise a paladin can lead a suicide charge even with non-paladins at his side.

[LoyalPaladin]

For example, in the Forgotten Realms, Torm (the primary patron of Paladins and basically paladinness incarnate) absorbed the souls of all his worshipers in the city of Tantras to give him the strength to a protect a McGuffin, the city, and, importantly, their children from the avatar of Bane (god of tyranny).
This. Torm is my go to deity. If Torm does it, I approve! Another thing that Paladins always have the option of doing is praying. A fact is, gods like their paladins. They don't want them to fall, so if they can help them out (and they've been a loyal follower) they usually will. At least in my campaigns, a paladin has always been able to pray for advice. Sometimes they don't get an answer, but it makes for good role playing and a little "phone a friend" option. Remember kids, praisin' ain't easy.

[Red Fel]

Not quite. A paladin can accept the sacrifices of others if they're truly necessary, willingly made, and he shoulders as much of the burden as possible. For example, in the Forgotten Realms, Torm (the primary patron of Paladins and basically paladinness incarnate) absorbed the souls of all his worshipers in the city of Tantras to give him the strength to a protect a McGuffin, the city, and, importantly, their children from the avatar of Bane (god of tyranny). Likewise a paladin can lead a suicide charge even with non-paladins at his side.

To be fair, (1) Torm is a deity, not just a Paladin, and different rules apply; and (2) those people were his worshipers, his devotees, who would do whatever he asked of them. In essence, they were making the sacrifice on his behalf.

And I will concede that a Paladin can allow another person to make a sacrifice, and can accept that sacrifice on their behalf. But there is a difference between allowing a willing martyr to share the burden and deciding that a bunch of unwitting bystanders should die for the greater good.

[LoyalPaladin]

But there is a difference between allowing a willing martyr to share the burden and deciding that a bunch of unwitting bystanders should die for the greater good.
That is true, so I guess now the obvious solution is become a deity. Problem solved. /thread

[Nibbens]

*Sigh*

The paladin should use the poison, killing the greater threat while killing innocents. If the DM makes him shift alignment, he then consults with the party cleric, pays 2K gold for an atonement spell, he comes back to his alignment of LG and gets all his powers back.

All in all the pally loses his alignment for about 5 minutes in real time and no one cares. Besides, a samurai is supposed to go ronin seven times before he is comfortable with his lifestyle, all humans are fallible, etc. Paladins getting their powers back are a simple process and a pally should fall at least once a year because no one is perfect and not all scenarios are black and white, such as the above example.

[Red Fel]

*Sigh*

The paladin should use the poison, killing the greater threat while killing innocents. If the DM makes him shift alignment, he then consults with the party cleric, pays 2K gold for an atonement spell, he comes back to his alignment of LG and gets all his powers back.

All in all the pally loses his alignment for about 5 minutes in real time and no one cares. Besides, a samurai is supposed to go ronin seven times before he is comfortable with his lifestyle, all humans are fallible, etc. Paladins getting their powers back are a simple process and a pally should fall at least once a year because no one is perfect and not all scenarios are black and white, such as the above example.

My problems with that, in no particular order: The Paladin should care. Choosing a Paladin means choosing an incredibly flavorful character. It also means you're taking upon yourself a number of burdens - explicit limitations - which challenge your game in new ways. One of them is that the Paladin, ICly, should not consider Atonement as a way of getting around misconduct. A Samurai may be expected to go Ronin (although I admit I've not heard that one), but the Paladin holds himself to a higher standard. One which he does not voluntarily violate. A Paladin who falls "at least once a year" really isn't much of a Paladin. Mechanically speaking, a Paladin can get his powers back with Atonement. It's fairly simple, you're right. But note several things. First, Atonement is a 5th-level Cleric spell. That means your Paladin needs to have access to a Cleric of 9th level or higher. Second, Atonement carries an XP cost if used on a person who willingly transgressed - so you need a 9th-level Cleric who is also willing to swallow the cost. Third, Atonement requires that the subject be truly repentant. As a rule, you see Atonement as an easy mechanical revolving door, that's not true repentance. And fourth, even if the mechanics all line up, there's also the fluff aspect - a Paladin should not be okay with the idea that, after receiving a spell, he should no longer be burdened by the fact that he poisoned a room full of innocents. Not all scenarios are black and white, that's true. However, in D&D morality, there are explicitly Good acts and explicitly Bad ones. Poison falls into the latter category. Willfully poisoning innocents isn't a question of shades of gray - it's pretty darn Evil, full stop.
The Paladin is more than simply a mechanical construct you plan around. It's a complex role-playing concept, full of flavor and possibilities, but one that imposes restrictions both on the character and on the player. It's not the sort of class one looks at in the same way that one looks at, say, Fighter or Wizard. The fluff is there and it matters, for good or ill.

[ThisIsZen]

The Paladin is also contingent upon trust between the DM and the player. Trust that the player will adequately play out an exemplar of their deity's paradigm and more generally of Good, and trust that the DM will not abuse the fall mechanics as written to completely bone the Paladin player. Putting a Paladin into a no-win situation arbitrarily is a violation of that trust. If a Paladin ends up in a situation where they can do nothing but choose the flavor of their descent into the land of 0 class features, they should have either painted themselves into that corner or, more ideally, have worked with the DM to create that story element because it's interesting.

If it's easy to Fall then there's no reason to play a Paladin 'cause you're pretty much guaranteed at some point or other to end up a glorified NPC. Personally, playing a Warrior isn't something I'd want to do in a majority of cases, especially when PC classes are available.

[LoyalPaladin]

Third, Atonement requires that the subject be truly repentant. As a rule, you see Atonement as an easy mechanical revolving door, that's not true repentance.
I feel like there was a panel in OoTS that explained this well, but I can't find it. I have a big issue with the whole "we can just use atonement later" idea. If a paladin falls willingly in a campaign I am DMing, I usually make them complete a side quest to make amends before the atonement spell works.

[Nibbens]

What pally wouldn't feel bad about having no other option but poisoning a room full of people - so atonement wouldn't be a problem. Besides, as was stated - the DM has painted the pally into this corner. So this is something that either the Pally's player wanted to happen or the Dm was abusing mechanics with a no-win choice, so atonement should be a given. IF there was even a fall associated with it. Bad feelings, sure. Pally angst at having to do what he did, yes, and the roleplay would be awesome there. But no-win's shouldn't cause a pally to fall (as there is no option of good to choose, he did not willing commit the act - he was forced by plot device. Plain and simple.)

As far as the XP cost - in PF there is none, so that makes things different if we're referring to 3.5. Sorry, I haven't played 3.+ in many many years, so I was unaware of the XP cost. But like I said, in PF there is none.

Also, Pally rules may be different between PF and 3.5 so my arguments may be moot at this point as well.

However, I still am of the opinion that falling should not be a big deal. Sure you lose your powers, but it's not permanent. Viewing alignment like a set of sliding scales if a better idea. Can't the pally feel guilt for something he's done before he loses his powers? Can't he seek atonement before he loses his powers to set himself right? Doesn't that feel better than "Oops, I went too far. I need a spell to feel better"? The former has more roleplay and story potential.

[Red Fel]

What pally wouldn't feel bad about having no other option but poisoning a room full of people - so atonement wouldn't be a problem.

It would still be a problem, because he chose to use the poison. Willful action.


Besides, as was stated - the DM has painted the pally into this corner.

I wouldn't go quite that far. This isn't quite a no-win. There's still time and opportunity to come up with another solution.


As far as the XP cost - in PF there is none, so that makes things different if we're referring to 3.5. Sorry, I haven't played 3.+ in many many years, so I was unaware of the XP cost. But like I said, in PF there is none.

You're right; in PF there is no XP cost. There is, however, a price tag (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/atonement):
However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings).That's not cheap.


However, I still am of the opinion that falling should not be a big deal. Sure you lose your powers, but it's not permanent. Viewing alignment like a set of sliding scales if a better idea. Can't the pally feel guilt for something he's done before he loses his powers? Can't he seek atonement before he loses his powers to set himself right? Doesn't that feel better than "Oops, I went too far. I need a spell to feel better"? The former has more roleplay and story potential.

That's true when it's a minor transgression. And I agree, falling over every little thing is a bad way for the DM to run the game, and it unfairly punishes the Pally. Lying to someone, or hurting someone more than you intended, is enough to make you feel guilty and want to seek repentance, but not generally (in my mind) enough to rob you of your class abilities.

This isn't that. This is - and let me repeat it for emphasis - the deliberate and premeditated use of poison, with the actual knowledge that innocent bystanders are likely to be effected and killed. That's not the same as grabbing a copper piece that isn't yours, or lying to the local constabulary - that's a pretty serious act of Evil. And even if I decide it doesn't penalize your alignment, it's still going to cause a fall. Feel free to get all the RP experience you want feeling "guilty" about it, you murdered innocent people, you fall.

And falling should be a big deal. Not just because of the mechanical effect of losing your class abilities. It means a violation of a sacred trust. Paladins are born, not trained; they become Paladins because that's who they are, not because that's how they were taught. Being a Paladin involves holding yourself to a higher standard. Even if you don't answer to a deity, you answer to yourself, and we tend to be our own harshest critics. Falling doesn't just mean you did a naughty thing and some disembodied chaperone has decided to ground you; it means you let yourself down, you violated your promise to yourself, and your faith - the source of your power - is shaken. It's not about losing your powers, it's about questioning your principles.

Think about Javert. He wasn't the most good, but he was highly principled. And when those principles were called into question - when he decided to let his prey go free - his world was shattered. Black was white, up was down, nothing made any sense, and the cool, calm, composed hound of the law went to pieces. That's what falling is like. It's not just a spontaneous power failure; it's the idea that you've lost your faith.

At least, that's one interpretation.

[Runeclaw]

Why do i think he is a demon or devil?

Any Paladin who doesn't use Detect Evil on a stranger offering him poison and suggesting he use it to kill innocent children is either an idiot or already knows the answer.

I agree that there are myriad possible third-option alternatives here, even if they are guaranteed to work, and that it is incumbent upon the Paladin to attempt them. I also agree that, if there is truly no other option, it is better for the Paladin (and not fall-worthy) to try and fail to save the townsfolk then to actively do evil by murdering the innocents.

Finally, to OP's last question, I wouldn't say that creating this dilemma makes you an evil human being, but if you put a Paladin PC in it and really don't allow any other way out, then you might be someone with whom I wouldn't choose to play D&D.

[Blackhawk748]

Any Paladin who doesn't use Detect Evil on a stranger offering him poison and suggesting he use it to kill innocent children is either an idiot or already knows the answer.

The problem is is that there are so many ways around Detect Evil that its not even funny. Also remember that Int is a dump stat for Paladins.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Something I don't think I made clear in my previous post: if, contrived as it is, the two presented options really are the only options (and it can't be stressed enough that they are not) then the correct choice is to do nothing. Failing to stop evil is bad but not an evil act in itself. No fall.

[Sith_Happens]

...Ressurect the innocents after they've been poisoned?

Assuming most of them would go to the Outlands at worst, they'd want to come back to their ****hole town why?


There's still time and opportunity to come up with another solution.

Like stabbing. Stabbing is a great solution here.:smallwink:

[aleucard]

I'll paraphrase something I've said previously on a similar topic.

If the only options available would all cause the paladin to Fall, you as the DM should do 2 things. One, NOT Fall him since you are the one ultimately at fault here, and two, tell the Paladin that he feels Unclean as a result of his actions (no mechanical difference, but other Paladins will know it). Where the player goes from there, whether that be Atonement, Gray Guard, or Fall, is up to him. Forced-Fall situations are only a good thing when the Player is on board the whole way.

Regardless, there's a good chance that the Paladin is at a high enough level that he could marathon his way through the entire perpetrator list and their guards with minimal difficulty, and that ignores the presence of the rest of the party. Provided that the info he's been given is legitimate, he can easily cry bollocks to the poison and do it himself, bare-handed (read: Gauntlets) even if he wants to minimize unnecessary casualties.

[Bad Wolf]

Assuming most of them would go to the Outlands at worst, they'd want to come back to their ****hole town why?


Then the attempt fails, and try and get the rest back. If no one responds, then they're happy where they are. No one gets in deep s***.

[Trickquestion]

Go to the party and break the noble's necks with your bare hands. A key cornerstone of the Paladin is (I at least, believe) sacrifice, so if this Paladin has to sacrifice his freedom or life in a way to save the lives without hurting innocents, that's what he's gotta do.

[Super Evil User]

...okay, I think it's time to come clean. I'm sorry, guys, but I haven't been entirely honest with you.

For starters, I'm not the one DMing. I was the player who had to make this choice. And I wasn't a paladin - I was a wizard. I only said I was a paladin because I thought it'd give the question more gravity if I did.

The noble BBEG, the patriarch of a sorcerous dynasty, had a plan. He sired an illegitimate daughter with one of the women of an outlying barbarian tribe, and then through his daughter's entire life trained her to hate him through a series of letters and coordinated attacks. During the planned attack, his own troops would withdraw and leave the rival sorcerous dynasties to take care of the threat and then wipe out whoever won the resulting battle, thus seizing control over the entire city. We all learned of this when the plan was well underway.

My wizard had the opportunity to stop this by discovering a serious flaw in the series of enchantments within the BBEG's castle. He formulated a plan. While the noble was throwing another one of his lavish parties, me and the other player (a dwarf) would infiltrate the castle and use Dispel Magic to trigger a chain reaction that would destroy the castle and crush everyone inside it. From the plan's inception, the wizard was conflicted, as there were innocent children of all noble families involved inside, one of whom he had personally befriended at one point.

In a long speech that is honestly the most fun I have ever had roleplaying in all my years (I can reproduce it in the relevant thread if you so wish), he decided that he couldn't sacrifice his morality, even if it was for the greater good. Did he do the right thing?

Again, sorry for being deceptive.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Different characters; same story. None of the details you've changed matter a whit. My previous comments remain my stance on the situation.

Though, out of curiosity, why did you feel you needed to change the story? This is the internet, people will be way more honest than is typically comfortable in polite society even if you ask them not to.

[Blackhawk748]

Though, out of curiosity, why did you feel you needed to change the story? This is the internet, people will be way more honest than is typically comfortable in polite society even if you ask them not to.

Probably because we hold Paladins to a higher standard than any other LG character and most people probably would have said "just do it" Though i find a Wizard with the morality of a Paladin to be an interesting character, so please do reproduce that speech.

[Super Evil User]

The Wizard was built using this (https://neverwinter-campaign.obsidianportal.com/wikis/renegade-red-wizard-theme) theme as a backstory, so he sympathizes with those who were born into an evil spellcasting organization. To say that that's the only reason he didn't do it is an oversimplification, though.

Edit: As requested. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18438719&postcount=844) It was much less refined when I said it, of course, but the important parts are all the same.

[aleucard]

If this is a Wizard, then by virtue of said wizard not having his entire class up on the altar, the DM is much freer to throw moral quandaries its way. At that point, it's pure roleplaying, and thus is well within the realm of the normal campaign. No breaking of the Gentleman's Agreement there.

You need to bear in mind that we're a lot more mechanics-oriented here than elsewhere. The roleplaying and fluff of each campaign is completely unique to itself and not something that should be put up to debate in the first place, and thus we don't like touching it too often (save for the inevitable "Is X Evil" debate, like this one). That's the lens we look at things through. You probably would have gotten more relevant responses if you were straight up from the get-go.

[georgie_leech]

I'll second the wish you'd said it this way from the start. It's a more interesting and plausible scenario; the plan is more likely to work, there are fewer "can we actually trust this vaguely sinister NPC?" moments. It also doesn't have the Code of Conduct to get in the way of things. Also also, I'm a little confused by the OP saying that you were dropping your cryptic streak and then proceed to make up almost the entirety of the scenario you tell us.

[GreyBlack]

If I may propose a somewhat metagamed solution, why shouldn't he fall? Why not have Mr. Paladin turn to the dark side? Perhaps he's had enough of these nobles and decides to take matters into his own hands. Have the Paladin fall, then, after a time, realize the error of his ways and dedicate his life to eradication of the evil in the shadows, becoming a Shadowbane Inquisitor? It would solve the problem at hand and provide an amazing story hook.

ETA: Maybe Mr. Shadowy Figure is a Devil, who tempts him and lets him become an ex-paladin/blackguard/shadowbane Inquisitor. Eh?

[Trickquestion]

I'll be straight with you OP: If you had told me you were a wizard from the get go, I would have told you to just kill them all.

[Troacctid]

Why not evacuate the castle before destroying it? Blowing up the big bad's stronghold would still be a significant blow and you could do it without the need for a massacre.

[Runeclaw]

If this is a Wizard, then by virtue of said wizard not having his entire class up on the altar, the DM is much freer to throw moral quandaries its way. At that point, it's pure roleplaying, and thus is well within the realm of the normal campaign. No breaking of the Gentleman's Agreement there.

I don't think playing a Paladin should make you immune to the DM throwing moral dilemmas at you. And Paladin or not, no player trying to play a good character should be put into a contrived situation where there is no Good resolution possible.



I'll be straight with you OP: If you had told me you were a wizard from the get go, I would have told you to just kill them all.

Again, there's no reason that a Lawful Good wizard should be less dedicated to their alignment than a Paladin just because the mechanical impact of failing to uphold it is less.

[aleucard]

I don't think playing a Paladin should make you immune to the DM throwing moral dilemmas at you.

I'm not protesting that. What I AM protesting, however, is the Paladin being reduced to NPC-level because of a no-win scenario, especially when there's still a campaign to be had. Either the player spends a significant portion of his time equivalent to a scaled-up Warrior (not even a Fighter, especially since at least a few of his feats are likely to be now bricked) and either gets Atoned or killed, or he retires the character and plays something else. The middle of a campaign and possibly mission is NOT the time to be playing games with your players' ability to meaningfully contribute to not getting a TPK.

[Super Evil User]

I'll be straight with you OP: If you had told me you were a wizard from the get go, I would have told you to just kill them all.

I know. Hence the deception.

[Red Fel]

I know. Hence the deception.

I agree with those who note that holding a Wizard to a higher standard is a clever character idea. In particular, if you were using a Wizard with Exalted feats, I'd probably treat him similarly to how I'd treat a Paladin in this scenario.

The mechanical difference cited by some is a valid one. Moral dilemmas are nice, provided that the player has the ability to think his way around them, but they're far more punishing towards Paladins than towards most classes, due to the mechanical effects of a "wrong" decision. That said, my position - from a fluff perspective - remains constant.

Poisoning people is generally pretty Evil. Doing so with callous disregard for the risk to innocents even moreso. While you don't risk losing class features over it, it's still a wicked, naughty thing to do.

Take a look at my most recent post (prior to this one). I note that part of what makes the Paladin fall isn't just the fact that he performed an Evil act, but the fact that, even for a moment, he thought it was justified, and thus he lost faith in himself and his principles. That's a fluff explanation, and the fluff is applicable to any character, really, regardless of class. It could just as easily be applied to a Wizard - he always saw himself as a servant of light and justice, he thought he was doing the right thing, and then..., and now he just doesn't know who he is anymore. What he stands for. He's suddenly terrified of his power and knowledge, realizing for the first time (perhaps) just how dangerous he is. Maybe he stops preparing certain spells, resulting from the fear of his own abilities.

Mind you, the Wizard has an entirely different - and by different I mean nigh-infinite - array of problem-solving tools. The Paladin is basically limited to Detect Evil, Smite Evil, a smattering of divine spells, some great social skills, and a horse. The Wizard can solve the problem by basically re-writing reality so that the problem never existed. It does make it a lot easier to avoid moral dilemmas when you can reconstruct the world as you see fit, and exclude all the parts you don't like.

[Blackhawk748]

It does make it a lot easier to avoid moral dilemmas when you can reconstruct the world as you see fit, and exclude all the parts you don't like.

But that brings up its own moral dilemma,and a very interesting one to. Who are you to rewrite reality.

[Red Fel]

But that brings up its own moral dilemma,and a very interesting one to. Who are you to rewrite reality.

A Wizard. Filler text.

[Blackhawk748]

A Wizard. Filler text.

............................. i dont know what i was expecting honestly.

[Super Evil User]

Unfortunately, he is a Level 5 Wizard.

[aleucard]

Unfortunately, he is a Level 5 Wizard.

That's still more than enough to completely wreck a ballroom's worth of nobles and maybe a tenth that many Level 1-2 Warriors. You'd just need to be somewhat more methodical in your targeting. That STILL ignores the inclusion of the rest of the party, by the way.

[Sartharina]

I skimmed this page, but I'm pretty sure the moral answer in this situation is "Commence with the face-stabbing as soon as possible".

But first, he should collect the evidence of the nefarious plots to exonerate him when he commences with "Smite Evil" right in the middle of a dinner party.

Or he could do his best to warn victims of the plots.

But, really - crashing the Paladinmobile right into the middle of the dinner party while shouting "EVERYONE FREEZE! HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM!" is the best option. If he lacks the individual strength to handle the situation, he should bring the Neighborhood Watch with him as well.

If the William Tell Overture is not your soundtrack of choice when dealing with corrupt nobles, you need to re-evaluate your ability to Paladin.

Seriously - a Paladin has a special Super Attack that can only be used on one attack, and a special mount. They're built for Ride-by delivery of Justice.

[Blackhawk748]

I skimmed this page, but I'm pretty sure the moral answer in this situation is "Commence with the face-stabbing as soon as possible".

But first, he should collect the evidence of the nefarious plots to exonerate him when he commences with "Smite Evil" right in the middle of a dinner party.

Or he could do his best to warn victims of the plots.

But, really - crashing the Paladinmobile right into the middle of the dinner party while shouting "EVERYONE FREEZE! HANDS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM!" is the best option. If he lacks the individual strength to handle the situation, he should bring the Neighborhood Watch with him as well.

If the William Tell Overture is not your soundtrack of choice when dealing with corrupt nobles, you need to re-evaluate your ability to Paladin.

Seriously - a Paladin has a special Super Attack that can only be used on one attack, and a special mount. They're built for Ride-by delivery of Justice.

There is no way i can support this idea enough. If your setting has a large group of paladins, call them up and do your impression of Rohan.

[Twilightwyrm]

The nobles are the government. The system has become so corrupt and they have become so powerful that they can do whatever they want with impunity. That's why it's been going on for so long.


In which case the Paladin has no impetus to respect their laws, and since he is then by default the closest thing to a legitimate authority in the land, he essentially has a mandate to remove them from office and bring them to "justice" in the most just, good, and orderly manner possible. If there is a resistance movement, he should give them aid. If not, he should either form one or wage war on these nobles personally. Additionally, the level of corruption can work in his favor. Like I suggested, pay/diplomacy their guards/the local guards (who, being part of a corrupt system are already of dubious loyalty) or the country's military (assuming there are good/neutral elements in the military's leadership) and instigate a coup d'etat. Indeed, instigating said coup is actually the most "Paladin-like" thing said Paladin could do. Minimal innocents die, the evil officials are removed, minimal chaos is caused as law (even if t is martial law) are maintained while the military (under the direction of the Paladin of course) reform the government. The idea here is to thwarting the catastrophe in a Paladin-like manner is taking advantage of opportunities present in the system, rather then those (all to conveniently I might add) presented by outside forces.

[Super Evil User]

That's still more than enough to completely wreck a ballroom's worth of nobles and maybe a tenth that many Level 1-2 Warriors. You'd just need to be somewhat more methodical in your targeting. That STILL ignores the inclusion of the rest of the party, by the way.

A ballroom's worth of Level 5-8 Sorcerer nobles? With only a dwarf Factotum?

[Blackhawk748]

A ballroom's worth of Level 5-8 Sorcerer nobles? With only a dwarf Factotum?

A fireball while they're dancing? I mean that is seriously gonna hurt, to i wouldnt do it unless you had a Maximize Rod and some back up from the local guards.

[Sartharina]

Hmm.... now that I've read the whole situation, and remember that quote.

You're a wizard. You're not against face-stabbable nobles. There's no poison. You're blowing up a castle, not poisoning the people. The moral course of action is to have blown up that castle. With a plot like this, you don't worry about the Death Star Contractors. Luke saying "No, I can't kill all those death star contractors" is not a good reason for letting the Yavin Base get blown to smithereens.

Also - as a non-paladin... is your character still sworn to be a Shining Beacon to everyone else? Are there others associated with you who's reputations would be sullied if you fell? Are you more concerned with Cosmic Good's triumph over Evil, or the lives of those who suffer in the grey?

There are reasons Paladins are held to a higher standard. One is that they are always held accountable to themselves and everyone else - every Paladin must be trustworthy so that every paladin is trustworthy. Their universal order gives them their strength and the trust of the people and upper planes. That trust, though, also allows them to act in ways that seem extremely out-of-character and WTF-inducing at first glance - they are trusted by the common people because they are watched by and answerable to the omnicient Higher Powers. Yes, if the circumstances warrant it, a paladin CAN blow up a bus full of nuns, slaughter a party, and blow up a castle without marring his reputation (But the circumstances MUST warrant it). Their divine bond empowers Paladins to be Witness, Judge, Jury, and Executioner of the Law, answering to the highest laws of the realm - those set out by the Seven Mounting Heavens, and unassailable and overriding the social contracts spun by mortals.

If the Paladin in the first situation had the option to blow up the noble's banquet hall (And said nobles weren't low-level overimportant nobodies protected and empowered by nothing but paper and precedent), I think that would have also been an acceptable answer to the situation.

My big beef with the BoED is the 'Good can Never Make Concessions to Evil'. Sometimes, concessions are needed for victory to be achieved. Of course, it kind of makes sense for it to be incompatible with Exalted... but Exalted people are wrong - as long as there is still Great Evil in the world, lesser evils MUST be used and tolerated to fight against them. (Fun fact - Lawful Evil was created by Lawful Good to hold back the forces of Chaotic Evil)

There's another quote I've seen drifting around about a Paladin who, in his own words, falls so hard he becomes a fricken meteorite of alignment change (Ascending to become a great God of Evil) to contain and destroy the power of Evil... and using his newfound position of Lord of All That Is Unjust to contain and minimize the spread of evil.

[aleucard]

A ballroom's worth of Level 5-8 Sorcerer nobles? With only a dwarf Factotum?

That would have been pertinent information a long time ago. Still, in this instance, drumming up a revolt would be the least you could do. Also, you could use your obvious knowledge of the castle's architecture to laser-target which areas you collapse or just hold the lot of them hostage until the corrupt segments of the nobility surrender themselves. Few are going to have both Still and Silent Spell metamagic, and if needs be just have the party beefcake smack them upside the head any time they are conscious until they no longer are such. That's assuming you don't just kill the lot of them once they're under control. You HAVE verified your evidence, yes?

EDIT: A reply to Sartharina's thing.

To be honest, were I the DM in that Paladin's game (the one from your anecdote), the most that I'd have him fall on the GNE axis is Neutral. Main reason is because, at the end of the day, where you fall on that axis is dependent on WHY you do the things you do. His willingness and (depending on the circumstances) eagerness to dive straight into the horrific actions that are defined as Pure Evil may or may not forbid him from the Good alignment, but it all must be looked at through the perspective of him being willing to stain his own very soul infinitely if it means even one other person not having to so much as see what Evil looks like. Self-Sacrificing for others is about as Good as it gets.

[Sartharina]

Something that stuck out at me from your character's rant, though, was the "What right do I have to decide who lives or dies?"

The answer to that is actually pretty clear - That's not a right at all. It's a responsibility... and one mantled the moment your character sought to elevate themselves above the most basic of existences. A character unwilling to make choices that can cost the lives of others is one unfit to exceed Level 5.

And for the "I can't give up my own morality!" - I'm going to say the BoED was only half-right here. Sacrificing one's morality for a 'greater good' goes back to the 'don't sacrifice others'. Exalted Characters and Paladins 'sacrificing their morality' not only marrs their own soul, but also marrs the cause of everyone who fights beside them. But, if you haven't had trust invested in you by greater powers, there's nobody hurt by your sacrifice but you.

[Super Evil User]

In this situation, I didn't consider what the right thing would be - I considered what he would do, and what he thought the right thing to do would be.

Thomas has a long history with power over life and death and it's shaped how he views the world. He's spent his entire life resisting the lure exercising his magic over others has, and if this meant that he was unwilling to sacrifice his soul for the sake of others then so be it. Maybe it was cowardly. Maybe he's naive for it. But that's what I know he'd do, and I stick by his decision.

[hamishspence]

(Fun fact - Lawful Evil was created by Lawful Good to hold back the forces of Chaotic Evil)


Or so they claim. There were LE beings long before Asmodeus though - the Ancient Baatorians.

The yugoloths claim that they were the progenitors of both the LE and the CE exemplars.

There's lots of different stories about the origins of the various planar races.

[Super Evil User]

Thanks a lot for your responses, guys.

Just an update: the wizard and the dwarf are now head of a revolution (as some of you said they should be) and are currently marching towards the sorcerer BBEG's castle with an army of commoners and demi-humans. If their revolt succeeds, they will institute a democratic government that ruthlessly persecutes and executes all sorcerers in the land, to ensure that this never happens again. The insurgents have already extinguished several smaller sorcerous families.

[Sartharina]

Because nothing says "I've retained my morality!" like condemning hundreds of thousands to die to the ravages of war, followed by indiscriminate genocide!

[Super Evil User]

It's either that or condemning everyone unlucky enough to be a non-sorcerer or a demihuman to continuous oppression, so we're not exactly spoiled for options here. And the wizard's choice ended up blowing up in his face, anyway. When we're done with the campaign I'll post it somewhere on the forums.

[Sartharina]

It's either that or condemning everyone unlucky enough to be a non-sorcerer or a demihuman to continuous oppression, so we're not exactly spoiled for options here.Because condemning them to die because of an evil plot is so much better? :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thanks a lot for your responses, guys.

Just an update: the wizard and the dwarf are now head of a revolution (as some of you said they should be) and are currently marching towards the sorcerer BBEG's castle with an army of commoners and demi-humans. If their revolt succeeds, they will institute a democratic government that ruthlessly persecutes and executes all sorcerers in the land, to ensure that this never happens again. The insurgents have already extinguished several smaller sorcerous families.

Good thing you're not a paladin. This is fall worthy stuff, easily. Genocide is -never- okay except -maybe- against [evil] outsiders, with the subtype. Seriously, what makes you think that killing people because of a circumstance of ancestry is okay?

Rounding them up and pressing them into service, conscription not slavery, would be orders of magnitude better, if still morally questionable.

[aleucard]

I guess it really depends on if there's something different about the prerequisites for being a sorcerer in the campaign. If it involves both Evil ancestry and a wholehearted embracing thereof, yeah I can get that. The default fluff, though? Mass genocide for THAT is what I'd call Fall-worthy for even committing to the plan, let alone acting on it. There's a significant difference between trapping the Paladin on a needle above the abyss and him finding Land's End to swan-dive right into it.

And if you're interested in what kind of Land's End I'm talking about, go look up a fanfiction by the name of "Yet Again, With A Little Extra Help". While technically the reference is in the last chapter and the whole thing's over a million words long, I can not conceive a scenario where it is not worth your time to read.

I want to try translating that place into 3.5/PF rules at some point. The Awesome COMMANDS it!:smallbiggrin:

[Super Evil User]

It's modified Forgotten Realms, sooo...yeah, it's default fluff