The greater good

[Counterpower]

I've seen this idea in several different places: that a paladin committing an evil act is justified if the alternative is some much greater evil, especially lots of people dying. I just want to put forth my view on that and spark what will no doubt be an interesting debate.

My view: No paladin is ever justified in that. Period.

I've seen similar ideas in all sorts of different places. The first and most obvious is the Book of Exalted Deeds. It unequivocally states that the ends do not justify the means. But that can't be the final word. No D&D campaign ever limits itself to the rules on paper.

Another idea about the greater good that I have can be supported with a quote from the Halo book First Strike:


"I'm tired of sacrificing others for the 'greater good,'" Dr. Halsey replied. "It never stops, Cortana... and we're running out of people to sacrifice."from page 247


That was the point, wasn't it? He couldn't know the future. He had to do what he could to save every person. Today. Now.from page 336

What does that imply? It seems to me that trying to protect a civilization or a group of people cannot be done by killing some of them. And "knowing" that a summoned demon lord will kill everyone in that civilization........... well, that leads into another good point.

Is that absolute certainty? No. There is still a chance that he can be stopped, even after the summoning. Given that chance, why are you giving up on finding that slim hope? Hope is one of good's weapons. The faith that your effort, determination, and skill will be rewarded with victory, instead of saying "There's no way I can avoid doing evil, so I'll have to satisfy myself with doing as little evil as possible." We call that giving up on Good, not defending it. The first part of that statement, "there's no way I can avoid doing evil", is a prophecy that will come true, every time you say it. If you don't even try to avoid evil, then you will end up doing evil. A much more Good train of thought would be "I can't stop the summoning, unless I commit evil, which I refuse to do. I'd better find a way to kill or imprison the demon."

Also, thinking in terms of the greater good can lead to truly horrifying results. Committing evil when you know full well that you're committing evil and are only doing it in pursuit of some greater good is bad enough. Allowing yourself to believe that the evil act you're committing is actually good because of the ends it serves or because the alternative is evil is much, much worse. Either can be taken to the point where the foulest act is good. You can justify anything as good in that manner. After all, I need a powerful magic sword to help serve all of those innocents. Since they're rich, I'll kill or rob a quarter of them so that I can buy the sword and protect the rest from the goblin hordes. Is that Good?

Finally, I would like to present a situation. You're in a room with a bomb and the BBEG, who has already been made helpless in combat. Should this bomb go off, it will kill everyone in a city the size of Waterdeep, i.e. millions of people. You have 4 hours before it goes off. Your options:

1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.

I worry that using the greater good justification, a person could say, "Well, obviously it's best if everyone lives, including myself so I can spread more good around!" Except if he's going around torturing people, leaving them dead or broken, he's not really spreading Good. I fully believe that 3 is the most good that can come of that situation. Either option 3, or some other solution that I didn't think of.

What does everyone think?

[PirateMonk]

Hm. Well, here is the Tau thing, but what do you expect from the only good guys in a hopelessly good universe? They're also communists...


1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.

There are probably also other options, depending on the genre. Real life? There's no such thing as an inarguable BBEG and torture is unlikely to get you the right information.

[Counterpower]

Of course. I don't claim to have stated all the options. If you can come up with a better choice, then that's excellent. I even happen to agree with you on the "torture is unlikely to work" statment.

[Daelon]

Other options? Zone of Truth ftw.

[TheElfLord]

Spot on Counter. I agree with you completly. DnD morality is not utilitarian, especally for Paladins. DnD morality is based upon the intention and the action rarely, if ever, on the concequences. The conflict comes when utilitarian players want to use their normal moral system as a DnD paladin. This creates the "greater good" arguements, because they are the bread and butter of utilitarianism, but not applicalble for paladin morallity in DnD.

[EvilElitest]

Here here. The people who disagree will start showing up about page two, maybe sooner, so i'll say right now i'm with you all the way. Well said counterpower
from,
EE

[Divides]

I've seen this idea in several different places: that a paladin committing an evil act is justified if the alternative is some much greater evil, especially lots of people dying. I just want to put forth my view on that and spark what will no doubt be an interesting debate.

My view: No paladin is ever justified in that. Period.

I've seen similar ideas in all sorts of different places. The first and most obvious is the Book of Exalted Deeds. It unequivocally states that the ends do not justify the means. But that can't be the final word. No D&D campaign ever limits itself to the rules on paper.

Another idea about the greater good that I have can be supported with a quote from the Halo book First Strike:

from page 247

from page 336

What does that imply? It seems to me that trying to protect a civilization or a group of people cannot be done by killing some of them. And "knowing" that a summoned demon lord will kill everyone in that civilization........... well, that leads into another good point.

Is that absolute certainty? No. There is still a chance that he can be stopped, even after the summoning. Given that chance, why are you giving up on finding that slim hope? Hope is one of good's weapons. The faith that your effort, determination, and skill will be rewarded with victory, instead of saying "There's no way I can avoid doing evil, so I'll have to satisfy myself with doing as little evil as possible." We call that giving up on Good, not defending it. The first part of that statement, "there's no way I can avoid doing evil", is a prophecy that will come true, every time you say it. If you don't even try to avoid evil, then you will end up doing evil. A much more Good train of thought would be "I can't stop the summoning, unless I commit evil, which I refuse to do. I'd better find a way to kill or imprison the demon."

Also, thinking in terms of the greater good can lead to truly horrifying results. Committing evil when you know full well that you're committing evil and are only doing it in pursuit of some greater good is bad enough. Allowing yourself to believe that the evil act you're committing is actually good because of the ends it serves or because the alternative is evil is much, much worse. Either can be taken to the point where the foulest act is good. You can justify anything as good in that manner. After all, I need a powerful magic sword to help serve all of those innocents. Since they're rich, I'll kill or rob a quarter of them so that I can buy the sword and protect the rest from the goblin hordes. Is that Good?

Finally, I would like to present a situation. You're in a room with a bomb and the BBEG, who has already been made helpless in combat. Should this bomb go off, it will kill everyone in a city the size of Waterdeep, i.e. millions of people. You have 4 hours before it goes off. Your options:

1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.

I worry that using the greater good justification, a person could say, "Well, obviously it's best if everyone lives, including myself so I can spread more good around!" Except if he's going around torturing people, leaving them dead or broken, he's not really spreading Good. I fully believe that 3 is the most good that can come of that situation. Either option 3, or some other solution that I didn't think of.

What does everyone think?

I dunno. I personally feel that it's possible to be a realist (which is what would result in someone striving for the best chance at "the greater good," IMHO) and still be good aligned. I do think that it's a slippery slope... the moment you feel proud about allowing a minor evil to happen to prevent a bigger one, you're likely to become evil via mentality, even if your actions havn't really changed, but I don't think allowing harm to happen, or even doing some (minor) harm, automatically qualifise as an evil act if it (as has been said) serves the greater good.

That said, I think paladins, specifically, are a bit of a special case, since they're a class who specifically focuses not only on following the path of good, but having faith in its very concept. So if the paladin decides he'll need to perform a minor evil just to hedge his bets, then I think he's failing at being a paladin, even if he's not failing at being good.

Really, though, I've always been a bit dubious on D&D's allignment system, so that I havn't really been fully satisfide with any argument (save the possible argument that they're being tagged on by some unknown supreme based on whatever he happens to think "feels right" at the time), even the books themselves seem to be somewhat self contradictory... and your argument deffinetly does make some ammount of sense. So I dunno... you've got an interesting point.

[Lemur]

There are probably also other options, depending on the genre. Real life? There's no such thing as an inarguable BBEG and torture is unlikely to get you the right information.

As a token disagreement, I'd say that in real life, torture could potentially work. Meanwhile, in D&D, where there are definite bad guys, torture is unlikely to affect them at all. In either case, torture is not a good act.

In any case, I agree, "greater good" arguments don't hold up. Good is not quantifiable by the number of people saved. Utilitarianism is not a philosophy that paladins follow, rather, it's more the domain of certain breeds of antiheroes. If there are "Utilitarian Paladins" in existance, their requisite alignment is probably neutral.

The flip side of this is that a typical paladin generally doesn't need to worry about the long term consequences. He probably should worry about them anyway, but it's not strictly required. All he needs to do is prevent any evil in front of him from occuring as best he can. Even if the villain gets away to potentially do more evil, it's not worth sacrificing an innocent's life.

[martyboy74]

So does this mean that, in D&D, the means justify the end?

[NullAshton]

I believe that committing a minor evil to prevent a bigger evil would be neutral at best. The easy path is the dark side, thus to be good you might have to do a few difficult things. Hey, being the hero isn't supposed to be that easy?

That does put the paladin into a few situations where they lose their paladin status no matter what they do, though. That's why there's atonement, though.

[Divides]

I believe that committing a minor evil to prevent a bigger evil would be neutral at best. The easy path is the dark side, thus to be good you might have to do a few difficult things. Hey, being the hero isn't supposed to be that easy?


Well, I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between the "realistic expectations" and "the easy path." There are situations where there are, quite simply, no alternatives, no matter how much effort you're going to put into it, or where the odds are undeniable. Saying "I'll take that 90% chance of saving half the town over that 5% chance of saving all of it," doesn't mean you're being lazy per-se... it means you're not being much of an idealist, but that's not the same thing as being lazy.

[EvilElitest]

I dunno. I personally feel that it's possible to be a realist (which is what would result in someone striving for the best chance at "the greater good," IMHO) and still be good aligned. I do think that it's a slippery slope... the moment you feel proud about allowing a minor evil to happen to prevent a bigger one, you're likely to become evil via mentality, even if your actions havn't really changed, but I don't think allowing harm to happen, or even doing some (minor) harm, automatically qualifise as an evil act if it (as has been said) serves the greater good.

That said, I think paladins, specifically, are a bit of a special case, since they're a class who specifically focuses not only on following the path of good, but having faith in its very concept. So if the paladin decides he'll need to perform a minor evil just to hedge his bets, then I think he's failing at being a paladin, even if he's not failing at being good.

Really, though, I've always been a bit dubious on D&D's allignment system, so that I havn't really been fully satisfide with any argument (save the possible argument that they're being tagged on by some unknown supreme based on whatever he happens to think "feels right" at the time), even the books themselves seem to be somewhat self contradictory... and your argument deffinetly does make some ammount of sense. So I dunno... you've got an interesting point.

Intent is not the judge of aligment, actions are
from,
EE

[Kel_Arath]

what if its a situation where they have been captured by a demon, and you know that you cannat save them, but you could kill them to spare them from toture, still murder, but i would prefer it.

[Divides]

Intent is not the judge of aligment, actions are
from,
EE

Where's that written in the books?

Or, if that's just a statement of oppinion/interpretation, how's that follow?

Because, really, I've heard that before, but it's never really sat well with me...

[NullAshton]

Well, I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between the "realistic expectations" and "the easy path." There are situations where there are, quite simply, no alternatives, no matter how much effort you're going to put into it, or where the odds are undeniable. Saying "I'll take that 90% chance of saving half the town over that 5% chance of saving all of it," doesn't mean you're being lazy per-se... it means you're not being much of an idealist, but that's not the same thing as being lazy.

If you are in a situation where there are no alternatives, the 'good' path is to find an alternative. Good-aligned people, paladins and exalted people especially, should take the 5% chance of saving all of the town every single time.

[Divides]

If you are in a situation where there are no alternatives, the 'good' path is to find an alternative. Good-aligned people, paladins and exalted people especially, should take the 5% chance of saving all of the town every single time.

Perhaps. I'm still not convenced of that, but that's really beside what I was saying. My point is calling it "the easy path" is creating a strawman. Better odds does not always mean easier.

[Counterpower]

what if its a situation where they have been captured by a demon, and you know that you cannat save them, but you could kill them to spare them from toture, still murder, but i would prefer it.

That is a tricky situation, I admit. I would prefer if the paladin had the chance to talk to the upcoming victim and see if they actually wanted to keep living. Willing self-sacrifice is much better than murder. I also want to know exactly what "cannot save them" means.

If the 8th level paladin is standing next to the victim and a balor appears and announces his intent to take the victim, then I believe that the appropriate response from the paladin is "Over my dead body." That doesn't mean the paladin has to fight, only that the paladin should not allow the balor to take the victim, using whatever power he has, not kill the victim first. If the paladin is still standing after the balor is through with him (unlikely, but maybe our paladin has Diehard and/or rolled really well), then maybe a double sacrifice may be in order, but only after the paladin has received some kind of acknowledgement from the victim. Speaking is a free action, after all.

If, on the other hand, a paladin with a longbow is standing on a cliff 200ft. away and sees a balor kidnapping a victim............... then the issue is much more unclear. It seems to me that the paladin's first shot should be at the balor. With any luck, that will get his attention and distract him. Still, you may have a valid point. A little clarification about what exactly this situation is would be helpful.


If you are in a situation where there are no alternatives, the 'good' path is to find an alternative. Good-aligned people, paladins and exalted people especially, should take the 5% chance of saving all of the town every single time.

I agree wholeheartedly on the paladins and exalted people point. Part of what I'm saying is that any paladin should Fall for a evil act justified in the name of the greater good. And I do agree that this justification is not a good one for any good-aligned adventurer. Then again, I do not believe that this is an alignment-changing act. Sure, any Good character that commits evil with this justification repeatedly probably is better suited to a Neutral alignment. But they're not held to the "don't do it even once" standard that a paladin must abide by.


Perhaps. I'm still not convenced of that, but that's really beside what I was saying. My point is calling it "the easy path" is creating a strawman. Better odds does not always mean easier.

Of course not. I can see any paladin commiting evil for any reason to regret it deeply, and it certainly won't be an easy path for them. It's an easier path to one goal, but it subverts the paladin's primary goals in the process.

Edit: I do agree with you in some respect, Divides. That is, while actions are really what matters, intent can mitigate them to a minor extent. An evil act committed for good reasons is not good, but it's not the blackest evil that anyone can commit either. Still be good aligned? Maybe........ another case of being limited to only 9 alignments. I'd call a "realist" in the respect you referred to Neutral in the current system, though.

[Ulzgoroth]

Letting yourself die to spare the person responsible for the bomb torture...might very well be the good thing to do. But if in (3) you're also killing off bits of the city and countryside...still take the bomb away. But not to spare the BBEG torture. Either drag him with you to interrogate on the way (and guarantee that if anyone dies, he does) or have a friend back at the city running the interrogation and 'sending' you with the answer if it works.


So does this mean that, in D&D, the means justify the end?

This really encapsulates my entire view of the matter, if you add :smallconfused: :smallconfused: :smallfurious: on the end.

[PaladinBoy]

So does this mean that, in D&D, the means justify the end?

No. It means that if you use good methods and try to avert evil ends, you will generally be fine. Just because you only use good means does not excuse any evil that comes about through your actions. The thing to note there is through your actions, not anyone else's. It's a fine line, but if you try to stop the BBEG's plans, you are usually okay from a moral standpoint. Of course, you have to try your very hardest, up to and including sacrificing yourself if it will help. A half-hearted attempt isn't good. You need to use every Good tactic in your arsenal, and if all that fails, then you lose. Dust yourself off (or pray for a rez) and prepare better to nail the BBEG next time.

[Counterpower]

Letting yourself die to spare the person responsible for the bomb torture...might very well be the good thing to do. But if in (3) you're also killing off bits of the city and countryside...still take the bomb away. But not to spare the BBEG torture. Either drag him with you to interrogate on the way (and guarantee that if anyone dies, he does) or have a friend back at the city running the interrogation and 'sending' you with the answer if it works.

Well, as long as dragging the BBEG wouldn't slow you down, then that might be acceptable. Although if there was no other way, then I would prefer leaving the city with the bomb and alerting the proper authorities on the way to the BBEG's location so they could deal out justice, over taking him with me. That isn't to say that I believe taking him with you is the wrong thing to do, just that I don't really think I'd do that. I wouldn't punish even a paladin for taking the BBEG along with the bomb out of the city. Personally, I prefer the second option you provided, as long as you could trust that friend not to torture. Handing someone over to a torturer is no better than torturing them yourself.

[Takamari]

In my opinion and intrepretation of the paladin, I'm looking at gods warrior. Meaning, that the paladin upholds the ideals of his god, period. He is sworn to a code of conduct that is not debatable. He is the shining star, the knight in shining armor, the pinicle of good. In ancient egypt, his heart would be so pure and good that it would float while the feather falls to the ground.

Saying that the ends justify the means is the first step to the dark side. If you could cure all of the diseases in the world in an instant, but to do so you have to murder with your bare hands a newborn baby, would you do it? Well, curing all the diseases in the world would certianly be good...but would you be?

To judge a paladins behaviors, we need to look at basic right and wrong and commen sense. Mitigating circumstances are not part of a paladins vocabulary PERIOD. Is it right to torture the BBEG? No, it isn't and the paladin should not participate or allow it to happen. It doesn't matter what will happen to all the innocents. It was stated previously that yes, he saves the city, but then he becomes a torturer. Once someone crosses the lines, they will do it again.

However, the paladin also needs to follow the law. It states somewhere that paladins stress good before law, but they are still law-bound. Therefore if the law says that prostitutes are put to death, then the paladin follows the law. Here is where the water gets murkey for me. It isn't "good" to put a prostitute or anyone to death, but it just may be the rightful law of this land. What is the paladin to do? In my game world the lawful evil god is a perversion of the nature of alignment system. He fancies himself as a good god and has the ability to support lawful good paladins. His cities are the safest and most orderly, however, if you litter you get your hand chopped off on the spot, or if you lie your tongue is torn out...so he really isn't good-his ends of bad acts enable everyone to benafit from the greater good and justify his means...food for thought, no?

[EvilElitest]

Where's that written in the books?

Or, if that's just a statement of oppinion/interpretation, how's that follow?

Because, really, I've heard that before, but it's never really sat well with me...
A paladin can't commit an evil action every. Anywas
Intent is only the little brother to actions in morality. it only keeps evil people evil
A LG person can kill a baby for a "Good cause" but that does not excuse his killing of the baby.
A CE person can save a baby for his own personal reasons. The difference is that he is doing it with evil intent (belkar)
So good needs good intent and good actions
A hermit can sit in a cave doing nothing but think of ways to kill/rape people, but when given the chance he does not that proves him not evil, but certainly not good. Horray for neutral.
from,
EE

[Takamari]

Yes, a lawful good person can, but then he is not longer good, is he? What if that lawful good person was a paladin, since we are not debating people, but paladins.

[Counterpower]

In my opinion and intrepretation of the paladin, I'm looking at gods warrior. Meaning, that the paladin upholds the ideals of his god, period. He is sworn to a code of conduct that is not debatable. He is the shining star, the knight in shining armor, the pinicle of good. In ancient egypt, his heart would be so pure and good that it would float while the feather falls to the ground.

Saying that the ends justify the means is the first step to the dark side. If you could cure all of the diseases in the world in an instant, but to do so you have to murder with your bare hands a newborn baby, would you do it? Well, curing all the diseases in the world would certianly be good...but would you be?

To judge a paladins behaviors, we need to look at basic right and wrong and commen sense. Mitigating circumstances are not part of a paladins vocabulary PERIOD. Is it right to torture the BBEG? No, it isn't and the paladin should not participate or allow it to happen. It doesn't matter what will happen to all the innocents. It was stated previously that yes, he saves the city, but then he becomes a torturer. Once someone crosses the lines, they will do it again.

However, the paladin also needs to follow the law. It states somewhere that paladins stress good before law, but they are still law-bound. Therefore if the law says that prostitutes are put to death, then the paladin follows the law. Here is where the water gets murkey for me. It isn't "good" to put a prostitute or anyone to death, but it just may be the rightful law of this land. What is the paladin to do? In my game world the lawful evil god is a perversion of the nature of alignment system. He fancies himself as a good god and has the ability to support lawful good paladins. His cities are the safest and most orderly, however, if you litter you get your hand chopped off on the spot, or if you lie your tongue is torn out...so he really isn't good-his ends of bad acts enable everyone to benafit from the greater good and justify his means...food for thought, no?

Ah yes, the quandary over which is more important: law or good. Ironically enough, I saw a really interesting quote that adresses this situation while touring some colleges.


An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The paladin who breaks or otherwise opposes that law is not going against his lawful alignment, basically. I believe that is also supported by the Book of Exalted Deeds.

Edit: Another point that just jumped out at me: the person who casually discarded a scrap of parchment, not realizing the consequences, who has his hand chopped off, isn't really enjoying the greater good, is he? "Everyone" in that case isn't really everyone, because the people who were punished far beyond the severity of their crimes do count in considering whether everyone is benefiting.

Unless I've misunderstood your point. Which is a distinct possibility.

[Desaril]

I agree with Counter and Divides that Paladins and exalteds have a stricter code which they agree to follow. I don't think that LG = Paladin-like behavior. A LG rogue should have far more leeway than a LG paladin. Paladins (exalteds and some clerics) have a stricter code, but the books don't provide it, so the GM needs to create it and provide it to those characters.

Out-of-game, each gaming group is going to determine what constitutes LG, CG, NG, etc, in their world. In-game, each GM has to determine how morality (alignment) is determined/judged. Do the gods decide alignment? If so, the GM must determine each deities rules/regulations/expectations. Is it the church hierarchies? Then the GM should to do the same for the Bishop or High Priest, etc. That way every follower of the faith/belief/code has some idea of what is acceptable or unacceptable.

Therefore, what a LG character should do may be very different from what a paladin should do. What a paladin should do, depends on who is the judge of his actions. Most fantasy deities have personalities; they are not merely perfect embodiments of their alignment. Therefore, the paladin should probably do what his god would do and that would vary from deity to deity.

Lastly, we never have these questions in reverse. If an evil person saves a life, does he start becoming neutral. What about a chaotic who pays his taxes and follows a few rules? It seems that any variance from the pinnacle of goodness risks your alignment, but evil is not held to the same standard. If we did, in any realistic world, most beings would have a neutral alignment because no one can maintain the pinnacles of the extremes.

[Takamari]

I agree. In one of the games I was playing in, our party leader was, of course, our paladin. We were in a save the world game and the gods were fighting. Our goal was to awaken the over god, so to speak, the being that made the gods. We had the artifacts and abilities to do it, but the night before we made our move, we were set upon by 13 paladins of the OTHER lawful good god. She wanted to be the one to save the gods, so we needed to be eliminated. We agreed to single combat between our paladin and theirs where we got to heal our champion after each battle. One of the enemy paladins turned on his own and tore them down, being the big 18th level. It posed an interesting quandery of morality. The second they engaged us in combat, would they not be committing an "evil" act. Did our paladin commit an evil act by slaughtering other paladins or beheading the ones who refused to fight him?

[Ulzgoroth]

Handing someone over to a torturer is no better than torturing them yourself.

Very true...though I wouldn't object to either under the circumstances. But actually, I find that a strong point for my position (which, if you've missed it, is that ends are the only thing that actually matter).

Handing someone to a likely torturer is at best only a little better than torturing them yourself (because likely and certain aren't quite the same). You also claim that doing so is worse than potentially killing large numbers of people caught in this enormous bomb blast, though I disagree. So why is handing hundreds or thousands over to the dominion of a vicious demon-lord better than killing one person?

Apologies if I'm making a false assumption about how you'd react to the 'demon or baby' scenario...


No. It means that if you use good methods and try to avert evil ends, you will generally be fine. Just because you only use good means does not excuse any evil that comes about through your actions. The thing to note there is through your actions, not anyone else's.
If your actions could have prevented it, or could have been much better chosen to prevent it, how is that not coming about through your actions?

Also, compare and contrast with my sentence from Counterpower, which seems like basic common sense.

[Desaril]

@EE- we've crossed swords on this topic before and I'm sure we'll continue to disagree. But here we go:

If intent is not as important as action, what about someone who inadvertantly kills a baby and thereby cures a horrible plague. There is action (killing an innocent), but no intent (indavertance), and a good consequence (people are saved).

Likewise what about a person who intends to kill the baby (in order to stop the plague), but get's lost and the plague kills millions (but not the baby). Now you've got a good intent, no action, and a bad consequence (people die).

What about if the person intends to kill the baby (to stop it from crying which is really annoying), fails because someone rescues the baby, and the plague stops, becuase the baby lives (the prophecy or whatever was wrongly interpreted). Now you've got a selfish intent, an attempted bad action and a good result (both baby and people are saved).

I think it's impossible to measure morality without looking at intent, action and consequence.

[Counterpower]

Lastly, we never have these questions in reverse. If an evil person saves a life, does he start becoming neutral. What about a chaotic who pays his taxes and follows a few rules? It seems that any variance from the pinnacle of goodness risks your alignment, but evil is not held to the same standard. If we did, in any realistic world, most beings would have a neutral alignment because no one can maintain the pinnacles of the extremes.

Well, an evil character who saves a life, even for evil reasons....... the only situation this reminds me of is Star Wars: A New Hope. Han Solo continually insists that he's only helping the Rebellion for the promise of money. He says that several times and insists it's the truth. Then again, it ends up not being the truth. He finally comes back, for no reason other than to help.

No one act can change an alignment, not even for a paladin. An evil act by a paladin will cause said paladin to fall, but won't change his alignment to LE or even LN. Repeated evil acts will cause that alignment shift, however. The slide does work both ways, though. A CE character (or a CN in Han Solo's case) that helps others repeatedly, even if he insists that he's not doing this for good reasons, will shift to CG eventually, and probably realize in the process that there is a reason why he keeps doing good. Just as a LG character that commits evil repeatedly, even for good reasons, will eventually shift to LE.

[Takamari]

@
I think it's impossible to measure morality without looking at intent, action and consequence.

I agree with that as well. We also must look at what is considered bad to know what is good. There can be no good without evil because they are defined by each other.

With that in mind, we need to look at culture and religion. Maybe one culture believes that it is good to murder the losers of any conflict and take their women and children as their own. Now, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm almost sure that at least most americans believe this is wrong, maybe even evil. So, we need to allow that like beauty, good and evil is in the eye of the beholder. (NOT the monster!!! lol)

I doubt that everyone or even half of the people who frequent these boards could come to an agreement on this topic. I've seen so many paladin and morality threads that I want to scream at times. I would venture to say that the writers of D&D are probabily christian or at least raised that way, but are open minded...(I really mean no offense). So I would theorize that if we look at good and evil in a generally christian way, then we can begin to gauge good and evil. (Please understand that this is a thought. I was raised Lutheran but have no religious affiliations as an adult. I am not at all stating the superiority of any religion, just offering a thought based on reading the books and posts of others.)

EDIT: I mean to say that if we look at it that way, we may be able to see what D&D terms good and evil and why.

[Counterpower]

Very true...though I wouldn't object to either under the circumstances. But actually, I find that a strong point for my position (which, if you've missed it, is that ends are the only thing that actually matter).

Handing someone to a likely torturer is at best only a little better than torturing them yourself (because likely and certain aren't quite the same). You also claim that doing so is worse than potentially killing large numbers of people caught in this enormous bomb blast, though I disagree. So why is handing hundreds or thousands over to the dominion of a vicious demon-lord better than killing one person?

Apologies if I'm making a false assumption about how you'd react to the 'demon or baby' scenario...

It's not "better". In a way, I believe that is a false assumption about my reaction, although not entirely what you meant. I don't consider #1 or #2 to be better than the other. They both just suck. That said, there is almost always door #3. In the "demon and baby" scenario, the only options are not "kill the kid, save people" and "don't kill the kid, doom people". I consider "don't kill the kid, doom people" to be my scenario's door #1, as in "do nothing". I consider door #3 in that scenario to be "don't kill the kid, but fight like all **** to save the people anyway." Part of being good is supporting and having hope, as I said in my first post. Being hopeful that with your best effort and all of your skill, that there will be a door #3.

I like the way NullAshton put it: a paladin should always take the 5% chance of saving everyone without resorting to evil.


If your actions could have prevented it, or could have been much better chosen to prevent it, how is that not coming about through your actions?

Also, compare and contrast with my sentence from Counterpower, which seems like basic common sense.

That focuses on the person that decides to do evil as the source of that evil. The paladin who refuses to commit evil is not committing evil indirectly if his refusal to commit evil prevents him from taking actions that might help. The person responsible here is the person committing evil, not the paladin refusing to commit a willing evil act.

[PaladinBoy]

I agree. In one of the games I was playing in, our party leader was, of course, our paladin. We were in a save the world game and the gods were fighting. Our goal was to awaken the over god, so to speak, the being that made the gods. We had the artifacts and abilities to do it, but the night before we made our move, we were set upon by 13 paladins of the OTHER lawful good god. She wanted to be the one to save the gods, so we needed to be eliminated. We agreed to single combat between our paladin and theirs where we got to heal our champion after each battle. One of the enemy paladins turned on his own and tore them down, being the big 18th level. It posed an interesting quandery of morality. The second they engaged us in combat, would they not be committing an "evil" act. Did our paladin commit an evil act by slaughtering other paladins or beheading the ones who refused to fight him?

Interesting plot, particularly how paladins end up fighting each other. I would say that you would have to very carefully examine your motives for fighting another good person, and adjust your actions appropriately. If both side of the conflict are truly Good, then I don't believe there should ever be need for lethal force, as the fight is most likely due to a misunderstanding.


Handing someone to a likely torturer is at best only a little better than torturing them yourself (because likely and certain aren't quite the same). You also claim that doing so is worse than potentially killing large numbers of people caught in this enormous bomb blast, though I disagree. So why is handing hundreds or thousands over to the dominion of a vicious demon-lord better than killing one person?

Apologies if I'm making a false assumption about how you'd react to the 'demon or baby' scenario...

If you're referring to the paladins and morality thread, then I would say it's a little complicated. I would say that this scenario likely falls under the problem that we know all the details of this situation, where the paladin in the dilemma does not necessarily know everything. In fact, I would say that it's very likely that the paladin in the dilemma does not know everything.

I think the second quote from the Halo book in the OP best expresses that problem.


If your actions could have prevented it, or could have been much better chosen to prevent it, how is that not coming about through your actions?

Also, compare and contrast with my sentence from Counterpower, which seems like basic common sense.

It's a very fuzzy line as to who is to blame for a particular situation. Generally, I would say that if you try and fail to stop someone, then the event is happening despite your actions, not because of them.

For example, if you want to disarm the bomb, but the BBEG kills you in combat before you reach the bomb, are you evil for letting the people of the city die?

If you defeat the BBEG and try to carry the bomb out of the city before it explodes, but the bomb goes off prematurely and still kills hundreds of thousands of people, have you committed an evil act in letting them die?

[Desaril]

@takimari- I see your point. Someone will eventually point out that WOTC has defined the alignments. I think that each gaming group should sit down and discuss those suggestions as fits their culture/religion/etc. I then think the GM should do the same for each deity (and then tell the players).

I'm not suggesting that real-world morality is relative and WE can choose what is right or wrong. I'm saying that in a game setting, you should becuase it avoids conflicts.

[EvilElitest]

@EE- we've crossed swords on this topic before and I'm sure we'll continue to disagree. But here we go:

Fine by me, i'm a fencer, crossing swords is what i do


If intent is not as important as action, what about someone who inadvertantly kills a baby and thereby cures a horrible plague. There is action (killing an innocent), but no intent (indavertance), and a good consequence (people are saved).
The action is an acident, and you can't be redeemed or fall via accident. The action is "Acidently killing a baby". I would not say he/she is evil, but not good ether. If they are good, they might want to res the thing.


Likewise what about a person who intends to kill the baby (in order to stop the plague), but get's lost and the plague kills millions (but not the baby). Now you've got a good intent, no action, and a bad consequence (people die).
His action is whatever he did that got him lost. He could remain LG until he kill the baby, but then evil action. Might stay LG but he would not be a paladin. Anyways, not real moral action, because i could intent to kill my neighbors all night and no nothing and i don't think i would be evil


What about if the person intends to kill the baby (to stop it from crying which is really annoying), fails because someone rescues the baby, and the plague stops, becuase the baby lives (the prophecy or whatever was wrongly interpreted). Now you've got a selfish intent, an attempted bad action and a good result (both baby and people are saved).
Ok action "Attempted murder" is evil. The fact the result is good is irrelevant.
1. The evil guy did not know that at the time
2. Ends dont' justify the means, as counter powers stated


I think it's impossible to measure morality without looking at intent, action and consequence.
Action comes first and formost. Intents is around, but not nearly as inmportatn. COnsequence varies
from,
EE

[Douglas]

However, the paladin also needs to follow the law. It states somewhere that paladins stress good before law, but they are still law-bound. Therefore if the law says that prostitutes are put to death, then the paladin follows the law. Here is where the water gets murkey for me. It isn't "good" to put a prostitute or anyone to death, but it just may be the rightful law of this land. What is the paladin to do? In my game world the lawful evil god is a perversion of the nature of alignment system. He fancies himself as a good god and has the ability to support lawful good paladins. His cities are the safest and most orderly, however, if you litter you get your hand chopped off on the spot, or if you lie your tongue is torn out...so he really isn't good-his ends of bad acts enable everyone to benafit from the greater good and justify his means...food for thought, no?
One of the classic alignment mistakes: Lawful alignment does not have anything to do with the laws of the land. In discussions of alignment, the term "order" is much more appropriate than "law". A paladin must follow his code, but that code does not have to agree with the laws of any country. RAW, a standard paladin of this god would either go against his own church or fall almost immediately because legality does not override good and evil and any evil act causes the paladin to fall.

Finally, I would like to present a situation. You're in a room with a bomb and the BBEG, who has already been made helpless in combat. Should this bomb go off, it will kill everyone in a city the size of Waterdeep, i.e. millions of people. You have 4 hours before it goes off. Your options:

1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.
Option 3 but only as a last resort. First, point out to the BBEG that if the bomb goes off he'll die too. If necessary, promise him that he will not be executed for his crimes if he tells you how to disarm the bomb. If he remains obstinate, inform the city leaders and see if they have access to any divination spells/abilities that might either read the BBEG's mind for the information or discover it independently somehow. Failing that, ask for anything they can do to speed up your trip (ideally someone who can teleport, preferably both ways). If the means you end up using to remove the bomb from the city can take the BBEG along with you without slowing you down, do so and hope he changes his mind before it blows up. If forced to flee overland for lack of better alternatives, have the city leaders organize as much of an evacuation in the opposite direction as they can.

[Ulzgoroth]

It's not "better". In a way, I believe that is a false assumption about my reaction, although not entirely what you meant. I don't consider #1 or #2 to be better than the other. They both just suck. That said, there is almost always door #3. In the "demon and baby" scenario, the only options are not "kill the kid, save people" and "don't kill the kid, doom people". I consider "don't kill the kid, doom people" to be my scenario's door #1, as in "do nothing". I consider door #3 in that scenario to be "don't kill the kid, but fight like all **** to save the people anyway." Part of being good is supporting and having hope, as I said in my first post. Being hopeful that with your best effort and all of your skill, that there will be a door #3.
But in the demon or baby scenario, as someone put it, there really isn't a credible hope. As someone put it, the demon really doesn't even have a CR...it's sufficiently powerful to make you a speed bump, and you don't have time to run and gather help. Sure, you probably have a nonzero chance to hinder it (though maybe not, if it's got Blasphemy or something), but even 5% is purely in your imagination.


I like the way NullAshton put it: a paladin should always take the 5% chance of saving everyone without resorting to evil.
So in your setup, shouldn't you actually go for option D: Bash the bomb against the floor over and over again in hopes of spontaneously disarming it? That way there's (probably) some chance that no one at all will be harmed. Better than any of A, B, and C, then?


That focuses on the person that decides to do evil as the source of that evil. The paladin who refuses to commit evil is not committing evil indirectly if his refusal to commit evil prevents him from taking actions that might help. The person responsible here is the person committing evil, not the paladin refusing to commit a willing evil act.
If the preventative action were non-evil, wouldn't you not be responsible for not doing it? The action being less good doesn't make you less responsible...it just makes deciding against it better (or less bad).

[Takamari]

This is one of those can of worms topics. Debating morality is interesting. I've heard a great deal of different takes on these situations. Some I don't view as good, but not evil. I doubt that anyone here is anything other than a good person.

This leads me to conclude that morality and views of right and wrong differ greatly from person to person. I think that wizards needs to come out with the paladin code...exactly define what is acceptable and what is no.

The Gods of WotC say that a paladin shall under no circumstance kill babies. A paladin must never do any action that causes direct harm to any innocent bystanders to an altercation. A paladin my only kill an enemy that has attacked him, his party, or that he has seen attack an innocent. This extends to any fugatives that have been found guilty by a court of law and have been sentenced.

I'm not saying I'm one to do this, since I've proven myself to be a good, but not good person in the past, but I think it would help clarify things greatly.

[Ulzgoroth]

Interesting plot, particularly how paladins end up fighting each other. I would say that you would have to very carefully examine your motives for fighting another good person, and adjust your actions appropriately. If both side of the conflict are truly Good, then I don't believe there should ever be need for lethal force, as the fight is most likely due to a misunderstanding.
As described it doesn't sound like they have a good reason for it to come to that ('no, you can't save the world, I want to!'). But what if each group was convinced that they knew the right way to do things, and that the other group's way would be disastrous? If persuasion fails (because they trust different sources of information, say) and more information isn't available, each group 'knows' it has to save the world from the other...despite the other's lack of bad intentions.


If you're referring to the paladins and morality thread, then I would say it's a little complicated. I would say that this scenario likely falls under the problem that we know all the details of this situation, where the paladin in the dilemma does not necessarily know everything. In fact, I would say that it's very likely that the paladin in the dilemma does not know everything.

I think the second quote from the Halo book in the OP best expresses that problem.
The paladin only has any need to know three things, as far as I can see:
1) The demon is enormously more powerful than he is when first summoned.
2) The demon will try to destroy and/or dominate the region if it comes through, and has the power to do so.
3) The summoning will be prevented if the baby is killed. At this point any other action he can take will allow the demon to arrive within some short period.

Without 2, the paladin probably wouldn't even be here. If the party did its homework they might well already know 1 and 3 also.


It's a very fuzzy line as to who is to blame for a particular situation. Generally, I would say that if you try and fail to stop someone, then the event is happening despite your actions, not because of them.

For example, if you want to disarm the bomb, but the BBEG kills you in combat before you reach the bomb, are you evil for letting the people of the city die?

If you defeat the BBEG and try to carry the bomb out of the city before it explodes, but the bomb goes off prematurely and still kills hundreds of thousands of people, have you committed an evil act in letting them die?
Was there something you could have done to make it less likely the BBEG would beat you, but chose not to? Was there some way you could have gotten the bomb out faster or more safely, but chose not to take? If so, then what happened is partly because of your choices. Even then you may have done the right thing...if it would have been marginally more likely that you could have saved the city by catapulting babies at the BBEG as a diversion, chances are not doing so was still the right choice even if everyone, babies included, ends up dying because you didn't.

If every choice you made was optimized for the best chance of stopping the bomb, then you can say that it happened entirely despite your decisions.

[Gralamin]

I've seen this idea in several different places: that a paladin committing an evil act is justified if the alternative is some much greater evil, especially lots of people dying. I just want to put forth my view on that and spark what will no doubt be an interesting debate.

My view: No paladin is ever justified in that. Period.

I've seen similar ideas in all sorts of different places. The first and most obvious is the Book of Exalted Deeds. It unequivocally states that the ends do not justify the means. But that can't be the final word. No D&D campaign ever limits itself to the rules on paper.

Another idea about the greater good that I have can be supported with a quote from the Halo book First Strike:

from page 247

from page 336

What does that imply? It seems to me that trying to protect a civilization or a group of people cannot be done by killing some of them. And "knowing" that a summoned demon lord will kill everyone in that civilization........... well, that leads into another good point.

Is that absolute certainty? No. There is still a chance that he can be stopped, even after the summoning. Given that chance, why are you giving up on finding that slim hope? Hope is one of good's weapons. The faith that your effort, determination, and skill will be rewarded with victory, instead of saying "There's no way I can avoid doing evil, so I'll have to satisfy myself with doing as little evil as possible." We call that giving up on Good, not defending it. The first part of that statement, "there's no way I can avoid doing evil", is a prophecy that will come true, every time you say it. If you don't even try to avoid evil, then you will end up doing evil. A much more Good train of thought would be "I can't stop the summoning, unless I commit evil, which I refuse to do. I'd better find a way to kill or imprison the demon."

Also, thinking in terms of the greater good can lead to truly horrifying results. Committing evil when you know full well that you're committing evil and are only doing it in pursuit of some greater good is bad enough. Allowing yourself to believe that the evil act you're committing is actually good because of the ends it serves or because the alternative is evil is much, much worse. Either can be taken to the point where the foulest act is good. You can justify anything as good in that manner. After all, I need a powerful magic sword to help serve all of those innocents. Since they're rich, I'll kill or rob a quarter of them so that I can buy the sword and protect the rest from the goblin hordes. Is that Good?

Finally, I would like to present a situation. You're in a room with a bomb and the BBEG, who has already been made helpless in combat. Should this bomb go off, it will kill everyone in a city the size of Waterdeep, i.e. millions of people. You have 4 hours before it goes off. Your options:

1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.

I worry that using the greater good justification, a person could say, "Well, obviously it's best if everyone lives, including myself so I can spread more good around!" Except if he's going around torturing people, leaving them dead or broken, he's not really spreading Good. I fully believe that 3 is the most good that can come of that situation. Either option 3, or some other solution that I didn't think of.

What does everyone think?

Tell me Counterpower, If you believe one should risk A lot of others life, in attempt to save everyone (As the Demon Example), then Why aren't you just trying to disarm the bomb? If you screw up everyones dead, same as the Demon Example. I would like for you to explain how this situation is different.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Four hours? Waterdeep has catapults. I'm sure you can convince some of the soldiers near the gates to the city to lend you one when you're carting around what's apparently a nuclear-freaking-bomb. Get as far away as possible with the bomb and the catapult, then send it that extra distance by way of the Long Arm of Justice.

Paladins should consider every option and always take the best route for everyone. He's not suicidal, he's not going to jump straight to any bloodthirsty tactics, and he's not going to start breaking his honor at the drop of a hat. Most paladins have fair wisdom scores. They ought to use it.

[Ulzgoroth]

Four hours? Waterdeep has catapults. I'm sure you can convince some of the soldiers near the gates to the city to lend you one when you're carting around what's apparently a nuclear-freaking-bomb. Get as far away as possible with the bomb and the catapult, then send it that extra distance by way of the Long Arm of Justice.
Cute, but if it doesn't weigh too much for your mount (or a horse) to carry you could probably buy more distance by galloping on horseback instead of dragging around a big siege engine. And considering that thousands are still going to die if you get the bomb 4 hours away from the city, a catapult certainly isn't going to save you.

Though putting the bomb on your mount, if you have one, and telling it to get as far away as possible might be an improvement over taking it yourself...saving your own life can't be a bad thing if the mount was going to be carrying you and the bomb both otherwise. (Though I don't want to subvert the problem, for a slightly abusive escape, load the bomb on your mount and dismiss it. When it returns to the celestial realms, someone will surely be able to deal with the problem...by plane-shifting the bomb to the Abyss if nothing else.)

[Takamari]

LMAO!!! Though by doing that you run the risk of that solar coming down and patiently staring at you while tapping a foot!!!

[Gralamin]

LMAO!!! Though by doing that you run the risk of that solar coming down and patiently staring at you while tapping a foot!!!

Solar: Now Mr. Smitealot, thats the third time this week...

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Wait, what am I doing? I forgot, the setting is Faerun. The answer is to find a wizard, leave it on his front doorstep, and play ding-dong-ditch. He'll just teleport it away or something.

[Douglas]

The easy way to get around encumbrance problems for carrying loot back to with with a paladin in the party: it's the Port-a-Mount™. Load up your mount with the entire pile of loot, even if the poor creature can't even stand up with all the weight, dismiss it, go to town, and summon it again. Your faithful mount will reappear completely unharmed by the ordeal with all your loot still on its back.

[Takamari]

See, that wouldn't work in my games or for any of the DMs that I play with. If you abuse your celestial mount, your mount leaves you. Or, again, you summon your mount and are confronted by the celestial riding your mount who abjects to your treatment of such a fine creature.

[Fhaolan]

Just as a comment in general.

I think a paladin should be able to choose the lesser or two evils when he has no choice but one evil or the other. He'll fall, but that's what atonement is for.

However, I don't play in games where that kind of gray-area situation comes up on a regular enough basis to make this a big deal. For the same reason I don't do goth dark emo fantasy or Word of Darkness games.

I deal with enough gray-area situations and dark emo goth junk in my real life day after day after day. I don't need to deal with it as part of my recreation. I play RPGs so I can have Good versus Evil, and maybe even have Good win sometimes. I get seriously tired of Relativism and those people who are bound and determined to prove that there is no such thing as Good or Evil, that there's just different degrees of self-interest.

Sure, you can arrange your games so that Paladins can't exist. The second one comes into existance, you can devote your entire power as DM to make them fall. If that's how you get your kicks, or how you want your campaign world to work, that's your choice. It's just not the kind of game I want to play in.

[PaladinBoy]

But in the demon or baby scenario, as someone put it, there really isn't a credible hope. As someone put it, the demon really doesn't even have a CR...it's sufficiently powerful to make you a speed bump, and you don't have time to run and gather help. Sure, you probably have a nonzero chance to hinder it (though maybe not, if it's got Blasphemy or something), but even 5% is purely in your imagination.

I'm not sure how high the chance would be that the paladin knows exactly how powerful the demon is. Knowing only that he's "really powerful" doesn't imply that he's powerful enough to make you a speed bump. Therefore, a paladin that chose to try and stop the demon wouldn't be penalized because he had no way of figuring out how powerful the demon was.

That principle applies in general....... if you don't have the proper information to determine how bad the chances of success are and have no way to find out, then a reasonable chance of success is sufficient. Going for the most good option possible is not good if the chance of success that the paladin can determine is so low as to be practically impossible. If the chance that you can determine is unlikely but possible, then it becomes good.


So in your setup, shouldn't you actually go for option D: Bash the bomb against the floor over and over again in hopes of spontaneously disarming it? That way there's (probably) some chance that no one at all will be harmed. Better than any of A, B, and C, then?

Does the paladin have any reason to suspect that that will work? If it has a good chance of working, then he can try it. I would be careful with that, though, as there is a chance that it will go off because you're tampering with it. It depends on how high the chance is that disarming the bomb that way will work.


If the preventative action were non-evil, wouldn't you not be responsible for not doing it? The action being less good doesn't make you less responsible...it just makes deciding against it better (or less bad).

Yes, if the action was non-evil, then you would be held responsible for not doing it. However, this does not extend to evil actions. So long as you have a Good alternative with a reasonable chance of success if you try hard enough, then you should do that. It is better than an evil act done willingly which has a higher chance.


As described it doesn't sound like they have a good reason for it to come to that ('no, you can't save the world, I want to!'). But what if each group was convinced that they knew the right way to do things, and that the other group's way would be disastrous? If persuasion fails (because they trust different sources of information, say) and more information isn't available, each group 'knows' it has to save the world from the other...despite the other's lack of bad intentions.

Then they're either misinformed about their own or the others' methods (misguided) or lying about their own method (not truly Good). So resorting to lethal force would basically be killing someone because they haven't been given the same information you have. I wouldn't say that that's justified.


The paladin only has any need to know three things, as far as I can see:
1) The demon is enormously more powerful than he is when first summoned.
2) The demon will try to destroy and/or dominate the region if it comes through, and has the power to do so.
3) The summoning will be prevented if the baby is killed. At this point any other action he can take will allow the demon to arrive within some short period.

Without 2, the paladin probably wouldn't even be here. If the party did its homework they might well already know 1 and 3 also.

See, I don't know about their chances for 1 and 3. How do they know the details of the summoning ritual or the power level of the demon beyond "enormously powerful"?



Was there something you could have done to make it less likely the BBEG would beat you, but chose not to? Was there some way you could have gotten the bomb out faster or more safely, but chose not to take? If so, then what happened is partly because of your choices. Even then you may have done the right thing...if it would have been marginally more likely that you could have saved the city by catapulting babies at the BBEG as a diversion, chances are not doing so was still the right choice even if everyone, babies included, ends up dying because you didn't.

If every choice you made was optimized for the best chance of stopping the bomb, then you can say that it happened entirely despite your decisions.

I presume, of course, that if I say that I did try for the best chance among the Good options, then you'll say I'm ignoring the Evil options.

I think that if you have a reasonable chance of succeeding, and the Good options you've chosen are the best ones, then that's all you need........ to know that the Good methods you have chosen are possible. Then you do everything you can to turn that possibility into reality. If you fail, then it happened despite your actions....... you work to atone for your failure (whether actual atonement is necessary or not) and improve your skills so it will never happen again.


Tell me Counterpower, If you believe one should risk A lot of others life, in attempt to save everyone (As the Demon Example), then Why aren't you just trying to disarm the bomb? If you screw up everyones dead, same as the Demon Example. I would like for you to explain how this situation is different.

I don't know about Counterpower, but in the bomb situation, I would say that the chance of disarming the bomb is sufficeintly low not to risk it, particularly if you know that you can get far eough out of the city to save a lot of people in the 4 hours you have. In the demon example, there's not much of a choice, and I think that a paladin in that situation would believe the chance of victory to be higher than it actually is. I don't believe he would be morally responsible for that if there was no way he could have known any better.

[EvilElitest]

Cute, but if it doesn't weigh too much for your mount (or a horse) to carry you could probably buy more distance by galloping on horseback instead of dragging around a big siege engine. And considering that thousands are still going to die if you get the bomb 4 hours away from the city, a catapult certainly isn't going to save you.

Though putting the bomb on your mount, if you have one, and telling it to get as far away as possible might be an improvement over taking it yourself...saving your own life can't be a bad thing if the mount was going to be carrying you and the bomb both otherwise. (Though I don't want to subvert the problem, for a slightly abusive escape, load the bomb on your mount and dismiss it. When it returns to the celestial realms, someone will surely be able to deal with the problem...by plane-shifting the bomb to the Abyss if nothing else.)

Water gate is a coastal city, use a catapult with some kind of range spell cast on it to send the bomb flying into teh sea. Then spend four hours getting everyone out of the dock area
Put the catapult onto a really high tower on the sea wall,
If you are really worried, sent the paladin in with the bomb, have him swim as far as he can get before allowing hte bomb to sink. Also have three potions, a potion of fly, haste and breath water
shoot the paladin, who drinks potion in mid-air, then flies as far as he can before falling into water, drinks potion of haste as flying to fly faster, then swims as fast as he/she can. Once he fails a swim check and a drow check (no armor mind you just bomb) he then drinks potion of breath water to swim as far and as deep as he can go. Once it wears off, he swims as far as his hit points allow then float up to hte surface. The bomb will sink for a few hours, them boom

from,
EE

[PaladinBoy]

Not sure about that idea to deal with the bomb situation. The only problem is the threat of a tsunami either striking Waterdeep or somewhere else bordering the Sword Coast. That would not be good. Although, I think that most paladins in the Forgotten Realms would have no clue what a tsunami is anyway.

If I had a DM who made me fall because I tried that and he then says, "Alright, you created a tsunami which wiped out half a dozen villages in the Moonshaes, so you are now an evil murderer." I would accuse him of being overly sadistic and cruel, I think. It's only reasonable if the paladin knew about tsunamis (which type of Knowledge check would that be?) and the risk he was creating.

[EvilElitest]

Not sure about that idea to deal with the bomb situation. The only problem is the threat of a tsunami either striking Waterdeep or somewhere else bordering the Sword Coast. That would not be good. Although, I think that most paladins in the Forgotten Realms would have no clue what a tsunami is anyway.

If I had a DM who made me fall because I tried that and he then says, "Alright, you created a tsunami which wiped out half a dozen villages in the Moonshaes, so you are now an evil murderer." I would accuse him of being overly sadistic and cruel, I think. It's only reasonable if the paladin knew about tsunamis (which type of Knowledge check would that be?) and the risk he was creating.

I don't make paladin's fall for accidents. A druid might for causing disruption to the natrual order, but only if he knew. If i bump into a trip wire in my own home and in doing so cause the death's of my friends via evil trap, am i evil? No. If i did it knowing that it would cause the deaths of my friends, then yes
from,
EE

[Foeofthelance]

That's the problem with the bomb example. It isn't restrictive enough, whereas the Demon problem was. (In regards to the above question about how the paladin knew what he knew, there were scrolls read, cult priests interrogated, and the demon had done it before. On top of that the Paladin isn't at his top form, he's just battled through an army of cultists, who were sufficient to disable the rest of the party.)

What I don't understand is why people feel a Paladin should be so Lawfully Good that he ends up being stupid. If a paladin is forced into two evil choices he shouldn't be required to either fall or stand there and be inactive as he watches a greater evil take place. He should be allowed the lesser option. In the bomb example I say he runs it out of town as fast as he can, using what ever means is capable of getting it the farthest. (Actually IIRC Kelban Blackstaff lives in the Waterdeep, take it to him, especially if there's four hours left to detonation. Even if he isn't at home one of his servants should be able to reach him, or Elminister, or Alustriel, or...) But the demon example? The only guarenteed way to save the most innocents is to slay the child. Standing there and letting the demon through makes the paladin responsible for the pain, suffering, and death of anyone the demon harms after the demon gets done eating the paladin. To me, that is the greater evil, and one which the paladin is responsible for.

I have said before that the ends does not always justify the means, but when the ends is the greater good of a population of people, and the means is the sacrifice of a single life, no matter whose life it be, then in that case the ends does justify the means. Looking for the best option is well and good, but when the only options are bad ones you are still left with a bad choice to make. Standing there and going "Well, that isn't something I should do, so even though a whole lot of people are going to suffer for my inaction, I'm not going to do anything," just strikes me of nothing but pride and arrogance. A paladin is supposed to protect people. When presented with a choice between saving one person or one hndred people, he should choose the one hundred.

[NullAshton]

I still believe that in the baby being used to summon a demon, the baby should not be harmed at all, and the paladin should try to stop the person summoning the demon... there is a chance.

There is a certain limit to things like that, though. Mindlessly bashing the bomb would not work, because anyone with half a brain knows that the odds are something like a million to one that it would actually disarm the bomb. Else the bomb simply goes off early.

As for the demon example... the paladin has no choice. If he stops the summoning by killing the baby, he'll be killing an innocent person, which is an evil act. He should strive for the possibility that involves indirectly harming innocents over directly harming innocents. By either killing the demon, killing the person summoning the demon, or somehow interfering with the summoning ritual without killing the baby.

[Counterpower]

That's the problem with the bomb example. It isn't restrictive enough, whereas the Demon problem was. (In regards to the above question about how the paladin knew what he knew, there were scrolls read, cult priests interrogated, and the demon had done it before. On top of that the Paladin isn't at his top form, he's just battled through an army of cultists, who were sufficient to disable the rest of the party.)

What I don't understand is why people feel a Paladin should be so Lawfully Good that he ends up being stupid. If a paladin is forced into two evil choices he shouldn't be required to either fall or stand there and be inactive as he watches a greater evil take place. He should be allowed the lesser option. In the bomb example I say he runs it out of town as fast as he can, using what ever means is capable of getting it the farthest. (Actually IIRC Kelban Blackstaff lives in the Waterdeep, take it to him, especially if there's four hours left to detonation. Even if he isn't at home one of his servants should be able to reach him, or Elminister, or Alustriel, or...) But the demon example? The only guarenteed way to save the most innocents is to slay the child. Standing there and letting the demon through makes the paladin responsible for the pain, suffering, and death of anyone the demon harms after the demon gets done eating the paladin. To me, that is the greater evil, and one which the paladin is responsible for.

You do have a point, I admit. But. "The demon had done it before." Well, considering the point of killing the baby is to prevent this demon from coming back.......... what stopped him the first time? I can only speak for myself, but if I had researched this ritual and this demon to the point where I knew, beyond any doubt, that the ritual could only be stopped after a certain point by killing an innocent baby, I think I would have tried to find the method by which he was defeated the first time. My only problem is that you're blaming the actions of a bunch of cultists and a mighty demon lord on a paladin. Why? If the paladin has done everything his morals and his god will allow him to do, literally everything in his power that does not involve sacrificing his moral code, what more can we expect?

Another note, similar to that point. Why would one sacrifice their morals in any case? I agree that the lives of these people are important. Even one life is one of the most valuable, important things in existence. That said, it is not the most. Freedom. Justice. Those are the two that most readily spring to my mind: those things that literally tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people have recognized as more important than their own lives. There are causes that people have readily given their lives for. Causes, most often wars, that people have willingly said were more important than life. That is what I mean when I say that Good is not a math game, is not a matter of how many lives are saved. That is a point that I can hardly believe I forgot when writing my OP. There are causes, ideals, and morals that are far more important than lives.


I have said before that the ends does not always justify the means, but when the ends is the greater good of a population of people, and the means is the sacrifice of a single life, no matter whose life it be, then in that case the ends does justify the means. Looking for the best option is well and good, but when the only options are bad ones you are still left with a bad choice to make. Standing there and going "Well, that isn't something I should do, so even though a whole lot of people are going to suffer for my inaction, I'm not going to do anything," just strikes me of nothing but pride and arrogance. A paladin is supposed to protect people. When presented with a choice between saving one person or one hndred people, he should choose the one hundred.

Refer to above. The choice very quickly balances the other way when it's "the ideals of Good and one life" versus "one hundred lives". And "inaction" is still incorrect. I will no doubt say this many more times, and I already have said this too many times. Inaction would be evil in this case. It is refusing to surrender, and continuing to fight with the tools a paladin is given (as in, only Good courses of action) even when all hope should be gone.

NullAshton, you really hit the nail on the head, so to speak. Any true paladin can't even consider an Evil option as a valid choice. Trying to interrupt the ritual in any way possible without evil, or fight the demon after the ritual and hope that there is still a chance.

[Foeofthelance]

There are causes, ideals, and morals that are far more important than lives.


See this is where we will probably always disagree. I believe the inverse is true. That lives are more important then any ideal or moral, which only makes those that people choose to die for all the more important.

[EvilElitest]

See this is where we will probably always disagree. I believe the inverse is true. That lives are more important then any ideal or moral, which only makes those that people choose to die for all the more important.

Then apperenlty you would not be a paladin, at least with those morals
from,
EE

[Foeofthelance]

Why not? I am setting out to protect as many people as I possibly can. If it was possible to save the child, then I would. If I can make a person's life better, I would. I would heal the sick. I would help those in need. I would defend the defenseless. But because I can accept that there are times when all the options are bad, and because I am willing to acknowledge my limits, and so I operate to the maximum with in them, I could not be a paladin? Because I would rather have the cost of one life on my concience rather then a thousand?

I have honor. I have pride. But if I am a paladin, then I also have a duty. And that duty comes before my honor, or my pride. In doing that duty, I have to acknowledge one thing: My actions are my own, as are their consequences. I can expect help from no one, though many will offer their aid, and it will be gladly accepted. There is no 5% chance of victory. There is a 5% chance I may score a critical hit, but to strike down evil in a singleblow? The chances of that are far, far slimmer. Hope is one thing. But blind faith is, to me, folly.

[Counterpower]

See this is where we will probably always disagree. I believe the inverse is true. That lives are more important then any ideal or moral, which only makes those that people choose to die for all the more important.

Except you may have sabotaged your own argument. You yourself said that the morals that people die for are made more important. I understand what you're saying. But if lives are more important than any ideal, then why should we all not just focus on preserving our lives? Why not ignore morality in favor of staying alive? Wouldn't our safety and health be better preserved by no Bill of Rights at all, or a much more limited one? We'd be very safe, and have an excellent chance of staying alive, if every person who committed a crime was put in prison for the rest of their life. They'd be alive too, even. If lives are more important, why don't we just do that? Haven't there been, and aren't there literally now, thousands of people who are called upon to put their lives on the line to protect an ideal?

Unfortunately, I would also have to agree with EE that I don't really think that makes a good paladin. You refer repeatedly to your duty. Well, I believe that a paladin's duty is to fight for good. For justice, freedom, and all of those other ideals that makes life even more important. You must be willing to sacrifice your life for an ideal. And if your actions are your own, then I do not understand why you are blaming yourself for the depraved actions of others. I would also like to say that one of the "limits" you refer to is a limit on what choices you can consider. And a paladin must acknowledge that the most important limit on his actions is the restriction on doing Evil.

You say that you would rather have to cost of one life on your conscience. But what was that life spent for? Why would you sacrifice a life, AND your morals?

Edit: Unfortunately, I have to go to bed. I'll have to wait until tomorrow to see anyone's response.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

It's D&D, there's always a good loophole. Kill the baby, then work towards finding a cleric and the necessary materials for a ressurect spell. Because it's been made too black and white to do anything else, this is the best answer of two rotten answers. Then, you leave the group because your DM purposely railroaded you into making a sick and twisted choice with the apparent intention of punishing you.

[EvilElitest]

Why not? I am setting out to protect as many people as I possibly can.

But to be good you need more than that, you need to be as "Good as possible" and that involves not commiting evil.

If it was possible to save the child, then I would. If I can make a person's life better, I would. I would heal the sick. I would help those in need. I would defend the defenseless. But because I can accept that there are times when all the options are bad, and because I am willing to acknowledge my limits, and so I operate to the maximum with in them, I could not be a paladin?
And by doing so you ruin the very basic prinible of good, or at least the paladin's code. The code is not something you can shrug off when it is least convient, because it means more than that. By not following your own code, as in not commiting evil, you are spoiling the very thing you fight for.

Because I would rather have the cost of one life on my concience rather then a thousand?
"Ends justfies the means"
Sounds like something Light from Death Note would say
That is a defeatist argument and to accept that is to accept that good is weaker than evil. How does that make you a paladin. And i don't mean weaker in raw power, i mean weaker in priniciple. And by doing that you are tainting good.
I
have honor. I have pride. But if I am a paladin, then I also have a duty. And that duty comes before my honor, or my pride. In doing that duty, I have to acknowledge one thing: My actions are my own,
You actions are your own, but they can't go against you duty, to not commit evil. You are not to give evil any lee way, any victory no matter how minor, no toleration, nothing. You are a soilder not only of the battle field, but morals as well. By allowing your self to commit evil, you have given evil a victory. Remember, evil as a force is infinitly intellegent. I don't think the "Greater evil" you stopped by commiting a lesser one will keep evil at bay. It will now use a new scheme, corruption of you. You've given it a weapon.

as are their consequences. I can expect help from no one, though many will offer their aid, and it will be gladly accepted. There is no 5% chance of victory. There is a 5% chance I may score a critical hit, but to strike down evil in a singleblow? The chances of that are far, far slimmer. Hope is one thing. But blind faith is, to me, folly.
And zealotry is to me folly. As is hypricisy. As is weakness of morals. If you follow "ends justfies the means" then don't be a paladin. A paladin relys on hope as well as not hurting the innocent. Stick to LN
Nicly put counter power

from,
EE

[my_evil_twin]

I don't expect to change anybody's mind with my own alignment opinion. I've seen too many paladin threads to think that. But here's what I think, in case anyone cares.

A LG character can compromise his morals. There is no one LG answer to any dilemma, as long as the character does what they think is good in accordance with some lawful system.

Paladins are different. Paladins are held to a higher standard, one of absolutes. They are called to be paragons of courage and virtue, not only forces for good in the world but examples for everyone else.

I imagine paladins are very into the categorical imperative. What matters most is how they respond to a situation, not whether it works.

A paladin's calling is, often as not, to fail inspiringly. Let it be said in every tavern and thieves' den across the planes that a paladin died--even failed--by holding to his ideals, but let it never be thought that a paladin compromised his virtue.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Too unplayable. There comes a point when you've characterized paladins too strictly, and saying they can't bend and simply have to die in several given scenarios effectively makes it so that no player can ever choose them because the DM will end up killing them off. Paladins are meant to be played. They have to be able to be effective, not bogged down by rules to the point that they can only leave their safe rooms if they see a good way to commit suicide.

[my_evil_twin]

Too unplayable. There comes a point when you've characterized paladins too strictly, and saying they can't bend and simply have to die in several given scenarios effectively makes it so that no player can ever choose them because the DM will end up killing them off. Paladins are meant to be played. They have to be able to be effective, not bogged down by rules to the point that they can only leave their safe rooms if they see a good way to commit suicide.
I'm an idealist. Can't help it.
You have a point. However, if fantasy can't be the home of this sort of heroism then nowhere can. The PC paladin's out is that D&D is a game, and part of the DM's job is to put reasonable challenges before the PCs. Should a 1st level paladin stand between an advanced balor and a lame commoner? Yes, but this is a textbook case; the DM should have used a dretch. Hold onto the balor scenario, or the bomb scenario, as a good way to retire a character.

[Foeofthelance]

But if lives are more important than any ideal, then why should we all not just focus on preserving our lives? Why not ignore morality in favor of staying alive?


There are many people who would agree with doing just that. But if life wasn't important, then sacrificing it for something would be equally as meaningless. My point is that life is more important then one's morals, as one can have many, many morals in the course of living, but they will only get that one life. It eventually does become an spiral, true. But there are ways of looking at it. Freedom, for example, true freedom, is one of the most deisred ideals out there. If, for example, the entire world was about to be enslaved by some outside force, and all the efforts to defeat it had failed, but giving my life would restore freedom and life, then yes I would give my life.

But, if instead my sacrifice would be meaningless, and instead it would be either slavery or death for the world, then I would sacrifice freedom for slavery. Because if I choose death, then it is the finality for the world. But if I choose slavery, then there remains the hope that once more there might be freedom.



Haven't there been, and aren't there literally now, thousands of people who are called upon to put their lives on the line to protect an ideal?


Yes, there have and are. And that ideal is that those they are fighting for might live, and in turn be allowed to make choices in their own lives.



And if your actions are your own, then I do not understand why you are blaming yourself for the depraved actions of others.


I am not blaming myself for the actions of others, but for myself. If I choose to act, or choose to ignore an option and act in a manner which benefits me solely (as not falling benefits the paladin alone) and in the course of my actions cause great evil to befall others, then I am just guilty as those who summoned the demon. I am placing my welfare and concience above their safety, and to me that is a greater violation of the Paladin's Code then anything else offered so far.



"Ends justfies the means"
That is a defeatist argument and to accept that is to accept that good is weaker than evil.


I do not see it that way. But then, I don't view that statement the way you do. From the way you use the phrase you seem to mean it as "The Ends Always justifies the Ends" I have already agreed that this is not true. But what I insist is that "The Ends Sometimes justifies the Means." There is a world of difference between those two. The first is not a fitting moral for a Paladin to follow, as it gives him too much leeway. The second, however, is a a philosophy any Paladin should be aware of, as it gives him just enough leeway to act. Otherwise you do end up with paladins like Miko and Kore, who see the world in black and white with no shades of grey between, who are willing to slaughter innocents simply because they might be 'tainted'.



By allowing your self to commit evil, you have given evil a victory. Remember, evil as a force is infinitly intellegent. I don't think the "Greater evil" you stopped by commiting a lesser one will keep evil at bay. It will now use a new scheme, corruption of you. You've given it a weapon.


No, I see it as having denied Evil a victory at personal cost. Fall or don't fall, the paladin will always remember the act of taking the child's life. But the paladin will always remember those who were saved as a result, and perhaps take solace in that. As for giving evil a weapon, I say thee nay. Where does it say I shall become a Blackguard? Where does it say I have turned from the path of good? I may have perhaps given Evil the chance of a weapon, but becoming a Paladin in the first place has already singled me out as a particualr target for evil. But that chance comes at the cost of a definite gain for Evil, for releasing the demon can be nothing but, for no other reason then the fact that it destroyed the innocent soul of a child in the process.

[Darkxarth]

Wow, first off, I just want to congratulate everyone for running a nice, clean thread. A few of you have acknowledged your disagreements, and that similar disagreements have been there in the past, but you continue to firmly argue your points.

Secondly, kudos to everyone for making good arguments. My thoughts have swayed back and forth as I read this thread. All of your posts have made me step back and take a look at my own thoughts and opinions. And the sign of a good argument is not necessarily to have changed someone's opinion (though that may be the actual goal) but to make someone step back and look at things again, whether they change or not.

All that being said, I, of course, have my own opinion on the matter.

In the first scenario, that of the BBEG and the nuclear bomb (or magical equivalent) I have to say that out of the choices presented (and of others that I considered) the only that would keep a Paladin from falling is the last.

Option 1: Leave the bomb and the BBEG and hope that someone else figures it out while you leave.

Option 2: Torture the BBEG and hope to make him reveal the means to disarm the bomb, thereby saving the entire city.

Option 3: Take the bomb and get as far away from the city as possible, in an attempt to minimize the casualties.

1. Evil by Inaction - An Evil act? Yes. Would it cause a Paladin to fall? Yes. Is it enough for a total alignment shift? Possibly.

This allows the PC to survive, possible even to go on and save various planes from various destructions, but it was still an Evil act and would still cause a Paladin to fall. Additionally, self-preservation over the lives of others is a quick and easy road to an Evil aligment.

2. Evil Means, Good Ends - An Evil act? Yes. Would it cause a Paladin to fall? Yes. Is it enough for a total alignment shift? No.

A Lawful Good character might resort to torture to discover how to disarm the bomb, though doing so is clearly an Evil act, though for a Good cause. However, committing an Evil act, no matter the intentions or results, is grounds for a Paladin to lose their status. But that act, by itself, is not sufficient to shift a character's alignment.

3. Good Intentions - An Evil act? No. Would it cause a Paladin to fall? No. Is it enough for a total alignment shift? Yes, but not the way you think.

Given these three options, the 'best' one is for the Paladin to take the bomb as far away from innocent lives as possible. Maybe he wanders too closely to another city by accident and unknowingly causes the deaths of thousands there, but it would not cause him to fall (should he be revived). However, if a better option presented itself, such as if the Paladin was able to procure a Potion of Truth or a Zone of Truth spell (legally of course) then said option would be the better choice, as it presents the chance to save everyone and still not commit and Evil act. All that being said, option 3 is enough to shift an Evil creature to a Good (or at the very least Neutral) alignment. Putting the lives of others before your's, especially when their is an option that would allow you to live, is the supreme act of good, and is, by itself, enough to shift the alignment of a CE villain to NG.


However. Were I the one playing this Paladin, I would most assuredly try the second option first, full knowing that it would cause me to fall, before I risked the lives of innocents. If the BBEG did not reveal the means to disarm the bomb, I would try and take it as far from the city as possible, minimizing the number of innocents killed as much as possible. Did I possibly cause more people to die by trying to torture it out of him first? There's a chance. Was my first thought of protecting innocent lives over my own well-being (i.e. my Paladinhood and status with my god)? Yes. But I would still be a fallen Paladin, whether the torture worked or not.


Moving on to the more difficult Baby vs. Demon scenario, the best option for a Paladin to take would be to stand against the Demon, no matter how powerful.

Option 1: Kill an innocent child to save the lives of millions.

Option 2: Save an innocent child and doom millions.

Option 3: Fight to save both the innocent child and the millions of people.

1. Evil Means, Good Ends - An Evil act? Yes. Would it cause a Paladin to fall? Yes. Is it enough for an total alignment shift? No.

Killing an innocent child is an Evil act. Killing an innocent child to save millions, or even billions of lives, is still an Evil act. Any Paladin who did this would instantly have his or her powers revoked, even if they saved the entire multiverse. A LG character might very well take this option, on the idea that the lives of many outweigh those of the few. Either way, this is not grounds for a total alignment shift by itself.

2. Evil by Inaction - An Evil act? No. Would it cause a Paladin to fall? Yes. Is it enough for a total alignment shift? No.

I cannot in good conscience call not killing an innocent child an Evil act. However, by dooming those millions of people by not even trying to stop the Demon (as was the stated in the option) would still cause a Paladin to fall.

3. Good Intentions - An Evil act? No. Would it cause a Paladin to fall? No. Is it enough for a total alignment shift? Again, yes, but from Evil to Good.

Any Paladin worth his Smite Evil would try to stop this Demon, no matter how powerful. As others have said, hope is one of the greatest tools of Good. Fighting an unstoppable opponent in an attempt to save millions of lives, or even just one life, is an act of Good, one that could potentially shift an Evil character to a Good alignment on its own.


Were I playing the Paladin in this scenario, I would do everything in my power to stop the Demon, even if it was 'unstoppable'. A Paladin must believe in the power of Good over Evil or they have no cause to be fight.

Finally, now that my opinion has been stated, I would let it be known that in real life, I could not torture anyone, even if it would save the lives of others, let alone kill an innocent child. I'm not claiming that I'm personally better than anyone else, or that my idea is morally the right one. In D&D, Good and Evil are in black-or-white terms. In real life, there aren't really very many acts that are even black-or-white ish, most things are shades of grey. I am just stating that just because something is one way in the real world, doesn't mean it works the same way in D&D, and vice versa.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

-DX

[EvilElitest]

There are many people who would agree with doing just that. But if life wasn't important, then sacrificing it for something would be equally as meaningless. My point is that life is more important then one's morals, as one can have many, many morals in the course of living, but they will only get that one life. It eventually does become an spiral, true. But there are ways of looking at it. Freedom, for example, true freedom, is one of the most deisred ideals out there. If, for example, the entire world was about to be enslaved by some outside force, and all the efforts to defeat it had failed, but giving my life would restore freedom and life, then yes I would give my life.

You want to give you life to stop slavery fine, very paladin. You want to give my sister's life to stop slavery, errrrrrrrrr, no thats murder. To preach freedom means that you need to have a basic set of human rights, such as right not to be tortured or right not to be murdered.


But, if instead my sacrifice would be meaningless, and instead it would be either slavery or death for the world, then I would sacrifice freedom for slavery. Because if I choose death, then it is the finality for the world. But if I choose slavery, then there remains the hope that once more there might be freedom.

Wait, are you saying you would stop fighting if you thought no other option was around. But sense you don't know everything, you would have to try anyways.


Yes, there have and are. And that ideal is that those they are fighting for might live, and in turn be allowed to make choices in their own lives.
Sacerficeing your self is fine, but when you drag others into the mix you become what you are fighting.


I am not blaming myself for the actions of others, but for myself. If I choose to act, or choose to ignore an option and act in a manner which benefits me solely (as not falling benefits the paladin alone) and in the course of my actions cause great evil to befall others, then I am just guilty as those who summoned the demon. I am placing my welfare and concience above their safety, and to me that is a greater violation of the Paladin's Code then anything else offered so far.
Then you must be willing to fall to commit a "lesser evil" to stop a greater one. Atone.


I do not see it that way. But then, I don't view that statement the way you do. From the way you use the phrase you seem to mean it as "The Ends Always justifies the Ends" I have already agreed that this is not true. But what I insist is that "The Ends Sometimes justifies the Means." There is a world of difference between those two.
No, their is not difference between the two, because they are interlocked.
Anyone who says the "ends always justify the means" and somebody who says "Ends sometimes justifiy the means" are ignoring a very important princaple, that they are apperently resorting to evil to achieve their ends, you can't ignore that and try to justify it. You are still using evil means, whether you say so or not.

The first is not a fitting moral for a Paladin to follow, as it gives him too much leeway. The second, however, is a a philosophy any Paladin should be aware of, as it gives him just enough leeway to act. Otherwise you do end up with paladins like Miko and Kore, who see the world in black and white with no shades of grey between, who are willing to slaughter innocents simply because they might be 'tainted'.
If you are willing to commit the second without punishment, you will resort to the first. They go together. If i commit a lesser evil once and achieve a "Greater Good" then i will be willing to do it again. These ends justfies the means ideal all rely on the person in question and quite frankly humans can't be trusted with that sort of responsibilty. It is a slippery slope, one that starts and ends with you becoming the very thing you fight.


No, I see it as having denied Evil a victory at personal cost. Fall or don't fall, the paladin will always remember the act of taking the child's life. But the paladin will always remember those who were saved as a result, and perhaps take solace in that.
Then make the paladin fall, so he will know that such methods are not to be tolerated. If he is willing to kill others to help good, he should be willing to fall from the very tenets good embodies. And the paladin will always remember the act of killing the kid. Yes, but will that stop him from doing it again. I would imagine not. That only encourages zealotry.


As for giving evil a weapon, I say thee nay. Where does it say I shall become a Blackguard? Where does it say I have turned from the path of good? I may have perhaps given Evil the chance of a weapon, but becoming a Paladin in the first place has already singled me out as a particualr target for evil.
I am refering to the fact that you have done an evil act, hence giving evil power. As a target, real paladins are ment to resisit corruption as well as phyical death. A paladin is hurtful to evil eyes because they are utterly uncontrolable by them, unable to be corrupted. The paladin is not a target for evil because evil cannot hurt her. Phyical pain is meanenless as the paladin's spirit will live on and defy the powers of evil to the very end.
But when evil knows that it can place a seed into a paladin's mind, then it has a target. And it has more power from every evil act this paladin commits for the "Greater Good". And even the paladin can become a blackguard, an option that is impossible for a good paladin.


But that chance comes at the cost of a definite gain for Evil, for releasing the demon can be nothing but, for no other reason then the fact that it destroyed the innocent soul of a child in the process.
Evil does not care about cost, it is far to powerful. The death of the demon most likely has caused far more evil in the world. Evil lives off evil acts that the paladin commited
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
from,
EE

[Jayabalard]

I dunno. I personally feel that it's possible to be a realist (which is what would result in someone striving for the best chance at "the greater good," IMHO) and still be good aligned. Sure...you can be overall a good character, and occasionally do evil; that's what a realist would probably do.

But that's not a paladin. A paladin is an idealist; maybe even further, they are the prototypical example of idealism, of purity, goodness, righteousness, honor, valor, etc.

[Foeofthelance]

You want to give you life to stop slavery fine, very paladin. You want to give my sister's life to stop slavery, errrrrrrrrr, no thats murder.


Is it though? If those same enslaving forces pointed at your sister and said "Her life or the world is enslaved." then I should doom the entire world just to protect her? I would think the rest of the world would disagree there. Saying you are force of good and law is one thing, but insisting your personal morals are the definitions of those two abstracts is entirely another. Law and Good are concepts created by society to benefit society. In the worlds of Dungeons and Dragons they do take on a bit more solid role in the form of gods, celestials, and such forces. But the Paladin is not a god or celestial. He is a mortal person who will only see the direct consequences of his actions. A god can accept failing every once in a while, because the god will be around a thousand years later to see the balance shift back. Barring some outside influence, the Paladin won't. All he can do is try and protect those who are there now, those who are counting on him to do the right thing.



Wait, are you saying you would stop fighting if you thought no other option was around. But sense you don't know everything, you would have to try anyways.


Try what? The entire point is that there is only a few options left, both distasteful. One calls for the sacrifice of an innocent by another, the other calls for the Paladin to allow the child's soul to be destroyed followed by his own shuffling off the mortal coil. The problem I have is that it seems you want to treat the second as some sort of glorious sacrifice, when all it really is is glorified suicide. Even you have stated the killing of the child as a lesser evil. If that is the lesser evil, then the Paladin not sacrificing his morals is an even greater evil. Would he not fall for that as well then? That'd be a bummer, right after reassuring the child (who probably doesn't understand what is going on anyway) that you will save the day the gods decide to strip you of your powers for being selfish enough to put them above the good of the world.



Then you must be willing to fall to commit a "lesser evil" to stop a greater one. Atone.


Stop telling me to atone. I've already said my next course of action is to jump through the nearest portal to Hell and finish this on the demon's own turf, no matter what the outcome in the temple. I would think that goes above atonement.



Then make the paladin fall, so he will know that such methods are not to be tolerated. If he is willing to kill others to help good, he should be willing to fall from the very tenets good embodies. And the paladin will always remember the act of killing the kid. Yes, but will that stop him from doing it again. I would imagine not. That only encourages zealotry.


Really? I would think a Paladin who acknowledges that he is capable of doing wrong is less likely to encourage zealotry then one who insists that all he can do is good, or he would lose his powers. Otherwise, as long as the paladin still has his powers he is justified as always being right. Slaughter that orphanage of goblin and kobold children? Well, their parents were evil aligned, and they were probably going to be so, and heck, I've still got my powers, so it's got to be the good thing to do!

Or, even worse, you end up with a Paladin so restricted he can't act with out first hitting his target with Detect Evil and casting Augury just to check with the Gods that he isn't going to fall. You can no longer strike any person down so long as they are anywhere between LG-CN. LE, NE, and CE are alright, but only so long as you check first! You are no longer allowed to save the world, because there are other people in the world, some of whom are evil. And saving them goes against the Paladin Code, as you are supposed to do no evil, nor allow any evil. It becomes undoable, the class unplayable.



Evil does not care about cost, it is far to powerful.


Didn't you criticize me earlier for possibley implying that good might be weaker then evil? And now you are saying that evil is so far ahead that it doesn't even need to worry about the cost. Now, personally, I believe good and evil to be in a bit of a balance, and it is up to the champions of their respective causes to sway that balance, Also, remember that there are those who are insisting on maintaining the status quo. But Evil is never so far ahead that it can accept the loss of a major power such as the demon in question for the next hundred years it takes for the moons to line up again.

And this brings me to another point, your insistence that hope is weapon. It is and it isn't. If I knew there was a trio of Planetars headed my way, and all they needed was a minute to get there, then yes I would stand and fight. Even if I last only thirty seconds that gives the demon barely enough time to get out of the temple before they arrive. But no one has said anything about them arriving. So I have to assume they aren't. Maybe the demon in question kicked off an invasion on one of the higher planes to mask his ascension, and they are busy dealing with that.

Yes, perhaps my order can defeat the Demon after he rises. But it will take time for them to get there as well, and what is the demon going to do in the mean time? Sit there stitching a daisy chain? No, he is going to be running amok, satisfying his own blood lust. Whose responsibility are the lives he then takes? Those in my order for not arriving fast enough? Or mine, for allowing him out in the first place?

If you want such a strict code in place for Paladins, then swear now to never complain of railroading when you finally find yourself in a sticky situation. Myself, I will play them with my concience. Then, even if my powers don't survive, I can be sure that my principles and morals did, as I am still alive to share them with others.

[Jayabalard]

Is it though? If those same enslaving forces pointed at your sister and said "Her life or the world is enslaved." then I should doom the entire world just to protect her? Yup, it's murder straight out. It's doing evil.

As a paladin, you find another way; the ends never justify the means. You don't need to be a god or an outsider... it's simple enough for a mortal to understand that.

[Tor the Fallen]

Is a Lawful Good Deity ever justified in committing evil for the greater good?

A) Yes

B) A Lawful Good deity is unable to do such an act

C) Any act a Lawful goo ddeity performs will, by definition be good (so evil is now good, up is down, and black is white?)

D) Something else

E) Your puny mortal mind cannot possibly fathom the eternal and fundamental sturggle that is Good & Evil!!!!

[Jayabalard]

A, B, and C; since alignment is a game term, knowing a deity's alignment is metagame knowledge. Deities probably claim that they do is "Good" even if they are Evil (Ex: Torak in the Belgariad)

A = The LG deity isn't really LG as they aren't all-good.
B = Truly a LG diety
C= A Neutral or Evil deity; anything they do is "good" by definition.

[Tor the Fallen]

A, B, and C; since alignment is a game term,

No. Good and Evil are universal, black & white constants, forever in conflict. Any high level cleric or wizard would be able to tell you that.


Deities probably claim

"Probably" and "claim". Not a very strong case, and then only for those of poor wisdom scores. Interesting, but rather irrelevant to the discussion.

A = The LG deity isn't really LG as they aren't all-good.
This severely weakens godhood and Goodness

B = This would imply that LG deities are unable to act most of the time, as virtually all actions include harm, and by D&D ethos, harm = teh bad = evil.

C = "good" is not Good.

[Dark]

Is it though? If those same enslaving forces pointed at your sister and said "Her life or the world is enslaved." then I should doom the entire world just to protect her? I would think the rest of the world would disagree there.
Well, let's see how this would play out.

The forces of evil point at this woman and say "Her life or the world is enslaved". The paladin gulps, then consults with Foeofthelance and decides to do as they say. He grabs her and prepares to slit her throat. "No," they say, "that's too quick. Make it hurt more."

A long time and several creative directions later, the woman is finally dead. The paladin stands there, covered in an innocent's blood. "That was great," say the forces of evil. Then they point at a man nearby. "Now his life. Or the world is enslaved."

What do you do now?

[Jayabalard]

No. Good and Evil are universal, black & white constants, forever in conflict. Any high level cleric or wizard would be able to tell you that.I disagree. Alignment is a strictly metagame concept. It's useful for players to describe things in the game world, but has no place in anything in the game that is in character.

No one, not even the gods knows anything about real alignment anymore than they know someone's BAB, or AC.


"Probably" and "claim". Not a very strong case, and then only for those of poor wisdom scores. Interesting, but rather irrelevant to the discussion.

A = The LG deity isn't really LG as they aren't all-good.
This severely weakens godhood and Goodness

B = This would imply that LG deities are unable to act most of the time, as virtually all actions include harm, and by D&D ethos, harm = teh bad = evil.

C = "good" is not Good.like I said above, alignment is strictly metagame. No amount of wisdom changes that; people do not generally see themselves as villains: a deity, his clerics and followers believe him to be good, and their way to be good, even if it's a neutral or evil deity.

[Darkxarth]

Well, let's see how this would play out.

The forces of evil point at this woman and say "Her life or the world is enslaved". The paladin gulps, then consults with Foeofthelance and decides to do as they say. He grabs her and prepares to slit her throat. "No," they say, "that's too quick. Make it hurt more."

A long time and several creative directions later, the woman is finally dead. The paladin stands there, covered in an innocent's blood. "That was great," say the forces of evil. Then they point at a man nearby. "Now his life. Or the world is enslaved."

What do you do now?

A very good rebuttal, and a perfect example of why the ends DO NOT justify the means. Obviously it's just one example, and I'm sure others will continue to debate their points, but it was still a great response.

An Evil act is an Evil act, whether it means killing the (Good) King of Goodlandia and thereby throwing the entire continent into war, or killing an Elven Wizard (also Good) to keep him from completing the spell which would accidentally bring about the apocalypse. Both are Evil acts, though one has a Good outcome, that DOES NOT make it a Good act, or even a Neutral act.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

The Batman complex- where is the line drawn? What is the last straw? Don't let yourself get too close and you won't have to know.

[Foeofthelance]

Well, let's see how this would play out.

The forces of evil point at this woman and say "Her life or the world is enslaved". The paladin gulps, then consults with Foeofthelance and decides to do as they say. He grabs her and prepares to slit her throat. "No," they say, "that's too quick. Make it hurt more."

A long time and several creative directions later, the woman is finally dead. The paladin stands there, covered in an innocent's blood. "That was great," say the forces of evil. Then they point at a man nearby. "Now his life. Or the world is enslaved."

What do you do now?

It is a good point, but at the same time assumes a different outcome. In my situation they abide by the terms, one life for the world. In this one they violate the terms, and are just killing the world, albeit in a slower manner, for there is no reason for them to stop. At that point you fight, for that is the only option that is left to you.

But it also sidesteps my point. When does sucide become sacrifice, and when does sacrifice become murder? I object to the paladin being denied a legitimate course of action merely because of some undefined abstract. I have stated several times my interprettion of good, and all I got back is "Well, that isn't right so you're not a paladin." To me standing there an allowing the greater evil is the worse choice, as well as being a form of suicide. I'm being told it is instead a sacrifice for some undefined moral. I've been told that I can not kill an innocent. But am I not killing even more innocents just because those same morals say not to kill one? Releasing the demon through inaction, or a desire to fight it, or any other form of letting the ritual finish and the demon reaching the plane, is going to resort in the deaths of more innocents, and I would be responsible for that.

Philosophy, morals, honor, these are fine things to strive for. But they should not, can not even, be allowed to influence the fates of millions when they are being decided upon by a single individual. A greater good implies that there is a lesser good, just as a lesser evil implies a greater evil. When the lesser evil benefits the greater good while denying the greater evil, while at the same time the lesser good benefits only the greater evil, then yes, I will accept the lesser evil in the name of the greater good.

(Sorry about the italics. They aren't meant to be dramatic or anything, the board itself got stuck on them and wouldn't let me fix it.)

[Jayabalard]

When does sucide become sacrifice, and when does sacrifice become murder? I object to the paladin being denied a legitimate course of action merely because of some undefined abstract. I have stated several times my interprettion of good, and all I got back is "Well, that isn't right so you're not a paladin." To me standing there an allowing the greater evil is the worse choice, as well as being a form of suicide. I'm being told it is instead a sacrifice for some undefined moral.That's easily defined:

Your life is your own; if you choose to give it up it's a sacrifice.
Someone else's life is not yours; if you chose to take an innocent life, you are committing murder, not sacrifice; that life is not yours to take.

If your interpretation of good is "The ends justify the means" then I'll have to disagree with you; it's a fairly fundamental question of morality, and IMO, a the sort of pragmatist that goes with the ends justify the means is not a paladin... nor are they a good person.

I'm sure they may think of themselves as good; people don't see themselves as villains. But that doesn't mean that they are.


I've been told that I can not kill an innocent. But am I not killing even more innocents just because those same morals say not to kill one? Releasing the demon through inaction, or a desire to fight it, or any other form of letting the ritual finish and the demon reaching the plane, is going to resort in the deaths of more innocents, and I would be responsible for that.Would you have been responsible for killing them if you had arrived too late to do anything? Nope. Same goes evil that happens because of you refusing to do evil.

Could you have prevented it? perhaps... if killing the child would have actually stopped anything... which seems really far-fetched that you know with irrefutable truth that you can stop the demon that way but somehow didn't know to save a protection from evil to stop the possession. All-in-all it seems to be a fairly absurd hypothetical (as I've mentioned on this and other threads)

It's the same as asking:
If you kill a child as a blood sacrifice, there will be good weather and a bountiful harvest; if not, then there will be bad weather, and famine and disease and many people will die.

It seems clear to me: killing the child is an evil act ... even though you "know" that the blood sacrifice will save many people (just like you know that killing the child will stop the demon).

[Foeofthelance]

Would you have been responsible for killing them if you had arrived too late to do anything? Nope. Same goes evil that happens because of you refusing to do evil.



If I had arrived too late it would not be my fault because I would not have had the chance to act. Arriving on time and refusing to act because of my own beliefs though it costs others? Yes, that is most definitely my fault, because I made a decision that put them in harms way.



if killing the child would have actually stopped anything... which seems really far-fetched that you know with irrefutable truth that you can stop the demon that way but somehow didn't know to save a protection from evil to stop the possession.


Killing the child would stop it. It was said several times in the other thread that the Paladin had used all of his Protections during earlier fights, and that the others had prepared it was well, they had just been removed from the action by unfortunate luck.


It's the same as asking:
If you kill a child as a blood sacrifice, there will be good weather and a bountiful harvest; if not, then there will be bad weather, and famine and disease and many people will die.

Actually, there is a major difference between those two questions. The demon example assumes Evil is taking place. The ritual blood sacrifice sounds more like a religious decision, and is therefore more likely the Cleric's territory. Even then, if the Paladin was a champion of that god, it had been passed down from on high that sacrfice was the way to go, then it probably wouldn't be evil in the first place. The society in question would most likely view it as a Good act, to the point of offering the intended sacrifice some sort of hero status, as well as being secure in the knowledge that the sacrifice would recieve some sort of divine reward in the next life.

[Jayabalard]

If I had arrived too late it would not be my fault because I would not have had the chance to act. Arriving on time and refusing to act because of my own beliefs though it costs others? Yes, that is most definitely my fault, because I made a decision that put them in harms way.Nope. They're exactly the same situation; whether you refuse to do evil by killing the child, or if you failed in your mission to stop the ritual, the demon is entering the world because of your action or lack thereof.


Killing the child would stop it. It was said several times in the other thread that the Paladin had used all of his Protections during earlier fights, and that the others had prepared it was well, they had just been removed from the action by unfortunate luck.I'm pointing out why its not a believable situation. I can stretch my disbelief only so far, and the idea that I have some sort of foreknowledge about how this ritual works and exactly how to stop it, but I wouldn't have saved the obvious solution in order to counteract that is just too absurd.

It would take some pretty unshakable information or I'd just believe that the whole situation is a trick; the demon can only enter the world with the slaughter of an innocent and the corruption of the righteous. And if I can get that information, then there's no reason that I wouldn't have known to save a protection from evil to stop the ritual.


Actually, there is a major difference between those two questions. The demon example assumes Evil is taking place. The ritual blood sacrifice sounds more like a religious decision, and is therefore more likely the Cleric's territory. Even then, if the Paladin was a champion of that god, it had been passed down from on high that sacrfice was the way to go, then it probably wouldn't be evil in the first place. The society in question would most likely view it as a Good act, to the point of offering the intended sacrifice some sort of hero status, as well as being secure in the knowledge that the sacrifice would recieve some sort of divine reward in the next life.
Nope, no difference. You have to sacrifice the child to an evil god, not a good one; this isn't your god, but one who is now controlling the weather patterns of the world, and he can only be appeased this way; the gods of good aren't going to interfere to stop him (just like the other absurd hypothetical).

Neither situation is any different than Dark's rebuttal above.

[Darkxarth]

It is a good point, but at the same time assumes a different outcome. In my situation they abide by the terms, one life for the world. In this one they violate the terms, and are just killing the world, albeit in a slower manner, for there is no reason for them to stop. At that point you fight, for that is the only option that is left to you.

Why would Evil abide by your terms? What do they care? If you don't kill the next person, it means you realize that killing the first did not help the greater good, and was, therefore, an Evil act. Now, I'd say that as a Paladin you're going to realize that killing an innocent person saved nothing, and was an Evil act, just as you knew it was when you did it. Therefore, you are immediately stripped of your Paladin powers and are forced to now try and combat the forces of Evil in that form. I'd say that didn't help the greater good much at all, did it? And anyone who thought about it (if speaking is a Free Action then thinking definitely is) would've realized that the forces of Evil would have no real reason to keep their bargain after you'd killed the innocent. What's in it for them? Nothing. They're better off trying to make you kill others or by flat out continuing their plan.


Philosophy, morals, honor, these are fine things to strive for. But they should not, can not even, be allowed to influence the fates of millions when they are being decided upon by a single individual. A greater good implies that there is a lesser good, just as a lesser evil implies a greater evil. When the lesser evil benefits the greater good while denying the greater evil, while at the same time the lesser good benefits only the greater evil, then yes, I will accept the lesser evil in the name of the greater good.

But accepting any Evil automatically results in loss of Paladinhood, whether it was the right choice or not.

So, you kill the baby, stop the uber-Demon, and lose your Paladin powers. Did you save millions of lives? Probably. Did you willfully and knowingly kill an innocent child? Definitely. I don't think there should be any question that the Paladin would lose his or her powers, they killed a baby. But was it the right choice? Could they have stopped the Demon another way? They can't know now, the choice has already been made. But if there was even a slight chance of stopping the Demon without killing an innocent, that should be the path a Paladin would take. Evil is Evil, no matter how you look at it. Everyone succumbs to temptation or mistakes sometimes, that's why there's the Atonement spell. Even willfully committing an Evil act can be atoned for, even if it wasn't in the name of the greater good; even if the Paladin just killed a small child because he was angry, it can be atoned for, so long as he or she truly repents it and desires to make amends.

[Counterpower]

First, I would like to compliment Foeofthelance for sticking to his guns for so long with all of us against him.

Second, I have a new scenario from Eberron. A paladin is sitting in Morgrave University in Sharn, which is a major metropolis of hundreds of thousands of people for those of you who don't know Eberron. A mighty demon lord appears and tells him that unless Sharn in its entirety is razed to the ground, and every one of its residents killed, he will return and destroy the entire continent of Khorvaire. This continent, on which Sharn sits, is basically Faerun from the Forgotten Realms or North America in the real world. He specifies a time frame for his return that makes it so that if you wanted to follow through on destroying the city, you'd need to start immediately, and you'd still be pressed for time. Now, the options as I see them, the typical triad:

1. Get on an airship bound for Stormreach on the continent of Xen'drik.

2. Go through with your end of the "deal," and raze the city.

3. Take advantage of the unversity's libraries to find out how you might defeat the demon.

What should be done?

[Foeofthelance]

Nope. They're exactly the same situation;

No, they are not the same situation. They are two different situations, both of which happen to have the same outcome. The difference is in the first, where I arrive too late, I have no chance of stopping the ritual anymore, as the demon is already present. In the second I arrived in time to prevent it, but choose not to. The first I can see myself as blameless in, the second though involves me making a decision, which does make me responsible for the outcomes of that decisions.


I'm pointing out why its not a believable situation. I can stretch my disbelief only so far, and the idea that I have some sort of foreknowledge about how this ritual works and exactly how to stop it, but I wouldn't have saved the obvious solution in order to counteract that is just too absurd.

It would take some pretty unshakable information or I'd just believe that the whole situation is a trick; the demon can only enter the world with the slaughter of an innocent and the corruption of the righteous. And if I can get that information, then there's no reason that I wouldn't have known to save a protection from evil to stop the ritual.

Why isn't it believable? The Paladin could have a higher Dex then the cleric, as well as Improved Initiative. So his +6 intiative rolls allow him to go ahead of the cleric much more often then the cleric goes first. So they decide they will use the Cleric's Protection From Evil to interrupt the ritual, while the Paladin serves as the party shield. Unfortunately the fighting was tougher then they though it was going to be, and the Paladin's larger hit dice has left him in a position where he can act while the cleric is knocked out. Bad luck happens, mistakes are made. I have been in groups where stuff like this happens. It is really not that unbelievable.


Why would Evil abide by your terms?

Depends on the Evil in quetions. Assuming the three forces (Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic) are equally represented amongst Evil, then I am most likely dealing with either Lawful or Neutral. Lawful would obey because those were the terms set forth, and Neutral would obey because it benefits them more to have a slave population that continuously replenshes itself, allowing them the oppurtunity to do even more evil. Granted, chaotic is a good bet for going the 'kill him next, then her, then him' route, but as I already said at that point you are screwed anyway and need to fight.


But if there was even a slight chance of stopping the Demon without killing an innocent, that should be the path a Paladin would take.

But then when do you acknowledge that there is no chance? A Paladin can be, and should be, to a point, an idealist. But even an Idealist of the purest form will admit that there is a point when it has gone too far, when you are no longer working on hope or faith but self imposed gullibility. Those who refuse to acknowledge that are generally listed as the crazies. Or are you saying the Paladins should be so blind to the consequences of their actions and decisions that they should do anything so long as it is in step with an undefined concept, one which has many different meanings, all varied amongst each individual? And it does vary amongst each and every individual, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Bag_of_Holding]

In my opinion, so-called 'greater good' is 'an action where its motivation and/or the result may overshadow the method applied to achieve such consequence; regardless of the very nature of the method adopted.'. Therefore, it's only a term that people give to make things to go in their immediate favour, while its results might unfold to be benefitial to people other than herself. I'm not trying to imply that 'greater good is an act of evil in its disguise', but that it is only a consequential event that *happens* to be 'good on the long run'.

Well, it's strictly my own idea and it's always arguable otherwise.:smallsmile:





What should be done?

I'd say that you don't listen to the demon lord at all. You're a paladin! Why should you listen to a being of evil and help its plans? If it's an Eberron campaign, a demon lord would likely to be a rakshasa rajah (which, ironically, does not have to be a rakshasa), which seems to me it's either an epic campaign or you need to contact the Chamber, soon. Call on the Church of Silver Flame, people who know how to deal with such beings, warn the Gatekeepers, to prevent another extradimensional invasion (if it's not a rakshasa lord, but a pit fiend/balor from Shavarath) etc etc.

If the paladin can raze Sharn to the ground however, then I'd assume that she is very epic indeed (it's not called the City of Towers for nothing! lol). Therefore, you'd have enough ability to call all the major forces into gathering- presuming that you can convince those holier-than-thou dragons of the Chamber.

Therefore, the paladin does not have to either kill everyone and destroy everything in Sharn. Rather than doing the deed (evil or otherwise) you can get help. Demon lords had been beaten once (the remnant of the bloody war being none other than the Silver Flame itself), so why not twice.


p.s. I'm quite sure our J.D. (the young pontiff of the Church of Silver Flame) would have heard of such contact even before you actually met the demon lord though. ;)



Edit: some spelling mistakes... "adopt" is not spelt with two a's! oopsie!
Edit II: Opinion on Counterpower's situation

[Jayabalard]

Why isn't it believable? I think I laid that out quite clearly; If I really did have a source of info to tell me the only way to stop it from happening, I wouldn't have used my protection from evil... period.

I think one of the better responses was: you kill the baby; afterwards you tell the parents of the child:
1. It was the virtuous thing to do.
2. There wasn't any other way so it had to be done.

[Foeofthelance]

First, I would like to compliment Foeofthelance for sticking to his guns for so long with all of us against him.


Thanks, it's been fun. Now for that new situation...


Second, I have a new scenario from Eberron. A paladin is sitting in Morgrave University in Sharn, which is a major metropolis of hundreds of thousands of people for those of you who don't know Eberron. A mighty demon lord appears and tells him that unless Sharn in its entirety is razed to the ground, and every one of its residents killed, he will return and destroy the entire continent of Khorvaire. This continent, on which Sharn sits, is basically Faerun from the Forgotten Realms or North America in the real world. He specifies a time frame for his return that makes it so that if you wanted to follow through on destroying the city, you'd need to start immediately, and you'd still be pressed for time. Now, the options as I see them, the typical triad:

1. Get on an airship bound for Stormreach on the continent of Xen'drik.

2. Go through with your end of the "deal," and raze the city.

3. Take advantage of the unversity's libraries to find out how you might defeat the demon.

What should be done?

Option 3 without a doubt. But why stop there? Razing an entire city would probably take you several days, more likely weeks, depending on how much time you have on your hands. City like Sharn probably has several very powerful NPCs rather interested in its survival, so they'll want to pitch in. Have one of the local wizards teleport you around gathering what champions you can, while everybody arms up. You actually shouldn't be in the library yourself, that's what librarians are for. They probably have a better idea where the books you need are anyway.

Then when the demon lord shows up you all have one heck of a party. The city will probably be a mess when you are done, but you'll still have sent the demon lord packing, so rebuilding shouldn't be too big an issue. Especially not with all those powered NPCs there to help chip in.

[PaladinBoy]

No, they are not the same situation. They are two different situations, both of which happen to have the same outcome. The difference is in the first, where I arrive too late, I have no chance of stopping the ritual anymore, as the demon is already present. In the second I arrived in time to prevent it, but choose not to. The first I can see myself as blameless in, the second though involves me making a decision, which does make me responsible for the outcomes of that decisions.

"Choose not to" stop the ritual and the demon? Any paladin that does that is evil through and through.

Our answers are not choosing not to stop the ritual. They're choosing to stop the ritual and the demon with a slightly less effective method. Which doesn't mean that we're choosing not to stop it, it just means that we have to be better at our craft (killing evil :smallbiggrin: ) to win. And we trust that we are good enough. Or that we can find the right Good solution.


Why isn't it believable? The Paladin could have a higher Dex then the cleric, as well as Improved Initiative. So his +6 intiative rolls allow him to go ahead of the cleric much more often then the cleric goes first. So they decide they will use the Cleric's Protection From Evil to interrupt the ritual, while the Paladin serves as the party shield. Unfortunately the fighting was tougher then they though it was going to be, and the Paladin's larger hit dice has left him in a position where he can act while the cleric is knocked out. Bad luck happens, mistakes are made. I have been in groups where stuff like this happens. It is really not that unbelievable.

I don't know...... it seems sensible to have the cleric handle some protection, and the paladin handle the rest. Therefore, both have protection spells and can handle it if the stiuation goes south.


Depends on the Evil in quetions. Assuming the three forces (Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic) are equally represented amongst Evil, then I am most likely dealing with either Lawful or Neutral. Lawful would obey because those were the terms set forth, and Neutral would obey because it benefits them more to have a slave population that continuously replenshes itself, allowing them the oppurtunity to do even more evil. Granted, chaotic is a good bet for going the 'kill him next, then her, then him' route, but as I already said at that point you are screwed anyway and need to fight.

Neutral evil would watch the paladin kill the innocent, then enslave the world anyway. Most of them are out for themselves, and it serves them best to have the slaves. And they'd have no worries about killing the paladin because the paladin has already shown that he doesn't think he can beat them in a fight.

Which means that the paladin has just pointlessly murdered an innocent. He falls.

I agree that chaotic evil would just make you kill as many people as it took for you to realize that it's not going to end. It fits their desire for random evil. And they would also have no qualms about killing the now-fallen paladin.

I also agree that lawful evil is the most likely to keep their word and abandon the attempt to enslave the world. Which raises the question of why exactly they would bother anyway, if all they're going to get is one fallen paladin. Maybe because they're planning on capitalizing on the paladin's honorable nature later? Maybe because they like spreading evil? Either way, the paladin has committed an evil, and should fall. Sure, he's saved the world from slavery, but that is also partly due to the decisions of the LE villian. And in return, one of these people he has "saved" is dead.

Fighting the villian, no matter his alignment, is the only way to get a good result. Agreeing to the villian's demands only gets you one fallen paladin and greater evil.


But then when do you acknowledge that there is no chance? A Paladin can be, and should be, to a point, an idealist. But even an Idealist of the purest form will admit that there is a point when it has gone too far, when you are no longer working on hope or faith but self imposed gullibility. Those who refuse to acknowledge that are generally listed as the crazies. Or are you saying the Paladins should be so blind to the consequences of their actions and decisions that they should do anything so long as it is in step with an undefined concept, one which has many different meanings, all varied amongst each individual? And it does vary amongst each and every individual, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

First off, the definition off Good is not a variable in D&D. The books tell us what Good is. The best book for this is the BoED, and it explicitly states that the ends do not justify the means and anyone serious about being an exalted character cannot use evil means, even for a good end. It also states that "exalted paladin" is redundant.

Second off, at what point would you say that an idealist is acting off "self imposed gullibility"? I don't think any of the situations presented so far would push an idealist to that point. I don't think any of the situations presented reach the point where assuming that an entirely Good result can be achieved is a false hope.


Option 3 without a doubt. But why stop there? Razing an entire city would probably take you several days, more likely weeks, depending on how much time you have on your hands. City like Sharn probably has several very powerful NPCs rather interested in its survival, so they'll want to pitch in. Have one of the local wizards teleport you around gathering what champions you can, while everybody arms up. You actually shouldn't be in the library yourself, that's what librarians are for. They probably have a better idea where the books you need are anyway.

Then when the demon lord shows up you all have one heck of a party. The city will probably be a mess when you are done, but you'll still have sent the demon lord packing, so rebuilding shouldn't be too big an issue. Especially not with all those powered NPCs there to help chip in.

Not to say going for help is a bad idea, but there isn't nearly as much epic help available in Eberron as there is in other campaign settings, if any.

[Foeofthelance]

"Choose not to" stop the ritual and the demon? Any paladin that does that is evil through and through.


The terms of the dilemma was that if the ritual suceeded then the demon was summoned. By choosing not to halt the ritual you are allowing the demon to be summoned (only because it occurs to me now, I do not refer to demon as Baatezu {or is it tanari?} but as a general, powerful, force of evil). Wether you choose to then fight the demon, accept the demon as your master, or run screaming like a ninny (and yes, that is hyperbole) is a seperate, though entwined, decision.



First off, the definition off Good is not a variable in D&D. The books tell us what Good is. The best book for this is the BoED,


This was brought up in the Paladins and Morality thread, and it was made rather plain that there isn't really a definition of good or evil in D&D. The terms used in the PHB are rather vague including the section on a Paladin falling, which mentions only a gross violation. The information presented in the PHB makes mention of what Good or Evil aligned characters might do, but does not say what the can not do in any certain terms. As for the BoED (and yes, I admit to cutting off the quote there) it is a splat book, pure and simple. It is not something made available to every group (I know ours didn't) so using that to make a general ruling on the concept of good with in the entire realm of Dungeons and Dragons is bit unfair. If we were to do that, then we'd have to being allowing for every definition from every single book that addresses the subject, including the various campaign settings. So I will stick to the Core books, and ask that you do the same.



Second off, at what point would you say that an idealist is acting off "self imposed gullibility"? I don't think any of the situations presented so far would push an idealist to that point. I don't think any of the situations presented reach the point where assuming that an entirely Good result can be achieved is a false hope.


I would say when the idealist begins to expect things to happen when there is no evidence for it. In the fight with the demon, it has been made clear that the Paladin has really no likely chance for victory, save for an insta-kill. No, I admit my math was fuzzy, as it was 3 A.M when I did it and I was trying to fall asleep, but I got something line a 1 out of 8000 chance of that (1/20 *1/20 * 1/20). That to me is patently ridiculous. 1/3 are good odds to me. 1/10 is acceptable. 1/20, I might ponder ever so briefly, but even there I might go for it. 1/8000? 7999 to 1 against? That to me is ridiculous. That is when some one is fooling themselves.

[EvilElitest]

Is it though? If those same enslaving forces pointed at your sister and said "Her life or the world is enslaved." then I should doom the entire world just to protect her? I would think the rest of the world would disagree there. Saying you are force of good and law is one thing, but insisting your personal morals are the definitions of those two abstracts is entirely another. Law and Good are concepts created by society to benefit society. In the worlds of Dungeons and Dragons they do take on a bit more solid role in the form of gods, celestials, and such forces. But the Paladin is not a god or celestial. He is a mortal person who will only see the direct consequences of his actions. A god can accept failing every once in a while, because the god will be around a thousand years later to see the balance shift back. Barring some outside influence, the Paladin won't. All he can do is try and protect those who are there now, those who are counting on him to do the right thing.

Funny thing, when you try to explain your argument, it turns on its self.
1. For the last time, a paladin does not draw his power from the gods (unless you play FR) he draws it from the raw power of Law and Good.
2. So by doing that, any evil action, i repeat any evil action is damage to the raw power of good. It is like shooting your own men in battle.
3. Sense good and evil are real forces, as long as you commit evil you power evil
4. If you had to kill a 8-year old kid to stop slavery, then you are sacerficing others for you cause. Over Zeal if i ever saw if (see KGB)
5. Wheather not you justify it, does not change the fact you broke your code. It exists for a reason.
6. There is never a situation without a good way out, only if you make yourself think so. Or at least a neutral way out.



Try what? The entire point is that there is only a few options left, both distasteful. One calls for the sacrifice of an innocent by another, the other calls for the Paladin to allow the child's soul to be destroyed followed by his own shuffling off the mortal coil.
No their are only two options the paladin is willing to consider.


The problem I have is that it seems you want to treat the second as some sort of glorious sacrifice, when all it really is is glorified suicide. Even you have stated the killing of the child as a lesser evil. If that is the lesser evil, then the Paladin not sacrificing his morals is an even greater evil. Would he not fall for that as well then?
Can't be suicide, the kid is not agreeing with it. And as the paladin is not an all powerful mind reader, he has no right to kill the baby. Hell even if he is a powerful mind reader he has no right to kill the baby without the babies consent (whoops thats not possible, got to ether fall or find another way). And my problem i have is the idea of "Ends justfies the means" and hubris.


That'd be a bummer, right after reassuring the child (who probably doesn't understand what is going on anyway) that you will save the day the gods decide to strip you of your powers for being selfish enough to put them above the good of the world.
Wow, talk about calling the kettel black
1. The child's understanding of the situation is irrelevant. It is still a living being
2. I think killing a innocent to further any goal is inheritly selfish. Every dictator thinks he is "saving the world" and by putting innocents to the sword he is helping a greater cause
3. You still commited a "lesser evil" and that breaks the paladin's code. You fall
4. The gods don't decied when you fall.



Stop telling me to atone. I've already said my next course of action is to jump through the nearest portal to Hell and finish this on the demon's own turf, no matter what the outcome in the temple. I would think that goes above atonement.
Good for you about what you think.
But you are not the raw power of good nor the force the says who falls and who does not fall.
To achieve atonement, you also need a atonment spell
And the gods will not do it for you, because why didn't they cast protection from evi?
You can jump into hell if you want, but that does not change the fact you killed the kid and commited evil
You broke the code, you commited evil, hence you fall.


Really? I would think a Paladin who acknowledges that he is capable of doing wrong is less likely to encourage zealotry then one who insists that all he can do is good, or he would lose his powers. Otherwise, as long as the paladin still has his powers he is justified as always being right. Slaughter that orphanage of goblin and kobold children? Well, their parents were evil aligned, and they were probably going to be so, and heck, I've still got my powers, so it's got to be the good thing to do!
How can you acknowlage that he is capable of doing wrong when he think he can kill innocents and get away with it.


Or, even worse, you end up with a Paladin so restricted he can't act with out first hitting his target with Detect Evil and casting Augury just to check with the Gods that he isn't going to fall. You can no longer strike any person down so long as they are anywhere between LG-CN. LE, NE, and CE are alright, but only so long as you check first!
Oh dear, you lose the right to walk around killing anyone you think is evil? You can't kill good or neutral people any more. You need proof before considering them guilty. OH the horror you must go though. Try a Fighter.


You are no longer allowed to save the world, because there are other people in the world, some of whom are evil. And saving them goes against the Paladin Code, as you are supposed to do no evil, nor allow any evil. It becomes undoable, the class unplayable.
Wrong, their is nothing wrong with protecting evil
If i am a paladin and i see an evil orc who is about to be hung for killing little baby tom, and i know that he didn't kill him because i just killed Mr. Evilbastard who admited to framing the evil orc, should i stop the villagers.
Live and let live is a peacful and good ideal. While you may have to kill evil if they hurt others (not good mind you, evil) you can't kill sombody just because they detect as evil, as Miko proved.


Didn't you criticize me earlier for possibley implying that good might be weaker then evil? And now you are saying that evil is so far ahead that it doesn't even need to worry about the cost.
No, evil just doesn't care about the cost. Evil fights itself all the time, the blood war for example. That is the very nature of evil. Good is not ment to kill its own people. But evil does not care about the cost, as it as far more to lose. It is easier to be evil than good and evil is willing to corupt the paladin just for the sake of doing so, cost regardless.


Now, personally, I believe good and evil to be in a bit of a balance, and it is up to the champions of their respective causes to sway that balance, Also, remember that there are those who are insisting on maintaining the status quo. But Evil is never so far ahead that it can accept the loss of a major power such as the demon in question for the next hundred years it takes for the moons to line up again.
Quote frankly, evil does not care, because i'm sure all the evil gods who the demon would have destroyed are happy, the devils are happy, all the evil mortals are happy, and it tainted a paladin.


And this brings me to another point, your insistence that hope is weapon. It is and it isn't. If I knew there was a trio of Planetars headed my way, and all they needed was a minute to get there, then yes I would stand and fight. Even if I last only thirty seconds that gives the demon barely enough time to get out of the temple before they arrive. But no one has said anything about them arriving. So I have to assume they aren't. Maybe the demon in question kicked off an invasion on one of the higher planes to mask his ascension, and they are busy dealing with that.
But you have ignored the possiblity of another way to stop the demon. Hell pray, their is a two percent chance for divine intervention.


Yes, perhaps my order can defeat the Demon after he rises. But it will take time for them to get there as well, and what is the demon going to do in the mean time? Sit there stitching a daisy chain? No, he is going to be running amok, satisfying his own blood lust. Whose responsibility are the lives he then takes? Those in my order for not arriving fast enough? Or mine, for allowing him out in the first place?
It is the demon's responsiblty, he is the one doing it. Also, then you admit that you order could stop the demon, and therefore the demon does not instent win, so more of a reson to fight on


If you want such a strict code in place for Paladins, then swear now to never complain of railroading when you finally find yourself in a sticky situation.
Frankly, no. Why. Because both of those concept have nothing alike. And strict code is the nature of paladin, as in the Lawful part of lawful good.


Myself, I will play them with my concience
Good for you.


Then, even if my powers don't survive, I can be sure that my principles and morals did, as I am still alive to share them with others.
Ok, play a fighter.

It is a good point, but at the same time assumes a different outcome. In my situation they abide by the terms, one life for the world. In this one they violate the terms, and are just killing the world, albeit in a slower manner, for there is no reason for them to stop. At that point you fight, for that is the only option that is left to you.
But what if evil asks for more lives. Would you trade five lives for the world, tortured to death. how about ten. 15? 45? 105? 1,200, 1,000,000,000?

But it also sidesteps my point. When does sucide become sacrifice, and when does sacrifice become murder? I object to the paladin being denied a legitimate course of action merely because of some undefined abstract.
The point of a code is that it denys one some options, as do aligments. Evil options mind you. Don't like it, play a fighter. And no, it is not a legitimate course of action because you are commiting evil, hence ruining the point of the paladin. And no, the morals of D&D are verys specific and not at all abstract, they are living forces, very powerful ones at that. All for sucide, that is killing ones self. If i stab myself in the chest, i am commiting sucide. Good for me. If you stab me in the chest, for whatever reason it is you killing me. If i did nothing to warrent said stabbing, then it is murder, even if you try to justify it.

have stated several times my interprettion of good, and all I got back is "Well, that isn't right so you're not a paladin." To me standing there an allowing the greater evil is the worse choice, as well as being a form of suicide.
Good for you, but your interpatation of good fits under LN. And i would like to point out, everbody thinks they are good, it does not make it so under D&D terms. Mind you, no one ever said good was the right way, it is just its own ideal.

I'm being told it is instead a sacrifice for some undefined moral. I've been told that I can not kill an innocent. But am I not killing even more innocents just because those same morals say not to kill one? Releasing the demon through inaction, or a desire to fight it, or any other form of letting the ritual finish and the demon reaching the plane, is going to resort in the deaths of more innocents, and I would be responsible for that.
No, the demon is murding the innocet. If you see a guy about to kill a women and you throw an axe at him and miss (Hence the women dies) who's fault was that. The murderer, not you. The demon is the killer, the cultists is trying to summon him, and the gods for not giving you a hand.

Philosophy, morals, honor, these are fine things to strive for. But they should not, can not even, be allowed to influence the fates of millions when they are being decided upon by a single individual.
Ghandi would disagree.

A greater good implies that there is a lesser good, just as a lesser evil implies a greater evil. When the lesser evil benefits the greater good while denying the greater evil, while at the same time the lesser good benefits only the greater evil, then yes, I will accept the lesser evil in the name of the greater good.
1. Their is not such thing as a greater good, their is good, their is neutral, their is evil, with law and chaos thrown into the mix.
2. A lessser evil is still evil.
If I had arrived too late it would not be my fault because I would not have had the chance to act.
Arriving on time and refusing to act because of my own beliefs though it costs others? Yes, that is most definitely my fault, because I made a decision that put them in harms way
You are not refusing to act, you are refusing to act in one manner. You can still try to find another way (attack the alter, cast a cure spell, turn undead, pray, other).

Killing the child would stop it. It was said several times in the other thread that the Paladin had used all of his Protections during earlier fights, and that the others had prepared it was well, they had just been removed from the action by unfortunate luck.
You forget, in the real thread the baby is really an illusion and was in fact a log. So the paladin does not "Know" the demon is going to be summoned.

Actually, there is a major difference between those two questions. The demon example assumes Evil is taking place. The ritual blood sacrifice sounds more like a religious decision, and is therefore more likely the Cleric's territory. Even then, if the Paladin was a champion of that god, it had been passed down from on high that sacrfice was the way to go, then it probably wouldn't be evil in the first place. The society in question would most likely view it as a Good act, to the point of offering the intended sacrifice some sort of hero status, as well as being secure in the knowledge that the sacrifice would recieve some sort of divine reward in the next life
1. Moral are not realative
2. Gods don't control paladin's powers

Why isn't it believable? The Paladin could have a higher Dex then the cleric, as well as Improved Initiative. So his +6 intiative rolls allow him to go ahead of the cleric much more often then the cleric goes first. So they decide they will use the Cleric's Protection From Evil to interrupt the ritual, while the Paladin serves as the party shield. Unfortunately the fighting was tougher then they though it was going to be, and the Paladin's larger hit dice has left him in a position where he can act while the cleric is knocked out. Bad luck happens, mistakes are made. I have been in groups where stuff like this happens. It is really not that unbelievable.
The gods do nothing? Yeah
Pelor:Hey, is it just me, or are is a major demon that will destroy the world coming?
Try: Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, i just made a platapus
Pelor: Strange, just like the flying pillows
Torm: I am so stoned.
I mean really, if this thing is so uber, why aren't they helping? All they have to do is give you a protection from evil.

Depends on the Evil in quetions. Assuming the three forces (Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic) are equally represented amongst Evil, then I am most likely dealing with either Lawful or Neutral. Lawful would obey because those were the terms set forth, and Neutral would obey because it benefits them more to have a slave population that continuously replenshes itself, allowing them the oppurtunity to do even more evil. Granted, chaotic is a good bet for going the 'kill him next, then her, then him' route, but as I already said at that point you are screwed anyway and need to fight.
Even if you have to good luck of being up against LE, why should it follows its own terms if you, LG can't follow yours.

But then when do you acknowledge that there is no chance? A Paladin can be, and should be, to a point, an idealist. But even an Idealist of the purest form will admit that there is a point when it has gone too far, when you are no longer working on hope or faith but self imposed gullibility. Those who refuse to acknowledge that are generally listed as the crazies. Or are you saying the Paladins should be so blind to the consequences of their actions and decisions that they should do anything so long as it is in step with an undefined concept, one which has many different meanings, all varied amongst each individual? And it does vary amongst each and every individual, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Their is not such thing as a binary situation, so the "acknowlegement" can't happen. I know that no matter what happens, the world will never be so black and white.

This was brought up in the Paladins and Morality thread, and it was made rather plain that there isn't really a definition of good or evil in D&D. The terms used in the PHB are rather vague including the section on a Paladin falling, which mentions only a gross violation. The information presented in the PHB makes mention of what Good or Evil aligned characters might do, but does not say what the can not do in any certain terms. As for the BoED (and yes, I admit to cutting off the quote there) it is a splat book, pure and simple. It is not something made available to every group (I know ours didn't) so using that to make a general ruling on the concept of good with in the entire realm of Dungeons and Dragons is bit unfair. If we were to do that, then we'd have to being allowing for every definition from every single book that addresses the subject, including the various campaign settings. So I will stick to the Core books, and ask that you do the same.
1. You didn't prove anything, it was countered and i'm pretty sure i got the last word on that thread. So unless it died, you would have to repeat you argument all over again here to convience anyone of that
2. The books are aligned, so yes you can use others

I would say when the idealist begins to expect things to happen when there is no evidence for it. In the fight with the demon, it has been made clear that the Paladin has really no likely chance for victory, save for an insta-kill. No, I admit my math was fuzzy, as it was 3 A.M when I did it and I was trying to fall asleep, but I got something line a 1 out of 8000 chance of that (1/20 *1/20 * 1/20). That to me is patently ridiculous. 1/3 are good odds to me. 1/10 is acceptable. 1/20, I might ponder ever so briefly, but even there I might go for it. 1/8000? 7999 to 1 against? That to me is ridiculous. That is when some one is fooling themselves
Ironiclly, an idealist would say that "Ends justfies the means" and "Greater good" don't go wrong and that it accually works out. A realist say "Ok, now i'm dealing with hubris and zealotry"
from,
EE

[Sergeantbrother]

I may be the first, but I'm going to have to agree with Foeofthelance here.

I think that saying that the end justifies the means isn't inherently wrong or right but is based on the individual action and the person involved. I really think that it is a matter of pride. Its pridefulness that makes the action or inaction evil.

When the paladin refuses to commit a minor act of evil to prevent a great act or evil or death and suffering, he is putting his own beliefs, honor, and morality ahead of the well being of others. I consider this an act of pride, arrogance, and hubris. And it also sets a bad example, for what would the paladin say to the families of the 1000's slain because the paladin would not torture one villain to save the lives of many innocent people? "Sorry for your lose, I couldn't commit an evil action, not even hurting the bad guy to save 1000's" This paladin may be"good" be he is also the personification of pridefulness - self obsessed even - to put himself (in a sense) above the life of so many innocent people, even if it is to preserve his own sense of righteousness.

Now, on the flip side, commiting minor evils for a greater good can be prideful and evil for much the same reason. When the paladin puts his own ideals and aspirations of acehiving this greater good above the welbeing of others. This is the evil commited by tyrants who wish to create a utopia, but must opress the people in persuit of their goals.

So can would be very reluctant as a DM to ever point at a paladin's action and say that it was evil and that the paladin shouls fall. I think that being too strict on a paladin in this way can easily allow the DM to become a bully - enforcing his own views of morality (or even merely D&D morality) on the unfortunate paladin and the paladin's player.

I also think that the code of the paladin should vary dramatically from paladin to paladin and from religion to religion. Some religions may have a strong belief in turning the other cheek or pacifism, in which case violence may be more frown upon then for a paladin who serves a harsh and judgemental god. Why have the same set of morals for all paladins regardless of religion, it really limits role playing opportunities in my opinion.

[LoopyZebra]

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.

Okay, here's my opinion on this:

Torture is an evil act. No matter what it is used for, it is still evil in DnD.

So, option 2 would violate the Paladin code. Option 3 is the most "paladinish".

But, if I was roleplaying said Paladin, and the only two options were 2 and 3, I would still choose option 2. Yes, it violates the Paladin code. Yes, my character's god has mandated that I shalt not torture the BBEG. But letting thousands die for some sense of valour and honour, for religious dogma, is stupid. If my character's god supports option 3, then my character is following the wrong god. Option 3 is L before G, Option 2 is G before L. It 's not worth letting thousands of people die for class features. I'd tear every bone out of that villian if it would save lives.

But, in DnD terms, option 2 had evil elements, and a DM might reasonably rule it non-good, possibly evil. And it most certainly violated the Paladin Code. Bye bye Smite Evil. I don't want you if others have to pay in blood for you.

[Foeofthelance]

No their are only two options the paladin is willing to consider.

And yet there has yet to be a third option presented. All of them have boiled down to either kill the child, or allow the demon through. If there are only two options to consider, then there are only two options to consider. Frankly I'm surprised your even willing to admit that killing the child is an option to begin with.


Can't be suicide, the kid is not agreeing with it.

I meant the Paladin in question is comitting suicide, by trying to tackle a foe more powerful then the Paladin is at his maximum, which the Paladin isn't. It might be honorable, it might righteous, might be moral to you, but to me it is nothing but a wasteful death that accomplishes nothing.



Wow, talk about calling the kettel black


Yeah, admittedly it is. But then if I am falling for the lesser evil, shouldn't you fall for the greater one?


How can you acknowledge that he is capable of doing wrong when he think he can kill innocents and get away with it?

Because by admitting to himself that he is capable of doing evil he makes himself aware of it. When he knows how far he is willing to go, then he also knows where the line is that he refuses to cross. Which to me is far more righteous then the "I'm a Paladin, thus I can do no wrong" attitude.


Quite frankly, evil does not care, because i'm sure all the evil gods who the demon would have destroyed are happy, the devils are happy, all the evil mortals are happy, and it tainted a paladin.

And Good prevails, as all the innocents are saved, and neutrality celebrates because the balance is maintained. The Paladin is tainted no matter what, but he still has the knowledge that he has accomplished much for good, that others can now continue to do good, and that he now has the chance for redemption, allowing him to do even more good.


But you have ignored the possiblity of another way to stop the demon. Hell pray, there is a two percent chance for divine intervention.


What two percent chance of divine intervention? No where does it say there is a two percent chance of intervention. And how can you continously argue the gods should do something for the Paladin, and at the same time claim they have nothing to do with his status or powers? He prays, does he not? Yet you insist the Paladin and his course of action and the fate of his powers have nothing to do with gods, while at the same time demand that they involve themselves to protect the Paladin from the dilemma.


It is the demon's responsibilty, he is the one doing it. Also, then you admit that you order could stop the demon, and therefore the demon does not instant win, so more of a reason to fight on.

Against me, in the Ritual Chamber, yes the Demon will win. I might delay him for a few seconds, but that is nothing compared to the days it will take for my order to realize I have failed, more days for them to organize, and still more time for them to march against the demon. And all the while the demon will be out there wreaking havoc on the innocents who I failed to protect by allowing the Demon into their world, all because I was foolish enough to think I could handle it by myself, or because I counted on aid that had never been spoken of.



Frankly, no. Why. Because both of those concept have nothing alike. And strict code is the nature of paladin, as in the Lawful part of lawful good.


No, that is exactly what you are demanding. That any Paladin should die for his cause, rather then live for it. You even accused Kreistor and myself of railroading when the dilemma was originally presented. How this any different? There is a difference between a strict code and an unreasonable one. And what you are setting forth, to me, is unreasonable. Paladins are supposed to be able to act in the name of good, not be hobbled by it.

[EvilElitest]

I may be the first, but I'm going to have to agree with Foeofthelance here.

I think that saying that the end justifies the means isn't inherently wrong or right but is based on the individual action and the person involved. I really think that it is a matter of pride. Its pridefulness that makes the action or inaction evil.

When the paladin refuses to commit a minor act of evil to prevent a great act or evil or death and suffering, he is putting his own beliefs, honor, and morality ahead of the well being of others. I consider this an act of pride, arrogance, and hubris. And it also sets a bad example, for what would the paladin say to the families of the 1000's slain because the paladin would not torture one villain to save the lives of many innocent people? "Sorry for your lose, I couldn't commit an evil action, not even hurting the bad guy to save 1000's" This paladin may be"good" be he is also the personification of pridefulness - self obsessed even - to put himself (in a sense) above the life of so many innocent people, even if it is to preserve his own sense of righteousness.

Now, on the flip side, commiting minor evils for a greater good can be prideful and evil for much the same reason. When the paladin puts his own ideals and aspirations of acehiving this greater good above the welbeing of others. This is the evil commited by tyrants who wish to create a utopia, but must opress the people in persuit of their goals.

So can would be very reluctant as a DM to ever point at a paladin's action and say that it was evil and that the paladin shouls fall. I think that being too strict on a paladin in this way can easily allow the DM to become a bully - enforcing his own views of morality (or even merely D&D morality) on the unfortunate paladin and the paladin's player.

I also think that the code of the paladin should vary dramatically from paladin to paladin and from religion to religion. Some religions may have a strong belief in turning the other cheek or pacifism, in which case violence may be more frown upon then for a paladin who serves a hrash and judgemental god. Why have the same set of morals for all apaldins regardless of religion, it really limits role playing opportunities in my opinion.

You entire thing presumes taht D&D say aligments are relative. They are not in core D&D. if you don't like the rules, then by all means i say make up your own. But in core the paladin is fallen for commiting evil, sorry
from,
EE

[Viscount Einstrauss]

WWPD. If you think Pelor would do it in the same situation, then it's a legal move for a paladin.

[EvilElitest]

And yet there has yet to be a third option presented. All of them have boiled down to either kill the child, or allow the demon through. If there are only two options to consider, then there are only two options to consider. Frankly I'm surprised your even willing to admit that killing the child is an option to begin with.

hey i prestenting a third option, pray, two percent chance of help coming from you god
Also, i would like to point out, i have no control over the situation, so i have not been given the details to allow myself a third option.
And yes, killing the kid is an option, because i could do it. Anything i can do is an option. When you do something, you try to limit them.
So for example, i'm to afraid of the demon coming that i am willing to go for the most simple option, kill the baby
If the paladin had to restor to killing the baby, he falls. If he is willing to take the pain and hardship of falling, plus pay for the raise dead spell, then fine.


I meant the Paladin in question is comitting suicide, by trying to tackle a foe more powerful then the Paladin is at his maximum, which the Paladin isn't. It might be honorable, it might righteous, might be moral to you, but to me it is nothing but a wasteful death that accomplishes nothing.
Unlike killing an innocent, that is "well used death"? I would like to point out, that it is still killing an innocent. By killing the kid you are commiting murder. And yeah, fighting against all odds is a pretty paladin thing to do


Yeah, admittedly it is. But then if I am falling for the lesser evil, shouldn't you fall for the greater one?
I'm not falling for a greater one, i have not summoned the demon. The demon will be doing the greater evil. I am trying to stop both evil with a third option, that you have not presented because the situation is basiclly a con. If you want to deny that, you need to present a third option.


Because by admitting to himself that he is capable of doing evil he makes himself aware of it. When he knows how far he is willing to go, then he also knows where the line is that he refuses to cross. Which to me is far more righteous then the "I'm a Paladin, thus I can do no wrong" attitude.
If he is willing to commit a lesser evil for the greater good, how far is he willing to go? Sounds to me he will alway use ends justifies the means simple because it is more effective short term.


And Good prevails, as all the innocents are saved, and neutrality celebrates because the balance is maintained. The Paladin is tainted no matter what, but he still has the knowledge that he has accomplished much for good, that others can now continue to do good, and that he now has the chance for redemption, allowing him to do even more good.
1. Is paladin tainted paladin fallen? Because then he can just atone
2. Good does not win, as evil had to save it and an innocent died
3. Evil wins. All the evil taht the demon would have killed is saved, all the evils that hate the demon are happy, and it tainted a paladin.



What two percent chance of divine intervention? No where does it say there is a two percent chance of intervention. And how can you continously argue the gods should do something for the Paladin, and at the same time claim they have nothing to do with his status or powers? He prays, does he not? Yet you insist the Paladin and his course of action and the fate of his powers have nothing to do with gods, while at the same time demand that they involve themselves to protect the Paladin from the dilemma.
Dude, i think you need to reread the paladin description
"Paladin's need not devote themselves to a diety. Devotion to righteousness is enough for most."
"A paladin who ceases to be Lawful Good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct losses all special abilities and spells"
I know their is a two percent chance for divine interviention, i'll have to look up where, anyone know.
The gods don't control paladin powers. Unlike clerics, a palain's code is the same not matter who they worship
St. Cuthbert is fine with "Greater Good" for his clerics, but his paladins need to follow the same code.
Pelor's clerics and Torm's clerics would be held to different codes, but their paladins would be held to the same code. They do not control if the paladin falls
On the other hand, Gods do still exist and if this demon is as powerful as you say, would logiclly do something about its existence. If i was pelor, why not jsut cast protection from evil, or summon an angle to do it for me? Situations like these are where the gods come into play



Against me, in the Ritual Chamber, yes the Demon will win. I might delay him for a few seconds, but that is nothing compared to the days it will take for my order to realize I have failed, more days for them to organize, and still more time for them to march against the demon. And all the while the demon will be out there wreaking havoc on the innocents who I failed to protect by allowing the Demon into their world, all because I was foolish enough to think I could handle it by myself, or because I counted on aid that had never been spoken of.
Funny thing about combat, you never know who it will turn out. You could very well trick the demon in combat to make it collase the temple, you order could take faster to show up, maybe your random attempt to stop the rituel worked, maybe you cleric shows up, maybe the gods do something



No, that is exactly what you are demanding. That any Paladin should die for his cause, rather then live for it. You even accused Kreistor and myself of railroading when the dilemma was originally presented. How this any different?
You are in a situation, you have only two choices. One is evil, but it is ok now. One will make you die. Yeah, i see "Soooooooooooo" many options there. A paladin should try every good option possible to stop evil, and need be it, sacerfice his life to stop evil. That is why he signed up. Also, unlike a railroading DM, the paladin has a choice in the matter, he can choose to stick to the code, or he can lose his paladin abilties.


There is a difference between a strict code and an unreasonable one. And what you are setting forth, to me, is unreasonable. Paladins are supposed to be able to act in the name of good, not be hobbled by it.
Good are held to higher standards than evil. A CE person will have more options availble to him by default. To be good, you need to have some action that you will not do, some morals that you will fight for, and a sense of human rights. To not accept that is to say that good is inheritly weak. A paladin's code is not a hinderence unless he allows himself to make it so. Killing the baby is a vile, cowardly, arrogent, cruel act. A paladin is forces to find another way, and their will be another way, as the world is not so black and white as only two options are prestent.
Sounds tough. Yes. A paladin's life is tough. To bad, that is how it goes. You don't like it, don't be a paladin
from,
EE

[Maxwell]

If paladins get stuck in a serious moral dilema such as this one. They die or they fall. It all depends on whats more convinient, a ressurection or an atonement. For everyone else besides paladins, I think the end justifies the means. But hey, thats just me.

[Foeofthelance]

Unlike killing an innocent, that is "well used death"? I would like to point out, that it is still killing an innocent. By killing the kid you are commiting murder. And yeah, fighting against all odds is a pretty paladin thing to do.

Compared to standing your ground against the unstoppable? Yes it is a well used death. The price of that one child's life just saved millions. That paladin trying to fight the demon? That just starts the bodycount at two instead of ending it at one.



I'm not falling for a greater one, i have not summoned the demon. The demon will be doing the greater evil. I am trying to stop both evil with a third option, that you have not presented because the situation is basiclly a con.


I would think that by placing your morals above the well being of millions that you are comitting a very great a terrible evil. Not only are you allowing your pride to lead you into allowing a powerful force of evil into the world, you are essentially allowing it the ability to do anything it can because you chose a false hope over stopping it cold.

And it is not a con. The shell game example used for that was a false one. If I place a ball under one of three shells, and then shuffle them about, and while doing so slip the ball up my sleeve, that is a con.

But when instead of tucking it up my sleeve I leave it on the table, and you choose the left shell when it really is in the middle, that isn't a con. That merely means you were confused, or made a poor choice or guess.


Funny thing about combat, you never know how it will turn out. You could very well trick the demon in combat to make it collapse the temple, your order could take less time to show up, maybe your random attempt to stop the ritual worked, maybe you cleric shows up, maybe the gods do something

Yes, and a meteor might come crashing through, the atmosphere might spontansouly combust, the moon could crash into the planet, heck the sun might even go nova. Outrageous? No, outrageous would be expecting all of these things to happen simoultaneously wouldn't it? Again these are examples of Deus ex machina. Which is not something the player has any control over. Deus Ex Machina is tool for the DM to tell a story with, to introduce a powerful new NPC for the players to interact with etc. It is not something the players are supposed to count on bailing them out of a situation that was intended for them to deal with. Especially when they are still capable of dealing with it themselves.



Good is held to higher standards than evil. A CE person will have more options availble to him by default. To be good, you need to have some action that you will not do, some morals that you will fight for, and a sense of human rights. To not accept that is to say that good is inherently weak.


No, I have never said that good is inherently weaker. What I have said is that maintains a balance with evil, as the three forces work with and against each other. And that sometimes the cause of furthering good can require ugly sacrifices. Good will only be weaker then those who choose to defend it are told they can not or should not do so, and listen.



Killing the baby is a vile, cowardly, arrogent, cruel act.


Vile? Nay. I may feel guilty when the deed is done, perhaps bitterness at the course of my actions, but I am not sickened by them, nor repulsed by them.

Cowardly? I say courage, for only courage would allow one to face the possibility of giving up that which represents their cause and path, and only courage will give them the strength to make the right choice.

Arrogant? I would think that acknowledging one's limitations would make one humble rather then arrogant.

Cruel? No, the strike need be swift and sure, this is true, but not cruel. I shall leave cruel to those who would torture. I, personally, would grant a quick and clean death.



The world is not so black and white as only two options are present.


No, the world is not black and white, this is true. And yes, there were many options when the adventure began, but to wind up with only two options? That does not require a black and white world, merely an ill fate. Such, I fear, is all too common.


Sounds tough. Yes. A paladin's life is tough. To bad, that is how it goes. You don't like it, don't be a paladin.

Yes, a paladin's life is tough. Fortunately, I can see which path would be the right one, and have the courage to face it, no matter what the personal consequences would be. I would rather be a fallen Paladin then the one responsible for allowing millions to die, when I had the chance.

[my_evil_twin]

Yes, a paladin's life is tough. Fortunately, I can see which path would be the right one, and have the courage to face it, no matter what the personal consequences would be. I would rather be a fallen Paladin then the one responsible for allowing millions to die, when I had the chance.

Then you'd fall as a paladin. There are worse things, and there's plenty of room in a world for LG fighters with a more utilitarian outlook.

I think what hangs a lot of people up is their own personal definition of "good." The paladin ethos is one approach to the pursuit of good. It doesn't have to encompass every argument, or clearly be the best possible thing to every observer. It only has to be consistent.

Different orders of paladins may even interpret certain questions differently. (Side idea: Maybe paladins who retire go into "Theoretical Paladinhood," and decide how younger paladins should respond to scenarios with bombs and babies.) If a paladin in a tough situation always does the same thing as any LG person, than there isn't any real substance to the paladin code. It just becomes a mechanic, like encumbrance rules.

[Jayabalard]

WWPD. If you think Pelor would do it in the same situation, then it's a legal move for a paladin.hmm... pick up the child and enfold it in your protective aura, and deny the demon entrance to the world.

That does sound like a paladinish response.

[Jayabalard]

Cowardly? I say courage, for only courage would allow one to face the possibility of giving up that which represents their cause and path, and only courage will give them the strength to make the right choice.A person who tries to justify his actions using arguments that boil down to "the ends justify the means", or "for the greater good" is cowardly indeed; it takes quite a bit more courage to own up to the evil that they do rather than try and justify it, or trying to shift the blame to someone else, the situation or any of that rubbish.

[Foeofthelance]

A person who tries to justify his actions using arguments that boil down to "the ends justify the means", or "for the greater good" is cowardly indeed;


Why shouldn't a Paladin strive for the greater good? That is what he is supposed to do, act as a force of good in the world. What I can't accept is when people want to ignore the "Greater good" for some "Ultra good" which really has no chance, outside of their own personal desires. Choosing to stand and fight a demon when everything and anything says you can not win, solely because of a bunch of hypothetical "what ifs?" which exist solely in the paladin's mind strikes me as foolish. Especially since the only person who would stand to gain from such an action would be the Paladin, as it is the one choice that allows for a definite "Do not Fall" consequence. Though what good that is going to do him when he is dead on the demon's claws, I really don't know, and considering his unconcious party is right in the path of the advancing demon I doubt they'll be getting the chance to Ressurrect him any time soon.



It takes quite a bit more courage to own up to the evil that they do rather than try and justify it, or trying to shift the blame to someone else, the situation or any of that rubbish.


I have said many times that the Paladin would take full responsibility for taking the life of the child, no one else. On top of that I set out to justify it as well, as that is what one does during a debate. As for shifitng the blame when did I ever do that? Did I ever blame the Cleric aand Wizard for getting knocked out, thus denying me their Protection from Evils? No. Did I ever blame the demon for being summoned? No. Or the Cultists for doing the summoning? No. Or the gods for not interfering just because I had a tough decision to make? No. Nor did I blame celestials for not flying in to save the day by fighting the demon for me. Those are merely the factors that have led to situation in which I must make a decision.

What I did say was that if I allowed the Demon to rise, when I had the chance to prevent it, then it would be my responsibility for all of the lives the demon takes before someone else is able to stop him. I would hardly call that trying to shift the blame to someone else.

[Darkxarth]

I think it comes down to this.

If a Paladin can justify killing an innocent child or torturing someone, no matter how good the cause, they are on a steep and slippery slope to justifying greater and greater evils for lesser and lesser goods.

EX: "Killing these Orc women will prevent them from birthing Orc babies, which may or may not grow up to attack good people. Alternatively, I could allow them to live, and birth children who could grow up to destroy all that I stand for. The only good option here is to destroy the mothers, because it serves the greater good."

That would make a Paladin fall hard enough to leave cracks, though at the point that the "Paladin" is justifying this sort of rubbish, they're likely already LN or TN anyway.


And it is not a con. The shell game example used for that was a false one. If I place a ball under one of three shells, and then shuffle them about, and while doing so slip the ball up my sleeve, that is a con.
And yes, it is a con. The situation is presenting two options, bad or worse, when other options exist. It wants you to believe that the only options are "kill the baby, stop the demon" or "save the baby, doom the world". The shell game is only slightly different, it wants you to think that the only options are Cup A, Cup B, or Cup C. No matter which option you choose, you lose, just like in the Demon/Baby scenario. The trick is finding the other option, "save the baby, stop the demon" or "Maybe he palmed the ball without my knowing". No, they are not easy options to find, that's why the shell game is still around, because people just keep assuming that they are only allowed the choices given them. As a Paladin, both killing the baby and dooming the world are Evil acts, both will make a Paladin fall. That's the trick, it's a lose-lose situation, there is no right answer between those two. And that's exactly how the shell game works, and that's exactly why this situation is a con and is ridiculous.

[Foeofthelance]

If a Paladin can justify killing an innocent child or torturing someone, no matter how good the cause, they are on a steep and slippery slope to justifying greater and greater evils for lesser and lesser goods.


This agree with. It is called Temptation, and is something the Paladin is likely to face often, and should be aware of.


EX: "Killing these Orc women will prevent them from birthing Orc babies, which may or may not grow up to attack good people. Alternatively, I could allow them to live, and birth children who could grow up to destroy all that I stand for. The only good option here is to destroy the mothers, because it serves the greater good."

This is both a good and bad example, in my opinion. It is a good way of demonstrating how a Paladin might fall by repeatedly giving into easy temptation, but it lacks the immediate urgency of the Demon Dilemma. The case presented above leaves the Paladin many, many options to act on before the orc children are full grown and a threat to anybody. He could choose to live in the village, instructing the children in the way of good. He could make regular patrols to check up on the orcs, make sure they aren't threatening people. He could tell the king there is an orc tribe living on the border, and leave it to the king to deal with it. Again, too many options.


And yes, it is a con. The situation is presenting two options, bad or worse, when other options exist. It wants you to believe that the only options are "kill the baby, stop the demon" or "save the baby, doom the world". The shell game is only slightly different, it wants you to think that the only options are Cup A, Cup B, or Cup C. No matter which option you choose, you lose, just like in the Demon/Baby scenario. The trick is finding the other option, "save the baby, stop the demon" or "Maybe he palmed the ball without my knowing". No, they are not easy options to find, that's why the shell game is still around, because people just keep assuming that they are only allowed the choices given them. As a Paladin, both killing the baby and dooming the world are Evil acts, both will make a Paladin fall. That's the trick, it's a lose-lose situation, there is no right answer between those two. And that's exactly how the shell game works, and that's exactly why this situation is a con and is ridiculous.

No, the situation is not a con. It is the result of bad luck. The same argument was made in the original thread. As I pointed out there, unless the person(s) posting the dilemma is allowed dictate certain events to give the dilemma credit it renders any attempt at posting such a dilemma pointless. It has been said before that the party had prepared several means to prevent the ritual, including the Cleric prepping Protection from Evil and the Mage preparing Dispel Magic. Unfortunately the course of the adventure has removed these options, as those characters are rendered unconcious. This is not absurd, this is not a con, this is bad luck. The boards are filled with stories where such has happend, as well as stories to the opposite effect. I myself can tell you of the time my party tried to take on a collossal scorpion, though we weren't as prepared as we thought we were, or the time we managed to take down a level 8 Ravager at level 3 using nothing but a pair of skeletons and Color Spray.

The point is that trying to poke holes in the dilemma is not a valid argument. It is like being handed a math test that includes "What does 2+2 equal?" and replying "Well, I think the number 2 is absurd, so therefore the question is absurd and unfair." If I wanted I could probably poke quite a few holes in it myself, and in much more creative ways then "Oh, but of course I would make sure to hold on to one of my Protection from Evils!" But I don't, because I accept the point of the dilemma, I.E. should the paladin commit a lesser evil that benefits the most good, or should he stick to his creed and allow a greater evil?

[Darkxarth]

No, the situation is not a con. It is the result of bad luck. The same argument was made in the original thread. As I pointed out there, unless the person(s) posting the dilemma is allowed dictate certain events to give the dilemma credit it renders any attempt at posting such a dilemma pointless. It has been said before that the party had prepared several means to prevent the ritual, including the Cleric prepping Protection from Evil and the Mage preparing Dispel Magic. Unfortunately the course of the adventure has removed these options, as those characters are rendered unconcious. This is not absurd, this is not a con, this is bad luck.

I'm going to have to continue to disagree, it is a con. Explaining why you have to obey the rules of the con doesn't make it not a con. The trick is that you are supposed to believe it isn't a con, just bad luck, once you buy into the idea that it isn't a con, you've already lost. It is set up to prove a single point, that the ends justifies the means, not to allow for debate. Just like the shell game is set up to take your money, not to allow you to play a game of chance. Once you set your money on the table, there is no chance anymore.


The point is that trying to poke holes in the dilemma is not a valid argument. It is like being handed a math test that includes "What does 2+2 equal?" and replying "Well, I think the number 2 is absurd, so therefore the question is absurd and unfair." If I wanted I could probably poke quite a few holes in it myself, and in much more creative ways then "Oh, but of course I would make sure to hold on to one of my Protection from Evils!" But I don't, because I accept the point of the dilemma, I.E. should the paladin commit a lesser evil that benefits the most good, or should he stick to his creed and allow a greater evil?

I don't agree with your comparison between this dilemma and the math test, though I do agree that saying "Oh, but of course I would make sure to hold on to one of my Protection from Evils!" is not a valid argument. But once you're down to debating that way, you've already agreed to the rules of the con, and you can't win anyway.

[Jayabalard]

No, the situation is not a con. It is the result of bad luck. Nope, there's no bad luck, because the situation never really happened in a game I played. It's only purpose was so that someone could claim murder could be good if it had a good enough justification; specifically, over the last few weeks, I think it was first brought up to justify calling a being that enjoys killing and kills strictly for the purpose of killing (ie, ending life) lawful good, and it has since spilled into the rest of the morality debates.

It's a con, nothing more; poking holes at it's absurdity is quite valid.

[Foeofthelance]

When I was introduced to the dilemma it was about whether a Paladin should sacrifice his morals for the greater good, and risk taking the fall for the benefits of others, or if he should stand by his ideals, and face down the demon, even though it was a losing proposition.

This was, and to me, has been the focus of the debate. Naturally, I view my own stance as correct, just as I have to assume that you folks truly believe that your view is correct. Fortunately the point of a debate is not to persuade the other side that they are wrong, but to convince those who are listening that you are right.

What I have been objecting to is the bits inbetween the actual debate, where people have been trying to render the original question moot by declaring it invalid or absurd. It is not, it is a vehicle by which to inspire the debate. Obviously it worked as there is more then fifteen pages of it at this point, counting both threads.

I will continue to support the paladin choosing to kill the child in the given set of circumstances. That is the choice that serves good in the greatest capacity. Perhaps the soul of the paladin is worth more then the soul of any other being. But a million copper pieces are still worth more then a single gold coin. Perhaps the Paladin does fall for killing the child. But at least he has the chance to Atone for his actions, Ressurrect the child if the chil chooses to return, as well as having the chance to continue to do good in the world. No one person is ever so great for their cause that with out them the cause can not continue. If that does happen then it was not a true cause, but a cult of personality instead.

[Darkxarth]

When I was introduced to the dilemma it was about whether a Paladin should sacrifice his morals for the greater good, and risk taking the fall for the benefits of others, or if he should stand by his ideals, and face down the demon, even though it was a losing proposition.
That is not a con. It presents two choices, neither one perfect, neither one necessarily right or wrong. I will happily debate the answer to that proposal.


This was, and to me, has been the focus of the debate. Naturally, I view my own stance as correct, just as I have to assume that you folks truly believe that your view is correct. Fortunately the point of a debate is not to persuade the other side that they are wrong, but to convince those who are listening that you are right.
Agreed.


What I have been objecting to is the bits inbetween the actual debate, where people have been trying to render the original question moot by declaring it invalid or absurd. It is not, it is a vehicle by which to inspire the debate. Obviously it worked as there is more then fifteen pages of it at this point, counting both threads.
The question I saw, not being a part of the original Demon/Baby thread, was a con. The version you presented at the top of this quote, is a debate. My aversion to the "vehicle" is solved, as, I suspect, are several others.


I will continue to support the paladin choosing to kill the child in the given set of circumstances. That is the choice that serves good in the greatest capacity. Perhaps the soul of the paladin is worth more then the soul of any other being. But a million copper pieces are still worth more then a single gold coin. Perhaps the Paladin does fall for killing the child. But at least he has the chance to Atone for his actions, Ressurrect the child if the chil chooses to return, as well as having the chance to continue to do good in the world. No one person is ever so great for their cause that with out them the cause can not continue. If that does happen then it was not a true cause, but a cult of personality instead.

So, what we have here is a debate with three options.

1: Kill the baby, definitely stop the Demon.

2: Don't kill the baby, do nothing, allow the Demon to do whatever it pleases.

3: Don't kill the baby, try to stop the Demon, at low odds.

So far as I can see, no one is seriously supporting the 2nd option. What we have is a debate between the 1st and 3rd.

I believe that the Paladin should take the 3rd option, not to prevent his fall, but because it is the option which is supported by the Paladin's Code. Again, not to keep from falling, but because you don't become a Paladin and think, "Gee, this code seems nice at first, but it's actually stupid. I'll follow it until it becomes bothersome." You follow it because you believe in it, not because you're forced to. And killing an innocent baby is definitely against the Code, regardless of its consequences.

[Foeofthelance]

The only problem I see with that, is in this case the Code says to do both things. It says to not slay the child, because such would be an evil act. But it also says to protect the innocents who would be threatened by the demon, which as a force of evil is the Paladin's duty to stop. So how does the Paladin choose?

I vote for the first option, because it allows for the maximum benefit for good. It saves the majority at the cost of the one, which is the immediate gain. It spares the Paladin's life, which give it future gain, as the Paladin then goes forth and does more good deeds, both to atone and to further the cause of good. It also allows for the cost of stopping the demon, the loss of the child's life, to be returned, as the possibility remains for the child to be ressurected.

But if the Paladin chooses to stand against the Demon, the greatest chance is for him to lose. It would be spectacular if that 1 in 8000 chance hit, but that it unlikely. So in exchange, Good gets a small immediate gain, followed by a small loss in the destruction of the child's soul, followed by the bigger loss of the Paladin's life, followed by the even bigger loss of the innocents who are then destroyed by the freed demon.

No, the code is not meant to be taken lightly. It is not meant to be something that just anybody can accept and use and claim to be a Paladin. But I don't see it as being something to be followed to the letter. For me, the Code is basically saying, "Remember Pal, you chose to obey me. I am here to stay no matter what you may want. Breaking me means consequences. And I promise you that they will be ugly ones. So if you ever choose to break me, it better be worth it." For me, saving the world would be worth it.

[EvilElitest]

Compared to standing your ground against the unstoppable? Yes it is a well used death. The price of that one child's life just saved millions. That paladin trying to fight the demon? That just starts the bodycount at two instead of ending it at one.

Wait, you arguing about a paladin and saying that he should not set his life down to fight against a powerful evil, but should instead kill a baby. Right.
Ok i'll get back to that, but on a different note
Just like their are not binary situations, their are no, at least in life and in D&D monsters that are impossible to kill, just really, really, really, really, really, really, really, hard to kill. Unless this guy is a demon prince or a god, and in that case the forces of good have sent the wrong guy and ought to send in something powerful.


I would think that by placing your morals above the well being of millions that you are comitting a very great a terrible evil. Not only are you allowing your pride to lead you into allowing a powerful force of evil into the world, you are essentially allowing it the ability to do anything it can because you chose a false hope over stopping it cold.
Wow, don't follow your morals, don't fight in the fact of danger, and killing babies are ok. Sounds almost blackgaurd honestly
Anyways,
1. It is in your situation that you place morals above the well being of innocets. You moral is "Ends justfies the means", not a LG moral. The good part of Lawful Good is the part that says we don't like harming innocents, and our cause is not inheritly better tahn any one else. By killing hte inocent, you have bascilly stated "My code, a utilitarian code, is the only one that can save the day, and so i am willing to kill the baby to further my code." It tries to justify it, but does not excuse the murder. If the kid was older, knew what was going to happen, and asked the paladin to murder him, then the kid is bowing to a certain code and is willingly givening his own life away. The paladin in this case has given up, and resorts to evil to try to stop evil, justifying it with the ideal of greater good
2. It is your pride that say that you think you have the right to decied whether little baby boy lives or dies. Your the one who thinks that you are the perfect judge to deem him guilty of a crime he didn't commit and kill him. I think that i don't have that right, and my duty has a paladin is to try to stop the demon in a good manner.
3. I am not allowing a greater evil into the world, i am trying to stop it in whatever means possible. Failing does not make me evil, giving up does. If i stab my +3 two handed sword into one of the runes on the alter, in hopes that i might ruin the rituel. That is a perfectly logical thing to do considering my understanding of the situation. Don't forget, the baby is really an illuisionary log, so i don't truly understand the situation.
Now if that plan works but a stray blast of magic kills the baby, it is not my fault because i didn't know that it would happen. Accident. If the plan fails, then i will have to fight hte demon directly. But i am not the one summoning the demon
4. You can't call anything a false hope if you don't try. Unlikely but not try. If i stab teh runes, then i could save the day. I could not. But if i never stab the runes, i will never no.
As for falst hope, in combat their are massive amounts of possiblities in outcomes. Combat is so random that it is quite likely taht i can find some way to defeat it, or to get help, or slow it down ect.


And it is not a con. The shell game example used for that was a false one. If I place a ball under one of three shells, and then shuffle them about, and while doing so slip the ball up my sleeve, that is a con.

But when instead of tucking it up my sleeve I leave it on the table, and you choose the left shell when it really is in the middle, that isn't a con. That merely means you were confused, or made a poor choice or guess.
No, it is a shell game. You haven't left the ball on the table. You given two option, disregarding the need for a third. Stephen E put it better.
Here

That's the problem. There is no such thing as a truly binary situation. If it looks like a binary situation then someone is lying to you or you're misinformed. Often they're set up as a lie to try and convince you to a particular way of thinking. In RL Politicians often do it as a way of garnering support for something that they know people won't support by choice. They put forward what they want, and then put fprward someting else unpalatable and claim it's the only other choice. Basically it's a variant of the Shell game talked about by Haley in OotS. Soon as you buy into the concept that there are only "x" choices, and one of those is the right choice, you've lost.
This one is not about the con, but quite relevent

Kreistor: If your Paladin knowingly murders an innocent child, he's done evil and must fall. Saying that there are only 2 choices and the other one is evil, so this one must be good, is rubbish. It's the logic of tyrants and murderers.

Basically the only ways I can see the Paladin avoid falling by taking the choice you insist would be safe are.
1) You define murdering an innocent child as non-evil or good. Murdering involves the deliberate unlawful killing (i.e. The child hidden in the straw target doesn't count)
2) You claim the child isn't innocent because a 3rd party, the Demon, is going to use it's body to come through and do evil.
3) You pretend that there are only two choices, and say that "one must be right, so if I show by my standards that the other is wrong, the remaining one must be right".
(there may be others, but they don't leap to mind currently)

You appear to have used all of these to defend your argument.
Paladins have a few simple rules. One been "If you knowingly do evil you fall".
A lesser evil is still evil.

You also claim that their are RL situation which present similair type binary choices/situations. Without knowing the precise situation you're referring to I can't give a comprehensive responce, but IME so called situations ussually involve someone trying to justify an ethically dodgy action they wish to take, which they'd like to portray as good/right to feel good about themselves and/or convince others to support them.

The entire concept that there must be a good choice is dubious, if not outright ethically bankrupt from the start. If you take enough bad choices it may be feasable to limit your choices down to various shades of bad or neutral, but any Paladin should've fallen lomg before reaching that point.

I'm sorry if this comes across to blunt or personnal, but the impression you give from your posts inclines me to suggest your RL approach to ethics are such that you should neither GM or play Paladins in DnD. RL doesn't have a RAW, so while I disagree with your ethicall approach I can't point to a rulebook and say "you're wrong", but in DnD there are rules, confusing and limited as they are, and frankly your ethics don't handle how DnD (Paladins in particular) works. This doesn't matter for most of DnD, but Paladins it does.

Stephen


I repeat. Your claim of a binary situation is wordplay.
Simple situation -
You are walking through a maze and come to a 4 way intersection. Just taking it on the simplest level you have 5 choices -
1) Go forward.
2) Go left.
3) Go Right.
4) Go back
5) Stay where you are
You are saying there are two choices move/stay. This is what I call a con/wordplay. Moving is a set which includes 4 choices (on this VERY simple level) it is not a choice on it's own. The choice to move left is equvalent to the choice to stay still. There is no "don't choose, since to not choose is actually choosing to stand still. You're trying to do conjuring tricks and calling them real.
One of my favorits

There are innocent children that MIGHT be harmed by the release of the demon against my actual killing the innocent child. And I'm not"favouring" any child. If I kill one innocent it is evil. If I kill a 100 innocents it is evil. We're back to your (and others) attempts to make it a binary situation when it isn't.

If I kill the child in an attempt to stop the Demon coming through I will've done an evil act (I may do it deciding it;s the best of the choices I can see, but that doesn't stop it been evil). I can instead try and stop the ritual suceeding some other way. If I fail the Demon comes through, but failure isn't evil. "Fighting the good fight even with no hope of success" is a long established heroic and often good deed. If it comes through I will then try and defeat the demon, either on my own or with the help of others. If successful no more innocent lives will be harmed.

Can we succeed. Yes. The demon was defeated in the past, and the scenario is clear that even if the demon suceeds in coming through and establishing domiance, that it's rule won't be permanent. Thus it is beatable.
Will we succeed in beating it? Maybe not, but as I said before, failing isn't evil.

I say again, this scenario is a shell game. You have put down 2 cups and said the pea is under one of them. Choose the right cup. You've attempted to rig the game (and some others here support the rigging) but I've seen the game before. The pea isn't under either cup. I could laugh and walk away, as many undoubtedly did on looking at this "challenge". I could try and flimflam you back, but instead I stand and watch, calling out "He's cheating" and proceed to point out the cheats you're using.

In game these situations are time constrained and the Paladin may well make the wrong choice and fall. This is not bad DMing unless the atoning is made unreasonably hard. As Hinjo from the OotS strip said "That's what the Atonement spell is there for".

Your scenario is an enormous conjob. When we poke holes in it your responce is to add details/restriction soley for the purpose of insisting we agree with your moral choices. At this point you have said there was no free will leading up to the situation, and no free will after the situation, and only two choices in the situation (but of course you're actually pretending because there is only one "choice" you'll allow in the situation and you'll keep tweaking it so long as we don't choose the only "choice" you allow).

Your Paladins God is apparently Omniscient regarding the Demons actions once he's free, and how he's going to be freed, BUT couldn't get you their earlier with a Prot from Evil. Like I said it's all a con on your part. You want play that killing innocent babies is a "Good" act in your game you're welcome to. It isn't RAW and frankly I consider it crappy RL ethics as well. I don't have to buy your ethics because of a corny shellgame scenario.

In a shellgame when you pick the cup with the pea, it's not because you actully followed the right cup, it's because the operator (you) choose to put the pea under the cup after it was chosen. When you reward the person for picking "Kill the child" it's not because the choice was correct within the framework of the game (or IMO within real-life ethics/moraility) but because you choose to reward the player for accepting the moral/ethical view that YOU like, as correct.

Stephen
You get the idea. You are not prestenting a third option. That does not mean it is not their, just i don't know what it is, because i am not there. But that is because of bad story telling, because you don't present enough infomation about the situation for me to understand an third option.


Yes, and a meteor might come crashing through, the atmosphere might spontansouly combust, the moon could crash into the planet, heck the sun might even go nova. Outrageous?
Those could happen, but the paladin make no choice for them.

No, outrageous would be expecting all of these things to happen simoultaneously wouldn't it? Again these are examples of Deus ex machina. Which is not something the player has any control over. Deus Ex Machina is tool for the DM to tell a story with, to introduce a powerful new NPC for the players to interact with etc.
But i didn't say to just sit their and hope (praying is not doing that, because you are contacting a powerful alley, not just sitting there). Fighting can open massive amounts of possiblities of a way to defeat/escape/slow down the thing. It was defeated once, it can be done again.


It is not something the players are supposed to count on bailing them out of a situation that was intended for them to deal with. Especially when they are still capable of dealing with it themselves.
And nether is your situation, because it releys on railroading and only presting two options. Let the PCs find a third, and give them some help. By only giving them two options, you are basiclly ruining the game, because D&D is about possiblites and roleplay, not do or not do


No, I have never said that good is inherently weaker. What I have said is that maintains a balance with evil, as the three forces work with and against each other. And that sometimes the cause of furthering good can require ugly sacrifices. Good will only be weaker then those who choose to defend it are told they can not or should not do so, and listen.
Good is not inheritly weaker, but it is held to a higher standards, that is what makes good different from evil or neutral. And good being told what they can and cannot do is bad? What. So I as a paladin can kill random evil people on the street and take their stuff for a greater good? If you don't limit your self, you become the very thing you fight.


Vile? Nay. I may feel guilty when the deed is done, perhaps bitterness at the course of my actions, but I am not sickened by them, nor repulsed by them.
And i imagine Hilter didn't find his action vile, but i certainly do. I find killing a newborn vile, I find trying to justify it vile, and at this point i am a bit confused on who is the demon.


Cowardly? I say courage, for only courage would allow one to face the possibility of giving up that which represents their cause and path, and only courage will give them the strength to make the right choice.
1. Killing an unarmed baby who has done nothing to you is not couragde
2. Courage is fighting against the odds when all hope seems lost, and clinging to your morals even when they are challenged. To just toss aside you morals when they hinder you is cowardly
3. Funny thing about the right cause, you base it only on your idea of the right cause. That does not work in D&D, if you mean right=good.

Arrogant? I would think that acknowledging one's limitations would make one humble rather then arrogant.
But he thinks himself above the codes of the paladin, and important enough to judge the life of the baby. As miko put it "I am speical"

Cruel? No, the strike need be swift and sure, this is true, but not cruel. I shall leave cruel to those who would torture. I, personally, would grant a quick and clean death.
A clean death that was never asked for.


No, the world is not black and white, this is true. And yes, there were many options when the adventure began, but to wind up with only two options? That does not require a black and white world, merely an ill fate. Such, I fear, is all too common.
No such thing as binary situation


Yes, a paladin's life is tough. Fortunately, I can see which path would be the right one, and have the courage to face it, no matter what the personal consequences would be. I would rather be a fallen Paladin then the one responsible for allowing millions to die, when I had the chance.
How can you see what path is the right one when you don't even follow you own code? A paladin falls for commiting an evil act, and one of the most important causes of evil is killing an innocent. And their are not personal consequinces, the baby is dying. Unless you admit that you would fall, and then yes it works out. You could kill the baby, but you have to fall in the procces. Will you make that sacerfice
from
Ee

[Darkxarth]

The only problem I see with that, is in this case the Code says to do both things. It says to not slay the child, because such would be an evil act. But it also says to protect the innocents who would be threatened by the demon, which as a force of evil is the Paladin's duty to stop. So how does the Paladin choose?
You know what needs to be done here? The Paladin's Code needs to be turned into the 3 Laws of Robotics.

1. Protect Yourself from the Forces of Evil
2. Protect the Lives of Innocent People at All Costs
3. Never Harm an Innocent

2 overrules 1, and 3 overrules both 1 & 2. Or however WotC would decide to do it (they may well agree with your decision, I dunno). That way, you have a clear, simple directive. But until that day, debates like these will continue on. :smallsigh:


I vote for the first option, because it allows for the maximum benefit for good. It saves the majority at the cost of the one, which is the immediate gain. It spares the Paladin's life, which give it future gain, as the Paladin then goes forth and does more good deeds, both to atone and to further the cause of good. It also allows for the cost of stopping the demon, the loss of the child's life, to be returned, as the possibility remains for the child to be ressurected.
Technically, if it succeeds, option 2 allows for maximum benefit for good. No children are killed, demon is defeated, millions are saved, Paladin does not fall. However, it is not a sure thing, and, in fact, the odds are against it actually working. That being said, as a Paladin, you should take the chance to stop Evil without committing it.

As a note, resurrecting someone you murdered does not solve the problem, and it certainly doesn't justify killing them.


But if the Paladin chooses to stand against the Demon, the greatest chance is for him to lose. It would be spectacular if that 1 in 8000 chance hit, but that it unlikely. So in exchange, Good gets a small immediate gain, followed by a small loss in the destruction of the child's soul, followed by the bigger loss of the Paladin's life, followed by the even bigger loss of the innocents who are then destroyed by the freed demon.
My opinion is that the Paladin should always take the all Good option, no matter the odds of success or defeat. Hope is something that all Paladins must have, once you say, "gee, Good can't win unless Evil gives it a little push" you've given up. Hoping that he'll win a near-impossible fight against a much greater foe isn't foolish, it's hope. Only one who has already given up hope would call it gullibility or foolishness.


No, the code is not meant to be taken lightly. It is not meant to be something that just anybody can accept and use and claim to be a Paladin. But I don't see it as being something to be followed to the letter. For me, the Code is basically saying, "Remember Pal, you chose to obey me. I am here to stay no matter what you may want. Breaking me means consequences. And I promise you that they will be ugly ones. So if you ever choose to break me, it better be worth it." For me, saving the world would be worth it.

Hmm.. definitely an interesting interpretation of the Code, but I can't agree with it. If the Code were meant to allow the kind of "lesser Evil for the greater Good" scenario we're discussing, I'm sure it would state somewhere in the rules that a Paladin could commit an Evil act and not fall so long as he justified it with his DM. (A slight exaggeration, but you get the point.)

Also, @EE:

I think we've already established that the previous scenario was a setup, a con. Unless I'm wrong, and Foeofthelance disagrees. Barring that, I think we've got that part under control with our three current options.

1: Kill the baby, definitely stop the Demon.

2: Don't kill the baby, do nothing, allow the Demon to do whatever it pleases.

3: Don't kill the baby, try to stop the Demon, at low odds.

[EvilElitest]

Why shouldn't a Paladin strive for the greater good? That is what he is supposed to do, act as a force of good in the world. What I can't accept is when people want to ignore the "Greater good" for some "Ultra good" which really has no chance, outside of their own personal desires.

There is no such thing as "Greater Good" I'm sorry, it is impossible. I give ten dollors to a begger, you give a hundred dollars to the begger. I can't spare a hundred dollars you can. Who is more good? nether. We both commited selfless acts as much as we are able. So their is no such thing as "Greater good" or "ultra good". Their is Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good. Now if you don't think that good is right, and nobody ever said it was right, then you can follow another aligment. LN is not better or worst than LG.


Choosing to stand and fight a demon when everything and anything says you can not win, solely because of a bunch of hypothetical "what ifs?" which exist solely in the paladin's mind strikes me as foolish.
No more foolish than claiming the paladin has an omepotent understanding of the situation.


Especially since the only person who would stand to gain from such an action would be the Paladin, as it is the one choice that allows for a definite "Do not Fall" consequence.
No it is just one of the options that allow do not fall. If their is some other way to stop hte rituel, like i mentioned, maybe destroying hte runes, it will keep hte paladin from falling. Also, if you want to save the millions of innocents, why don't you fall for them.


Though what good that is going to do him when he is dead on the demon's claws, I really don't know, and considering his unconcious party is right in the path of the advancing demon I doubt they'll be getting the chance to Ressurrect him any time soon.
What if he wins? Dies defeating the evil demon?


I have said many times that the Paladin would take full responsibility for taking the life of the child, no one else.
By taking full responsibility he falls. That is his responsibility for breaking his code.

On top of that I set out to justify it as well, as that is what one does during a debate. As for shifitng the blame when did I ever do that? Did I ever blame the Cleric aand Wizard for getting knocked out, thus denying me their Protection from Evils? No. Did I ever blame the demon for being summoned? No. Or the Cultists for doing the summoning? No. Or the gods for not interfering just because I had a tough decision to make? No. Nor did I blame celestials for not flying in to save the day by fighting the demon for me. Those are merely the factors that have led to situation in which I must make a decision.
But you still are willing to kill the kid, and anyone not willing to give up like that is what you called evil. The demon is hte one who will be killing the millinos of innocents, not you.


What I did say was that if I allowed the Demon to rise, when I had the chance to prevent it, then it would be my responsibility for all of the lives the demon takes before someone else is able to stop him. I would hardly call that trying to shift the blame to someone else.
You forget the life of the baby. But the point remains, if you are willing to do anything to defeat the demon, how about falling?

The only problem I see with that, is in this case the Code says to do both things. It says to not slay the child, because such would be an evil act. But it also says to protect the innocents who would be threatened by the demon, which as a force of evil is the Paladin's duty to stop. So how does the Paladin choose?
The code doesn't say to do both, it says to protect all innocents. So that makes option three the paladin way, unless you are willing to fall

from,
EE

[Aquillion]

The description of the Gray Guard is very clear on this: The Gray Guard, which is described as having a looser version of the Paladin code, still falls if they commit deliberate evil acts in the service of a greater good (they just get to get absolution without the xp cost.)

Yes, I get what some people are saying, but the rules seem pretty clear on this.

...the rules are entirely clear on another point that comes up a lot, too:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A character's "alignment" is a measure of their general outlook and attitudes. It is not--this is important, the rules are 100% clear on this--it is not, to the slightest degree, a measure of their actions, not ever. A characters actions result from their alignment; inside the game, it never changes as a result of their actions, whether deliberate or otherwise, unless those actions cause their attitudes themselves to shift (which can sometimes happen.)

Now, if a player fails to write the correct alignment on their character sheet for the character they're playing, the DM can make them correct it and say their attitudes have changed--this is explictly how it's described in the rules. But their alignment doesn't "change" from their actions, it's just retconned to explain how they've been behaving. In fact, officially, it's described as having changed first, and sometimes even as having been that way all along. They "thought" they were good, or whatever, but really weren't; those nuns they killed are the result and proof of their shift in alignment, not its official in-game cause.

A character can commit an "evil act" as defined by the Paladin code by accident, to be sure, and fall from it; but their alignment can't change as a result of that act (unless the result somehow changes their attitudes), since alignment only describes a character's "ethical outlook or personal philosophy", not how well they've been keeping that personal philosophy. A Chaotic Good Barbarian with a horrible temper who sometimes kills people he shouldn't while in a rage and regrets it later can remain Chaotic Good.

[Counterpower]

*SIgh* I hate it when I can't get on the computer for extended periods of time. If anyone wants to complain about my absence (which i apologize for) then I'll provide you with my teachers' e-mail.

No, actually. No, I won't. But it's entertaining to think about doing it.


Okay, here's my opinion on this:

Torture is an evil act. No matter what it is used for, it is still evil in DnD.

So, option 2 would violate the Paladin code. Option 3 is the most "paladinish".

But, if I was roleplaying said Paladin, and the only two options were 2 and 3, I would still choose option 2. Yes, it violates the Paladin code. Yes, my character's god has mandated that I shalt not torture the BBEG. But letting thousands die for some sense of valour and honour, for religious dogma, is stupid. If my character's god supports option 3, then my character is following the wrong god. Option 3 is L before G, Option 2 is G before L. It 's not worth letting thousands of people die for class features. I'd tear every bone out of that villian if it would save lives.

But, in DnD terms, option 2 had evil elements, and a DM might reasonably rule it non-good, possibly evil. And it most certainly violated the Paladin Code. Bye bye Smite Evil. I don't want you if others have to pay in blood for you.

Right. Because the only point of abiding by the paladin's code is to keep your class features. Where did that idea come from? A true paladin abides by the code because they want to, not because they have to to avoid being a fighter without bonus feats. The idea that a paladin is the only one who gains by abiding by the code is insane. Everyone gains by following the code. Yes, even those thousands of innocents that died. They would not want to live in a world where even paladins went around committing evil acts.


Because by admitting to himself that he is capable of doing evil he makes himself aware of it. When he knows how far he is willing to go, then he also knows where the line is that he refuses to cross. Which to me is far more righteous then the "I'm a Paladin, thus I can do no wrong" attitude.

That is crap, pure and simple. Most paladins recognize that there is temptation that they have to be wary of. And that line has to be well over in Good territory, else you should not be a paladin. Committing evil even once is just not a good idea. Saying that you might have to commit it again?........... goodbye paladin powers.


And Good prevails, as all the innocents are saved, and neutrality celebrates because the balance is maintained. The Paladin is tainted no matter what, but he still has the knowledge that he has accomplished much for good, that others can now continue to do good, and that he now has the chance for redemption, allowing him to do even more good.

Right. Good prevails because lives are saved. Uh........... not all of them. Those ritual sacrifices (no, I am not currently talking abuut the demon/baby scenario) over there that you had to kill to stop the ritual are dead, and resurrection isn't working. (Probably because the cleric is faking the castings to prevent a bunch of guys up and telling everyone about the holy warrior that killed them, the innocent victims, in the name of Good.) What are you defending if you're doing evil to defend it? There are plenty of alive, even happy, people in evil societies, after all.


Against me, in the Ritual Chamber, yes the Demon will win. I might delay him for a few seconds, but that is nothing compared to the days it will take for my order to realize I have failed, more days for them to organize, and still more time for them to march against the demon. And all the while the demon will be out there wreaking havoc on the innocents who I failed to protect by allowing the Demon into their world, all because I was foolish enough to think I could handle it by myself, or because I counted on aid that had never been spoken of.

Nice to know you're omniscient and know everything that will happen in the future. Are you trying to tell me that you know so much about him as to know his CR, but dn't know how he was defeated previously and can't get what you need to make it work? And I can only speak for myself, but if I was the superior of the guy who had to go save the world, I would have a permanent or near-permanent status put on him, for hopefully obvious reasons.


No, that is exactly what you are demanding. That any Paladin should die for his cause, rather then live for it. You even accused Kreistor and myself of railroading when the dilemma was originally presented. How this any different? There is a difference between a strict code and an unreasonable one. And what you are setting forth, to me, is unreasonable. Paladins are supposed to be able to act in the name of good, not be hobbled by it.

If you're not prepared to die for your cause, I suggest being a different class. Not that you're required to. One solution I thought up of was the refuge spell. How would that ritual go with its sacrifice 600 miles northwest? Or, in the absolute worst case............... use it right before the demon kills you. You tried to stop him and failed to save the baby, but at least you can still do something about that "demon killing people" part.


The only problem I see with that, is in this case the Code says to do both things. It says to not slay the child, because such would be an evil act. But it also says to protect the innocents who would be threatened by the demon, which as a force of evil is the Paladin's duty to stop. So how does the Paladin choose?

Actually, it only says in the code that you cannot commit an evil act. It says nothing about trying to stop other forces from committing evil and failing to do so.


I vote for the first option, because it allows for the maximum benefit for good. It saves the majority at the cost of the one, which is the immediate gain. It spares the Paladin's life, which give it future gain, as the Paladin then goes forth and does more good deeds, both to atone and to further the cause of good. It also allows for the cost of stopping the demon, the loss of the child's life, to be returned, as the possibility remains for the child to be ressurected.

The standard of good in D&D is not how many people are left standing at the end. The immediate gain is somewhat counteracted by the immediate loss, that of a willing evil act. The "future gain" is a complete and total phantom, especially if the Paladin would do that again. I would like to respectfully submit that a paladin who very well might commit an evil act and even count his own survival as a gain is far more self-centered than any paladin trying to do good all the time. And a paladin who would commit an evil act again is not a gain for good, it is a gain for evil. While this isn't core, my personal opinion is that the atonement quest should test the fallen paladin in exactly the same manner as what made him fall, to see if he's learned his lesson from the first time. Finally, a child will almost surely fail to be resurrected. After all, he's now in whatever afterlife he was destined to be in, and it takes a strong will or serious unfinished business to counter that. Besides, why would anyone want to come back to a world where even the paladins will commit evil?


But if the Paladin chooses to stand against the Demon, the greatest chance is for him to lose. It would be spectacular if that 1 in 8000 chance hit, but that it unlikely. So in exchange, Good gets a small immediate gain, followed by a small loss in the destruction of the child's soul, followed by the bigger loss of the Paladin's life, followed by the even bigger loss of the innocents who are then destroyed by the freed demon.

Two points. One, that instant kill is not the only way to "fight witout killing the baby". Considering that I would likely have some high-powered backup if the stakes were the world, I can think of several dozen ways to do so, including the one presented above, miracle, wish............


No, the code is not meant to be taken lightly. It is not meant to be something that just anybody can accept and use and claim to be a Paladin. But I don't see it as being something to be followed to the letter. For me, the Code is basically saying, "Remember Pal, you chose to obey me. I am here to stay no matter what you may want. Breaking me means consequences. And I promise you that they will be ugly ones. So if you ever choose to break me, it better be worth it." For me, saving the world would be worth it.

Oh, the code says "if you want to break me, you better have good reason?" Hello chaotic! Besides, I continue to question exactly how "worth it" that really is.

I can see you saying now "just because I do it once doesn't mean it'll be a habit or anything!" based on some of the stuff I said. (And if I'm wrong, well......... I want to get this additional point out anyway.) Unfortunately, once is bad enough. It destroys trust, for one thing.

Villager A: Hey look, Bob the Paladin has come to save us!
Villager B: No, remember what happened to the last village he "saved?" He killed a quarter of them to appease the devil that threatened it, because he wasn't strong enough to kill it!

Should they doubt him like that? Of course, unfortunately. If he justified it once, why would he change his mind? And that is the second point. That trying to say "it won't happen again"............... well, why not?

Also, I think you might have a misconception. Namely: Choice 3 is not instant destruction of the world. Not even a demon can kill everything on the planet, instantly. If it could, then I don't see how similar forces of Good would be able to ignore that. And a question as well. The point of the Sharn scenario was to get at this: what happens when the stakes go up? What happens if it's 5 sacrifices to summon the demon? How about 10? 20? What if the ritual required the destruction of a city of 2.4 million people, and you somehow could choose between killing them all yourself, allowing the ritual to work, or trying to stop it in some other fashion (including getting out of the city, trying to evacuate as many as possible, and striking at the ritual's effect? Can you in good conscience, in the name of the greater good, condone genocide to prevent destruction of the world?

@Aquillon: Of course. I don't think that anyone can change alignment for one action. Now, a paladin who commits evil, and justifies it with the greater good, time after time might just not be Good. Foeofthelance said something like that...... "neutrality celebrates because the balance is maintained." All well and good for neutrality, but a paladin really does not want to preserve some balance between good and evil. Most paladins want to destroy or redeem evil. And that means............. not doing evil. Not doing evil since it's easier to accomplish some other goal with it.

[EvilElitest]

Here here counter power
from,
EE

[druid91]

Finally, I would like to present a situation. You're in a room with a bomb and the BBEG, who has already been made helpless in combat. Should this bomb go off, it will kill everyone in a city the size of Waterdeep, i.e. millions of people. You have 4 hours before it goes off. Your options:

1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.



I teleport the bomb and bbeg to the elemental plane of poultry.:smallbiggrin:

and I agree with Mithos on most of these points in that it is not always possible to save everyone.

[SurlySeraph]

http://www.game-warden.com/starfox/Non_SF_related_stuff/JS47/Thread_Necromancy.jpg

Seriously. Of all the threads to necromance, did you have to choose an alignment argument? Even though I feel strongly about the topic of debate, this really doesn't need to be discussed.

[Ether]

edit: Wow I didn't even see the date of the first post.





1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.

2. Torture the BBEG until he tells you how to disarm the bomb. This option has the highest chance of successfully disarming the bomb, and will leave everyone involved, including you but possibly not the BBEG, alive.

3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.

The first choice isn't evil, it's neutral. No one has an obligation to save anyone, especially at the cost of their own life.


Except if he's going around torturing people, leaving them dead or broken, he's not really spreading Good.

How does it follow that if Hero A tortures the BBEG--somebody who was willing to kill at least thousands of people--for a way to disarm the bomb that he'll then go around torturing people?

[Talya]

"The Greater Good" is a utilitarian concept based on collectivist thinking. It may be practical, but it is rarely actually "Good."

[Devils_Advocate]

I've seen this idea in several different places: that a paladin committing an evil act is justified if the alternative is some much greater evil, especially lots of people dying.
I'm pretty sure you're begging the question here. What makes an action Good or Evil in the first place? Isn't that the real question here? E.g., is it Good to sacrifice one innocent life to save many others?


3. Take the bomb, which can be moved, as far away from the city as you can get it. This might cause some death in the city, depending on how far away you get, but will vastly reduce the casualties. As in, down to thousands. You will not survive, though. You'll be at ground zero, and probably die instantly.
OK, let's say you carry the bomb north. This greatly reduces the death toll in the city, but at least has the possibility of killing some people north of the city who otherwise would have been fine.

Is killing them justified in a way that torturing the BBEG is not? It seems to me like torturing him would be more justified, since he's responsible for the situation. Isn't turning death and pain on innocents worse than turning pain on an Evil person?

Presumably, the distinction is that the deaths you cause by carrying the bomb north are an inadvertent side-effect of your actions, rather than means to an end. So killing innocent people is OK if you do it the right way.

Call me crazy, but I think that minimizing deaths, suffering, etc. should count as Good, and causing them the "right way" should count as Lawful.

[druid91]

S.S. if your asking me why its because I was bored. and necromancy is fun:smallbiggrin:

[Michaelos]

I'm pretty sure you're begging the question here. What makes an action Good or Evil in the first place? Isn't that the real question here? E.g., is it Good to sacrifice one innocent life to save many others?


Step 1: The Best way of doing this in a D&D universe, is of course not the best way of doing this in real life. Real life does not have access to extraplanar beings who will help and hurt you, resurrection spells, or literal objective morality that can be determined by a level 1 spell. The concept of sacrificing life is so different in D&D that I recently had to applaud my Barbarian/Bear Warrior's usage of cutting off her own head as part of a way to solve a problem. (It worked, she saved her magical Bastard Sword, for the time being.)

Step 2: Recognizing that morality is going to be different, knowing the defined moral situation is helpful. Take Gift of Discernment. If your DM is a good DM, he will, like any other challenge, slowly ramp up the level of difficult moral decisions, you can plan in advance if they start getting too hard and take Gift of Discernment. Remember, the decider of when your Paladin falls is sitting right next to you. If he gives you a situation where the answer is "Fall", "Fall" or "Die" and there are no other options, and you pick "Die." If he's a good DM, He'll have something else planned ("Someone comes by later that day to resurrect you, and they appear to be of your God. They explain they have found a way to stop the rampaging demon that involves...") If your character was really put into a hopeless situation with no Deus ex Machina, then your DM is a bit of an ass, and unlike in real life, you can in fact just pick up and go home.

[hiryuu]

Where's that written in the books?

Or, if that's just a statement of oppinion/interpretation, how's that follow?

Because, really, I've heard that before, but it's never really sat well with me...

Right where it says King Kaius III is lawful evil because he cares about the safety, security, freedom, and hope and virtue of his people, and such is really the first of his line, a vampire who has mind controlled or turned most of his relatives, keeps a blood harem, imprisoned or killed his grandson, and made a deal with a lich to make sure of that. Ditto where it says that Queen Aurala is neutral good and wants to start a new war and conquer the world, crushing it before her, as is her divine and true right (all others are just foolish, ignorant pretenders to fake thrones, you see), but isn't willing to really kill anyone or screw anyone over for it, and so hasn't started the war or stepped on anyone's back.

[Eloel]

1. Do nothing or otherwise make sure that you'll survive. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this choice is Evil.


What does everyone think?

That, is NOT evil. It's as Neutral as it can get.

[Stephen_E]

On the Paladin, the BBEG and the city destroying bomb scenario you could toss the BBEG on your back, pick up bomb, and hightail it to the barrens as fast as possible. All the time reminding the BBEG that he isn't going to get the megakill he was looking for or the total city destruction and will die. If he tells you how to disarm the bomb he has a chance of living.

While I think you could make a strong argument that this isn't "good", it isn't evil either. You aren't murdering the BBEG, the BBEG is choosing whether he does, given that it's his bomb, and he has the ability to stop the bomb.

Nothing says Paladins have to always do "good". Neutral works fine so long as you have a healthy mix of "good" in there. :smallbiggrin:

Stephen E

[hamishspence]

Kaius may be interested in peace, but as a very ruthless vampire his record is pretty dark (see Forge of War)

Aurala may be interested in power (and Five Nations makes her come across as pretty cold) but she is also wary of igniting another war.

Eberron alignment isn't all that different from normal, but the alignment of monsters tends to vary more. It points out (as does Heroes of Horror) that Evil alignment doesn't mean heroes have free hand to kill that creature no matter what.

[MickJay]

It's very easy to check if torture in DnD world is evil: just go to any city of a good race and see if they have a city torturer there. If they do, then torture is not evil, because then the race wouldn't be good (and the manual says it is). In most cases debates on morality/good/whatever in RP settings (especially DnD) can be made moot by pointing out the very existence of arbitrary "good", "neutral" and "evil" alignments and actions (arbitrarily) attached to them and the fact that there are so many discussions on the issue just shows how deficient this artificial distinction is.

Here's a good one: self-sacrifice is generally considered a good thing; let's take a paladin, tell him about the bomb, give him the bad guy and some stuff he can torture the bad guy with (or tell him that the bad guy will be tortured if he does not prevent it). Paladin knows that if nothing is done, many people will die; he knows that if he takes the bomb with him, people (and himself) will still die. He wants to save everyone, and so decides to sacrifice the one thing that is dearest to him, namely his paladinhood, and to prevent someone else from doing the evil thing, he does the torturing himself. This is a somewhat twisted interpretation of MLK's words, by the way: paladin does what he thinks is the only good solution (i.e. saving everyone) and is fully prepared to take the punishment for making an effort to achieve it (being stripped off his paladinhood).

Funny thing is, if GM put his paladin-player in this situation, he could easily make that paladin fall regardless of player's choices (but also, possibly, prevent the paladin from falling, basing decision on both the intent and result of player's actions, in most of the cases).

All in all, putting a paladin in a situation where there IS no good choice, making the paladin decide and seeing him hope for the best is quite amusing :smallbiggrin: (in fall, fall, die scenario the "die" option is too often the easy one to make, especially if there are clerics around and the player is actually expecting some sort of divine intervention to save him; he's going to complain to no end if he actually DOES die and lose a CON point while getting raised; after all, he did the good thing).

[kalt]

This to me is almost an argument of good versus exalted. If you are playing an exalted campaing I would agree if not well then it might be a bit more hazy.

[hamishspence]

Humans aren't exactly a Good race- and as for Good race with a professional torturer in city- maybe the people at the top aren't Good, even if the race is "usually Lawful Good"

Bruenor repeatedly mentioned torturing orcs for info in the Drizzt series. Point is- a good person can do evil deeds once in a while. Its when its done on a routine basis that alignment should shift all the way to Evil, according to Champions of Ruin.