PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Moral quandry



Pinjata
2016-02-01, 06:56 AM
This one is hard, because it is so irrelvant in a setting, where people are besieged by orcs/demons/undead, but as it turned out, players are oblivious to that and have again fished out something that is supposed to make setting "just a tad lively-er".

There is a village in which there is a poor family of a single father and three kids aged 16, 9 and 7. Father is a drunk, more or less coming home only here and then, basically a beggar that does not share his spoils with the family. Kids are getting some education in a local temple and irregular meals in temple kitchen, but are often starving. Local cleric (no magical powers) wants to help the kids, but villagers push him away, stating "they take care of their own". Which - they do not. Eventually oldest girl gets pregnant, has a child, who dies at birth. No one knows how the child died (none of the villagers "noticed" the pregnancy), but it is obvious the entire village has failed the children and the family.

Then PCs popped up in the village and prodded this story (girl was still arrested by village Sheriff due to suspicions of possible faul play regarding newborn. Much medieval "detective work" was had). As they engaged the Cleric, he was spitting verbal hellfire upon the villagers and this produced a major argument between the PCs (one of them being Paladin of Pelor) regarding what to do.

So, playground - what should the party do? The thing is, this is low-magic and low-funds setting. Adventurers are not really rich, even if great combatants. They can not just pour gold into this household. As for potential punishment ... Well, what is your take on this?

thanks

goto124
2016-02-01, 06:59 AM
Er...

what's the code of the Paladin of Pelor?

Jornophelanthas
2016-02-01, 07:27 AM
Are you the DM here?

If so, there is nothing the players "should" do from your point of view, because you don't take their decisions for them.

All that matters is whether their actions have any consequences, most notably on their alignments and the paladin's code of conduct. Some example guidelines (adjust for your own use as you see fit):
- Simply walking away is a very neutral act that should count against a good alignment. It is also very likely a breach of the paladin's code. This also applies if the players try to help, fail, and give up leaving matters the same or worse than before.
- Doing anything to improve the children's situation with some degree of success before leaving will be in line with good alignment and the paladin's code. This does not have to be a big thing, but it should leave the children with at least a little more hope for the future, and not in immediate danger or distress. It could be a minor nudge towards good (or neutral) alignment for neutral (or evil) characters.
- The players attempting to benefit (materially) from the situation is a neutral act. It would probably not interfere with true altruistic behaviour by other players.
- The players attempting to benefit from the situation at the expense of the children is an evil act, and an obvious breach of the paladin's code.
- The players dealing out overly severe punishments to the villagers (e.g. killing, mutilating, burning houses) quickly degrades into an evil act, and an obvious breach of the paladin's code.
- Taking matters into their own hands also runs the risk of being a chaotic act (and should count against lawful alignments) if they go against the laws of the land (e.g attacking villagers in the street with little to no provocation, breaking the girl out of jail, significant property damage to the sheriff's office).
(But it is a different matter if the local sheriff is bigoted or corrupt; this could turn such actions neutral - and removing a corrupt official from power can even be a lawful act on its own.)

You seem to be worried that the players have little wealth to share, but doing good (if that is indeed what they want to do), does not have to cost money. They could also confront others (e.g. the drunk father, the uncaring sheriff, other selfish villagers, the baby's father whom they need to identify first, or even the well-meaning but possibly spineless cleric) to coerce them to do more for the children. Paladins tend to negotiate through force and inspiration, after all. They are warriors first, healers a distant second, and diplomats an even more distant third. And throwing money at a problem so that it will go away is a bit of a ham-fisted way to solve a roleplaying problem, anyway.

Pinjata
2016-02-01, 08:51 AM
Basically, I do not want to mess up. As we finished the session, there was a vivid discussion between dumping the looted cash to the poor family, skewering the priest and smashing some heads in over the village to "make a point".

Thanks for in-depth analysis!

Comet
2016-02-01, 08:57 AM
Just relax and let the group squirm and suffer with indecision, that's what moral quandries are for :smalltongue:

Jornophelanthas
2016-02-01, 09:48 AM
Yes, whatever you do, do not tell the players what to do.

(Although giving the paladin an "Are you sure you're going to (let them) do that?" warning if something is against his code would be fair, especially if this player is relatively inexperienced.)

Segev
2016-02-01, 10:11 AM
Well, the first thing to do is to find where the infant corpse is buried, and desecrate the ground. Then desecrate the house these kids live in. The party necromancer should take the eldest daughter as an apprentice, and wait for the other kids to die of starvation.

Hopefully at least one (if not all three) of the now-dead kids will rise as slaymates (given how they died from such gross betrayals from their guardians), which the necromancer can command undead into being his friends. Convince the apprentice and her family to travel with the party.

Now the apprentice-girl and the party necromancer can prepare spells with up to 3 levels of metamagic for free, at least in their chosen school. The kids are better off, even as undead, suffering no more pain and hunger, and they are far more valued and, if your necromancer is smart, better treated than they were in life. And they're with their big sister, who is a valued asset and addition to the party. As the necromancer's apprentice, she, too, is much better fed than before. And will be able to care for herself when her training is done!

Aletheides
2016-02-01, 10:17 AM
If I were one of the PCs, I'd start with the most immediate problem, and go from there: Help find out the truth behind the dead baby. Who was the father, and why hasn't he stepped up to help the would-be mother of his child? Was there foul play, or a tragedy stemming from bad living conditions? From there, the group could move on to finding out WHY things in that family are the way they are, and see if there's any way they can help...or not help, as the situation warrants.

If no answers are forthcoming...well, a paladin shouldn't be okay with a possibly-innocent person suffering if there's no proof she did anything wrong. Letting a guilty person go free is bad, but punishing an innocent person is worse.

In closing, can I mention that I'm a horrible, horrible person for laughing the first time I read this? The setting is so dirtygrimdark, that I envisioned some shabby, dirt-encrusted dude wheeling a cart through the village, calling, "Bring out yer deeead!! Bring out yer deeeead!!" :smallbiggrin:

OldTrees1
2016-02-01, 10:55 AM
Often in situations like this there are degrees of "ought". This is quite important since Paladins strive to preform the morally superogatory over the morally permissible when possible.

Issues to address: (in no order)
1) The dead baby's cause of death
2) The sheriff's treatment of the girl
3) The village's treatment of the children
4) The father's treatment of the children

The group was uninvolved prior and exist in a world with more problems than they can solve. Thus it is morally permissible for them to pass this issue over in order to pursue another issue. This is the lowest standard the party could hold themselves to.

The highest standard they could hold themselves to is implementing a perfect solution to these 4 problems. With a minute of thought it sounds like an example would be to enact justice in the case of the dead baby (after discovering the cause and wisely identifying what would be just) instead of the sheriff and to convince the village to accept the priest's kindness.


If I were playing a Paladin in this situation, I would
1) Convince the sheriff that, as a Paladin with access to the advantages a higher level party has, I would be an ideal judge and investigator with respect to the dead baby. As such I would request the case, including the suspect, be transferred to my care.
2) Then I would talk with the girl, the family, and inspect the body with the rest of the party. Together we would find out the cause of death and why that cause occurred.
3) Then, having the facts in hand, I would either clear the girl or decide on a suitable atonement.
4) Then leveraging this case (either way is evidence), I would argue that the girl and her family should have the Cleric as a guardian. If the girl was innocent, then the girl needs the village & the cleric as guardians. If the girl was guilty, then the atonement would be best served under the cleric.

Quertus
2016-02-01, 02:06 PM
This one is hard, because it is so irrelvant in a setting, where people are besieged by orcs/demons/undead, but as it turned out, players are oblivious to that and have again fished out something that is supposed to make setting "just a tad lively-er".

There is a village in which there is a poor family of a single father and three kids aged 16, 9 and 7. Father is a drunk, more or less coming home only here and then, basically a beggar that does not share his spoils with the family. Kids are getting some education in a local temple and irregular meals in temple kitchen, but are often starving. Local cleric (no magical powers) wants to help the kids, but villagers push him away, stating "they take care of their own". Which - they do not. Eventually oldest girl gets pregnant, has a child, who dies at birth. No one knows how the child died (none of the villagers "noticed" the pregnancy), but it is obvious the entire village has failed the children and the family.

Then PCs popped up in the village and prodded this story (girl was still arrested by village Sheriff due to suspicions of possible faul play regarding newborn. Much medieval "detective work" was had). As they engaged the Cleric, he was spitting verbal hellfire upon the villagers and this produced a major argument between the PCs (one of them being Paladin of Pelor) regarding what to do.

So, playground - what should the party do? The thing is, this is low-magic and low-funds setting. Adventurers are not really rich, even if great combatants. They can not just pour gold into this household. As for potential punishment ... Well, what is your take on this?

thanks

A few random thoughts I haven't seen in this thread...

If the sheriff is feeding the girl well, then she is better off in jail.

If the child was not the product of a consensual union, then the girl is better off in jail... unless the sheriff is the father.

If the child is the result of the girl trading sex for food... then the party has to decide how they feel about that... and realize that her younger siblings likely aren't in a position to pick up the slack while she is in jail.

If the girl was doing anything to get food, her younger siblings likely aren't in a position to pick up the slack while she is in jail.

Thus, my first action would likely be to investigate the girl's treatment / captor; my second would be to ensure her siblings are taken care of. Perhaps I would hire them on for coppers, or for create food and water, to run errands, while teaching them wilderness lore and interrogating... I mean, while talking to them about the situation.

If there is any evidence that someone would be willing to silence the girl, then someone (or ones) would need to be posted at the jail at all times.

Perhaps the most curious quandary is what to do if the child was the priest's.

veti
2016-02-01, 05:47 PM
I'm a bit confused about the standing of the local cleric. It seems his priorities are in the right place, but he can't do anything about it. Why not?

He's apparently an outsider ("not one of their own"), and has no magical powers... what exactly does he do? What benefit does he provide to the community?

Whatever it is, I'd suggest he just stop doing it until the villagers agree to pick up the slack in their system and actually follow through on this "looking after their own" schtick.

If he doesn't actually do anything for them - then his negotiating position is that much weaker, but on the other hand, he can just up sticks and walk away without consequences. If the prospect of that doesn't worry the villagers at all, then he should announce that he's asking his bishop to send a (select bloodthirsty disciplinarian order) cleric here for a spell.

Incidentally, this kind of situation is exactly why the paladin's prime stat is supposed to be CHA. He should be able to hector and harangue the villagers into such a state of cowed shame that they voluntarily agree to mend their ways, live better thereafter, and the pub will henceforth serve nothing stronger than goat's milk...

Kelb_Panthera
2016-02-01, 09:20 PM
Unless there's a mechanical reason to make a decision about how the alignment of their actions reads, don't overthink this. The whole situation is such an unreadable shade of gray that I probably wouldn't trigger any alignment contingent mechanic even if one of the players does have one unless they were really swinging for the fences, i.e. someone just decides to murder everyone and raze the villiage.

Pinjata
2016-02-02, 05:31 AM
Holy heck, a lot of answers. And detailed ones! The next session is still a few days away, but I'll answer a few questions asked by people here.



In closing, can I mention that I'm a horrible, horrible person for laughing the first time I read this? The setting is so dirtygrimdark, that I envisioned some shabby, dirt-encrusted dude wheeling a cart through the village, calling, "Bring out yer deeead!! Bring out yer deeeead!!"

Its a true story from ireland in 80' except temple kitchen = social support and temple school = ordinary school.


I'm a bit confused about the standing of the local cleric. It seems his priorities are in the right place, but he can't do anything about it. Why not?

He's apparently an outsider ("not one of their own"), and has no magical powers... what exactly does he do? What benefit does he provide to the community?

He was sent here by church of Mouqol (lesser god of trade, negotiation, ventures, appraisal and reciprocity). Sort of took over the emty temple as previous priest of Heironeus died. Guy leads the weekly masses, but that's about it. He is forbidden to "stir things too much" in the village or he'll be recalled. Village is a very very remote trading stop and thus clergy of Mouqol took the religious part over.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-02-02, 08:24 AM
Assuming the "oldest girl" is the 16 year old, maybe she solves the dilema by deciding to leave the village (possibly she thinks the PCs are glamorous and exciting, or she's had enough of her father and circumstances have opened her eyes to it, or she wants to leave so as not to be reminded every single day about her dead baby). So the PCs could have to escort her and her siblings to the nearest town - she's almost certainly old enough to work in a tavern and earn some money for all three of them, or maybe all three could enter domestic service for some noble family.

Perhaps the events give their father the kick he needs to sober up, or the rest of the village take action, possibly pushed by the PCs.

But short of one of the PCs marrying their father, or adopting the children, I don't see what other actions they could take themselves. Dumping money onto the family would probably wind up with the father squandering the money and possibly drinking himself to death, or making the rest of the village jealous of them.

Kyberwulf
2016-02-02, 10:05 AM
There isn't any grey in this. The PCs are not under any Moral Obligation to do anything. They are neither elected nor appointed by an official power to do anything. Sticking their nose into any situation is a bad course of action with willing to commit to seeing it through to the end is also Morally wrong.

Segev
2016-02-02, 10:49 AM
But short of one of the PCs marrying their father, or adopting the children, I don't see what other actions they could take themselves. Dumping money onto the family would probably wind up with the father squandering the money and possibly drinking himself to death, or making the rest of the village jealous of them.

They don't have to adopt the kids or take on a parental role; they could instead take them on as apprentices. Especially the 16-year-old; she's actually a little old for it.

But necromancers have a lot of time ahead of them, so that's not too big of a deal, and slaymates don't require upkeep.

OldTrees1
2016-02-02, 11:01 AM
There isn't any grey in this. The PCs are not under any Moral Obligation to do anything. They are neither elected nor appointed by an official power to do anything. Sticking their nose into any situation is a bad course of action with willing to commit to seeing it through to the end is also Morally wrong.

Huh? So in this thread we have at least 3 drastically opposed perspectives.
It is morally permissible thru morally superogatory (my stance)
It is morally impermissible thru morally superogatory (unreadable shade of gray)
It is morally impermissible (your stance)

My stance also presumed the PCs were not under any moral obligation to do anything, however I saw a perfect solution reached through diplomacy to be morally superogative path.

I presume from your phrasing that the reason you consider it morally impermissible is that the PCs don't have any justified authority. Thus forcing an outcome would be morally impermissible because it would be unjustified authority. If I am correct, would you expand on your position and also touch on non force options? If I am incorrect about what your position is, would you please correct me.

Jornophelanthas
2016-02-02, 02:07 PM
There isn't any grey in this. The PCs are not under any Moral Obligation to do anything. They are neither elected nor appointed by an official power to do anything. Sticking their nose into any situation is a bad course of action with willing to commit to seeing it through to the end is also Morally wrong.

This is only true as long as lawful neutral is the only possible moral stance.
And it is not, because there is a paladin in the party.

Quertus
2016-02-02, 03:25 PM
Its a true story from ireland in 80' except temple kitchen = social support and temple school = ordinary school.

Yeah, I was afraid it was something like that. Which makes me even sadder for my next response.


There isn't any grey in this. The PCs are not under any Moral Obligation to do anything. They are neither elected nor appointed by an official power to do anything. Sticking their nose into any situation is a bad course of action with willing to commit to seeing it through to the end is also Morally wrong.


Huh? So in this thread we have at least 3 drastically opposed perspectives.
It is morally permissible thru morally superogatory (my stance)
It is morally impermissible thru morally superogatory (unreadable shade of gray)
It is morally impermissible (your stance)

My stance also presumed the PCs were not under any moral obligation to do anything, however I saw a perfect solution reached through diplomacy to be morally superogative path.

I presume from your phrasing that the reason you consider it morally impermissible is that the PCs don't have any justified authority. Thus forcing an outcome would be morally impermissible because it would be unjustified authority. If I am correct, would you expand on your position and also touch on non force options? If I am incorrect about what your position is, would you please correct me.

Honestly, contrary to my previous post, if I ignored the "we're the PCs, it's the plot, we're supposed to do something" impetus, and roleplayed my characters correctly, many of them would take this non-interference stance.

We have no official authority here. Those with official authority over the matter are already looking into it. There is nothing more for us to do here.

In fact, for us to take any action is to undermine the the official authorities, and to make it more difficult for them to resolve this matter.

So, barring evidence of gross incompetence or malice on the part of those with official authority / the mandate of heaven, there is a moral obligation to not get involved.

Is how many of my characters would look at it.

Segev
2016-02-02, 04:05 PM
We have no official authority here. Those with official authority over the matter are already looking into it. There is nothing more for us to do here.

In fact, for us to take any action is to undermine the the official authorities, and to make it more difficult for them to resolve this matter.

So, barring evidence of gross incompetence or malice on the part of those with official authority / the mandate of heaven, there is a moral obligation to not get involved.

Is how many of my characters would look at it.
That...sounds contradictory to how the story was presented in the first place. Initially, it was presented as "the authorities are stonewalling any effort by the priest or others to help" and "the town is unreasonably dedicated to keeping those kids in squalor." There was no indication of authorities who were willing and able to do anything to help them; in fact, the one authority figure (the priest) who sort-of tried got told off of it by more direct figures in power in the town and was ordered by his distant superiors not to make waves and to leave it be.

At least, that's what you seem to have presented in the initial tale, to me. I may be misreading something in it. But it certainly didn't sound like "the authorities were investigating" nor like there was anything the PCs' intervention would "undermine" that was in any way desirable to leave to its own devices.

goto124
2016-02-02, 07:56 PM
For the sake of discussing the topic, we could assume the moral quandry presented is the entire premise of the campaign. Meaning the players have to deal with the issue somehow.

veti
2016-02-02, 09:05 PM
He was sent here by church of Mouqol (lesser god of trade, negotiation, ventures, appraisal and reciprocity). Sort of took over the emty temple as previous priest of Heironeus died. Guy leads the weekly masses, but that's about it. He is forbidden to "stir things too much" in the village or he'll be recalled. Village is a very very remote trading stop and thus clergy of Mouqol took the religious part over.

He's a priest of a god of negotiation? Holy heck, if he can't figure out how to change at least some people's minds then he should be in another line of business. Right now it sounds like he's not really trying.

For instance, he could offer services such as adjudicating trade disputes, appraising goods, auditing and certifying tradespeople who want to do business beyond the local community... Services like that would be valuable, and would give him some actual standing in the village. Then he'd be in a position to throw his weight around a bit more when this kind of ugliness comes up.

In the meantime... if I were in the PCs' position, the outcome I'd aim for would be something like this:

The three kids get to live together in their own home. The eldest does whatever work she can, but the rest of the community - directly or via the church - expects to be funding some support for them for the foreseeable future.
The father may or may not continue to live there. Let the kids make that call.

And I would enforce these rules using the only means I have: intimidation. Put a blessing on the house. Put an anonymous, and vague, curse on the anonymous father of the child - something bad will happen to him before too long anyway, so let's take credit for it. Tell everyone loudly that we'll be back, and if we don't like what we find, we will come loaded and ready to smite.

Then, without advertising the fact, ask the priest to write a letter occasionally. Say, once a week at first, trailing off to monthly or quarterly when things have settled down. Use these as a guide for when to revisit the dump and put on a show of being spookily omniscient. Basically, put the Fear of PCs into these hicks.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-02-03, 04:15 AM
How do I say "Yeah, that" without saying "Yeah, that"? :smallwink:

The only change to that I think of would be for the party to operate out of the village for a period of time, say a month, to make sure people are doing the right things.

Kyberwulf
2016-02-04, 09:45 AM
You only have authority if people give you authority. The people have spoken, he has none. This coupled with the fact. If the priest wants any respect. He as an outsider, can't allow other outsiders in to distribute justice. He will have to get in their and get his hands dirty. Now, even with a Paladin in the party. Despite what he wants to do. He has to respect the law. As crappy as it is, and he would have to bite at his bit. The father is not actively hurting his kids. He is Neglectful for sure. However, in this time period, or rather the time period this is suppose to reflect. Life was cheap. These kind of stories happened all the time. All over the place. What are the PCs suppose to do, go from town to town saving all the children from crap dads? This would quickly turn into Social Services & Government Officials. They would have to go from town to town taking kids away from parents they deem unworthy.

Now on the subject of trying to Paladin the situation.
Not knowing in of the local laws or customs. He doesn't have any legs to stand on. Like I said. The father is a loser. But they are his kids and nobody really has a thing to say about it. Unless this government has some form of Social Service where this case can be reported. He can try to appeal to the community. They however seem fine with the situation.. or will be until all the outsiders stop trying to interfere. Which most small communities will do. This is the biggest problem for the Paladin. He would have to change their minds about the way they accept things. This would be the hardest and longest thing to do. Again, not knowing the laws. He can't get after the Sheriff. He could be just as tied as the Priest and the Paladin about the situation. The father could be well inside the law. He seems okay, he took the death of the infant serious. Being a Paladin doesn't give you Carte Blance. He can't go inside any given situation and just mow down offenders to his moralities. He has rules to follow. Going around and making people do what he things is right, isn't a part of his alignment. That is a tenant of Chaotic good.

The most the Paladin can do. Is go around, talk to people. Try talk some sense into them. Write to whatever proper Authorities there are and hope for the best. They pray and hope for the best, and that everything will work out in the end. Because that is ALSO a precept of Paladinhood. Faith. He would have to have faith in people.

endur
2016-02-04, 10:14 AM
The one comment I would add.

Depending on the country and the authority in this kingdom, it is possible that Paladins have special authority. It is possible that the ruler has essentially declared all Paladins (or paladins from a particular knightly order) to be the equivalent of Marshals in the country (or the equivalent of Judge Dredd). In this situation, the paladin character might have authority and responsibility to act.

Segev
2016-02-04, 10:22 AM
Error: Paladins have no obligation, inherently, to respect local law. They have to maintain a Lawful alignment, but this is not necessarily the same thing. They must adhere to a code of conduct, and they must be reliable and steadfast, and they generally should be men of their word with attention to detail of meaning both overt and implied (but they can actually use connotation over denotation if it makes the difference between a Good and not-Good act; they're not LN).

A Paladin absolutely could declare the whole town worthy of condemnation for their willful mistreatment of these children, and act accordingly to rectify the situation. Even going so far as to impose his own law and leadership, if he felt it warranted. He would have to be consistent and Lawful about how he enforced his edicts, but he absolutely could do so.



I still think the best solution is to take measures to ensure that the kids rise as Slaymates after the betrayal by the guardians (the townsfolk and their father) leads to their demise, and take the oldest daughter as an apprentice to the party Necromancer. Because Slaymates are awesome and Leadership is also pretty darned cool.

OldTrees1
2016-02-04, 10:52 AM
Error: Paladins have no obligation, inherently, to respect local law. They have to maintain a Lawful alignment, but this is not necessarily the same thing. They must adhere to a code of conduct, and they must be reliable and steadfast, and they generally should be men of their word with attention to detail of meaning both overt and implied (but they can actually use connotation over denotation if it makes the difference between a Good and not-Good act; they're not LN).

Error: D&D has 3 alignment axes (2 L-C axes). Someone using the other L-C axis is not an error.

However this does not detract from your conclusion. Even in the Laws L-C axis, local law can be trumped.

Kyberwulf
2016-02-04, 11:14 AM
Dude that sound like Lawful Evil.
Taking peoples choice. Their free will.

Segev
2016-02-04, 11:24 AM
Dude that sound like Lawful Evil.
Taking peoples choice. Their free will.

Taking away their choice to abuse and harm innocents? No, that's Good in general. Heck, even Chaotic Good will do it.

Pyrous
2016-02-04, 12:01 PM
Taking away their choice to abuse and harm innocents? No, that's Good in general. Heck, even Chaotic Good will do it.

Especially Chaotic Good, because the villagers are claiming tradition.

daremetoidareyo
2016-02-04, 12:41 PM
Maybe it's because my girlfriend is a social worker.

But have you perhaps thought about talking to the father? Maybe he isn't all evil. Maybe he is just frail. Remove disease his alcoholism and sit down and talk to him. Given how dark the setting is, it's probably his child that just died...:/
The moral quandry isn't "how do i fix this?" It's "how do I help these people?" And you have to talk to people to change them. No amount of diplomacy through violence is going to get at the route of the troubles here.

1.) Poverty

a.) even if you fix poverty, you have an unreliable caretaker

b.) Even if you fix poverty, this family doesn't have the skills to function in a healthy fashion sustainably

c.) Even if you fix poverty, the social structures that allow poverty to happen are still in place
2.) Missing/Dead mother of the children

a. Missing/Dead wife of the the father:


I.) Did his alcoholism cause the missing wife?


II.) Did the wife go missing/dead and cause the alcoholism?

b.) half of the caretakers are available for the kids


I.) Is the burden of this double role affecting this father in such a way to drive him to drink?
3.) Social structures condone class elitism & focus on individual rather than collective good: Very Darwinian and compassionless

a.) No one is willing to take these kids in: In a village, often there is a family that will attempt folks in this situation.
b.) No one is willing to take personal risk to confront father

I.) No one has talked to the daughter about who the father really is
II.) No one has asked daughter if she killed the baby, and if so, why
e.) Children are portrayed as friendless, yet to survive this long under these conditions, they should have become more adult-like in demeanor and action


I.) No one has asked siblings if they are responsible for the baby's death

f.) No one has spoken of redemption for any of these unfortunate people, only what they as outsiders must do, despite being in a society that takes pride in the individual.
g.) Church is weak.


I.) Unpowered cleric + pregnant child?
II.) Church has no associated social work structure beyond a single person
III.) No apparent regulatory oversight of the church
IV.) No use of church power to diplomance a better situation for the children via asking the congregation for help

Who cares about the dead baby. Death helped that poor soul out. It's the survivors who are screwed. And if a band of PCs willing to help waltz into town and they can't see all the ways that these folks have been failed (by family, by religion, by society) what hope is there that they can fix it as outsiders without a revolution?

Kyberwulf
2016-02-04, 01:37 PM
Taking away someone's right to decide what they do in life is an evil act. It's dictatorship. Imposing their will on someone isn't in the Paladin's code. Being a Paladin doesn't impose any moral superiority on anyone. Making people do good, or else isn't a good act either. a good act is only a good act, if it's made by choice. A good act made against one's will is Coercion. Which is not a good act, by any means. You're defination of Good, seems to be very malleable... enough so, that torture is permissible.

I agree a Paladin would step in and intercede with force if necessary. If faced with Tyrannic forces. Evil that needs to be dealt with because their is no other course. This situation doesn't seem to warrant it though. We simply don't have enough information. The town seems morally neutral. The Local Law enforcement seems to be handling the situation. The kids, however unfortunate the situation is, are being cared for. The most the Paladin can do is talk to people. If they don't want to listen. Then he must let it go. He can report them to whatever Authorities he can. Maybe check on the situation. Anything more then that. Is a Violation of his oath. Because, there is more then one innocent evolved in this situation.

OldTrees1
2016-02-04, 01:54 PM
Maybe it's because my girlfriend is a social worker.

But have you perhaps thought about talking to the father? Maybe he isn't all evil. Maybe he is just frail. Remove disease his alcoholism and sit down and talk to him. Given how dark the setting is, it's probably his child that just died...:/
The moral quandry isn't "how do i fix this?" It's "how do I help these people?" And you have to talk to people to change them. No amount of diplomacy through violence is going to get at the route of the troubles here.

You have the right of it, talking and diplomacy through diplomacy is what is called for.

Also, that was a really good list. I hadn't even considered the inactive congregation.

Given this detailed description of the problem, who would the Paladin talk to first(not literally first but the first few), in what manner, and about what?

Segev
2016-02-04, 02:11 PM
Taking away someone's right to decide what they do in life is an evil act. It's dictatorship. Imposing their will on someone isn't in the Paladin's code. Being a Paladin doesn't impose any moral superiority on anyone. Making people do good, or else isn't a good act either. a good act is only a good act, if it's made by choice. A good act made against one's will is Coercion. Which is not a good act, by any means. You're defination of Good, seems to be very malleable... enough so, that torture is permissible.

I agree a Paladin would step in and intercede with force if necessary. If faced with Tyrannic forces. Evil that needs to be dealt with because their is no other course. This situation doesn't seem to warrant it though. We simply don't have enough information. The town seems morally neutral. The Local Law enforcement seems to be handling the situation. The kids, however unfortunate the situation is, are being cared for. The most the Paladin can do is talk to people. If they don't want to listen. Then he must let it go. He can report them to whatever Authorities he can. Maybe check on the situation. Anything more then that. Is a Violation of his oath. Because, there is more then one innocent evolved in this situation.

If they were simply exercising their rights to not be helpful in a bad situation, you'd be correct. But from what we've gotten, they're actively and directly preventing people from helping these kids. That moves from right to choose for oneself to outright bullying. And a Paladin absolutely can and should do something about it. If it takes imposing laws that say "no, you can't prevent people from freely giving aid to this family," then he can do so.

Cazero
2016-02-04, 02:23 PM
Taking away someone's right to decide what they do in life is an evil act.
Unless it's done in the defense of self or others. Killing is not always an Evil act, and it's much more than taking away some freedom. We also consider jails to be a very important part of law enforcement.

You wouldn't allow a Paladin to slay a dragon that eats too much cattle for the locals to survive? The situation here is far less dire but similar. The entire village, through inaction and ignorance, made the life of several children like hell and murdered a baby. The situation is such that a Paladin must do something about it. Because Paladins are paragon of Good and virtue who leads by example, not jerks who treat dirt farmers as "beneath them".

Felyndiira
2016-02-04, 02:38 PM
While not quite on the topic of the thread, some of the most interesting Paladin players that I've met are the ones that can confidently say this:

DM: You know you will fall if you do this, right?
Paladin: Yes, and I'm okay with that.

Paladins are not [good] outsiders. They are still human(oid), and even though they earned their paladin-hood by being far better of an exemplar of goodness than most other people in the world, that doesn't mean that they must always pick the "objective" right choice with little deviance. Being human(oid)s, paladins will have human weaknesses. They will sometimes be emotionally vulnerable. They will sometimes let their anger cloud everything else. Sometimes, they will just regret this afterwords and try to make it up to the people that he has hurt. Other times, they will be convinced that they did the right thing, for racism or bias or what-have-you from the environment that they've known since their childhood.

Sometimes, they will fall. A paladin isn't forbidden from doing evil, or abandoning everything and go crying in a corner when he sees an issue that he couldn't solve. Oftentimes, this will mean that the paladin falls - and that is perfectly okay. It can even lead to really cool character development scenes where the paladin learns something new, reinforces his beliefs, or finds a different form of justice to call his own.

Sometimes, the paladin might take a route that looks good without thinking of all the consequences and the finer points of the morality argument. That is fine, too. He probably won't lose his powers from this, but the consequences of what he did will probably change him as a person. Perhaps he learned something new from the encounter, strengthen some old beliefs, or takes responsibility for his mistakes and tries to make things right again. Whatever he chooses in the end, that's a massive potential for character development, and is one of the biggest reasons why I (and some others) still play RPGs to this day.

So, rather than worrying about what the party should do, objectively, as good-aligned characters, it is more interesting to see what they will do and go from there. They might make a grave mistake and deal with it badly. The paladin might so something stupid and only realize it afterwords. How they handle that, though, will probably make for a more interesting story than a straight solution with a "congratulations, you have done the right thing. Xx experience points."

goto124
2016-02-04, 07:50 PM
Erm. If a paladin falls, all class abilities are lost. You know, the stuff that's the entire point of playing a paladin.

Maybe not the entire point, but a good part of it. Why did the player choose the class with the mechanics of Smite Evil and other paladiny goodness, instead of, say, a cleric with less alignment restrictions or even an LG fighter or LG wizard?

It's a roleplaying game, where roleplay and game meet. Players want both roleplay and game.

Players go great lengths to avoid Falling. And many have found a class worse off for losing unique abilities based on something as iffy as morals and ethics.

Paladin's player: My paladin does X.
DM: Okay. You Fall because you did X, which is wrong. Your class abilities are now gone.
Paladin's player: What? Why is X wrong? *lists reasons why X is right*
DM: No, X is wrong because *lists reasons why X is wrong*
*Argument on ethics between DM and player ensues*

If a player is playing a wizard, and performs an action that may be on the south side of Neutral, the player and DM get to explore the realistic ramifications of said action. Not so much when class abilities are at stake.

daremetoidareyo
2016-02-04, 11:32 PM
You have the right of it, talking and diplomacy through diplomacy is what is called for.

Also, that was a really good list. I hadn't even considered the inactive congregation.

Given this detailed description of the problem, who would the Paladin talk to first(not literally first but the first few), in what manner, and about what?

Split up. The least intimidating PC invites kids to their lodging place for free meal. Make them really flamboyantly helpful. Like a rich lady from the high classes of England travelling abroad who wants some sepia tone facebook photos with poor African children. That helpful. Then interviews the kids;

*Compliment the priest; Guage kids' reaction.
*Ask about mom.
*Ask about what they are doing for food.
*Ask about other family members.
*Talk about dad.
Send kids home with a goodie bag.

*The heartiest drinker goes to pub: Buys round for the house. When patrons ask, make up a lie about having to travel to bury your wife recently, and that you never got a chance to celebrate the good stuff about her. Like make it corny. The kind of corny stuff that the local news covers.
*Slingshot that into buying drinks for the childrens' father. Tip the Bartender off about watering down this guy's drinks for more time.
*Ask about kids
*Ask about the role of the church in town
*Ask about other stuff in general. Feel this guy out. Is he struggling with stuff? Does he perceive the problem?
*Is he real guarded and suspicious, even when drunk? If so, he probably has some sin that he's trying to hide. It might have nothing to do with pregnant daughter.

PCs meet back up. Discuss situation. Consider Planar Binding a succubus to kill everyone in town cuz this campaign is no fun. Get on the same page about things, Go to a church service. Do they even have church services? What is that priest doing there? What purpose is he serving in such a small village? A missionary? Something else? Churches don't get built if they can't be sustained, unless of course, they are run by charlatans or are unfunded missionaries. Figure it out.

Maybe the big problem is that the political system in your fantasy land needs a division of child protective services staffed by the Mightiest Heroes of the Realm. Who have the ability to cast zone of truth! Go pitch that idea to the kind like your some kind of Steve Jobs of Social Work. Get funded to turn crappy homes into the most powerful shadow government army ever seen. Use it to overthrow kingdom. Enstate a benevolent dictatorship. Become a Lich to maintain fairness of the system for eternity. Invest in education. Bomb all economic rivals. Rule the world.

Felyndiira
2016-02-05, 12:03 AM
Erm. If a paladin falls, all class abilities are lost. You know, the stuff that's the entire point of playing a paladin.

Maybe not the entire point, but a good part of it. Why did the player choose the class with the mechanics of Smite Evil and other paladiny goodness, instead of, say, a cleric with less alignment restrictions or even an LG fighter or LG wizard?

It's a roleplaying game, where roleplay and game meet. Players want both roleplay and game.

Players go great lengths to avoid Falling. And many have found a class worse off for losing unique abilities based on something as iffy as morals and ethics.

Paladin's player: My paladin does X.
DM: Okay. You Fall because you did X, which is wrong. Your class abilities are now gone.
Paladin's player: What? Why is X wrong? *lists reasons why X is right*
DM: No, X is wrong because *lists reasons why X is wrong*
*Argument on ethics between DM and player ensues*

If a player is playing a wizard, and performs an action that may be on the south side of Neutral, the player and DM get to explore the realistic ramifications of said action. Not so much when class abilities are at stake.

I assume this is directed at me, so I will respond to this post with Hinjo's view on the Atonement spell.

http://i.imgur.com/rJzoCTG.png

Not everyone approaches games in the same way. I'm playing with at least one (very excellent) player right now who said almost the exact words that I mentioned above, when he refused to help a merchant ship that was under attack because he was completely and utterly pissed off with its owners. The GM, quite rightfully, warned him that his powers will likely be taken away if he persists in this, and his words were literally "I'm totally okay with that. It's what my character would do."

For everyone else on that table, hearing the player say that - it was a powerful character-defining moment.

People play paladin for a wide variety of reasons. It might seem a bit surprising, but there are people who are enamored with the class for the restrictive code over a lot of the class features. Having a character who is bound to do right all the time, but is still ultimately human and possesses the same human weaknesses is an excellent setup for character introspection and development. There are also people that put higher priority on personality and beliefs over doing cool stuff every combat, and there are games with a 6 session long diplomacy/development sessions with no meaningful combat at all to separate them (which is still my favorite scene in any campaign to this day). Even within D&D and Pathfinder, not everyone plays for shiny abilities that they need to have 24/7; sometimes, sacrifices are made for the sake of a better story. Sometimes, the good druid takes a curse to save the rest of the party that puts him out of commission for the next four encounters. Sometimes, clerics betray their ideals and slowly switch deities. Some of the best stories of Paladins floating around various forums deals with the idea of sacrifice - whether it's the story of the paladin who tried to stay behind in a water sphere to ensure his party members got out alive (and almost got killed for it), to the Powder Keg of Justice.

Obviously, if the DM is being an arse to the player and not offering him any alternate paths, that's a different story. But there are many people that are totally okay with being a feat-less fighter for a while if it means a character-defining RP moment. The consequences should not be permanent, either; the GM will - and should - offer the player atonement once his character sorts out the morality problems, or perhaps it's a chance for the paladin to actually embrace grayer morals and retrain to inquisitor (PF), or perhaps it's a good lead-in to becoming a Gray Guard (3.5e).

I'm not saying that all Paladins do this or needs to do this, either. Most players play Paladins without ever embracing human weakness, which is totally fine - there are still millions of ways to play a paladin without ever deviating from the code. I'm simply saying that flawed Paladins - the ones that do make mistakes and antagonize over their decisions - are among some of the most awesome characters that I have seen in games and in online stories, and is a particularly emotionally poignant way to express a character.

Pinjata
2016-02-05, 05:31 AM
@Felyndiira

Nor you, nor your friend you think so high of, seem to have any clue what is a paladin. Paladin is an individual, dedicated to Good cause. It is an embodiment of justice, perseverance and putting principles before own personal whims.



Not everyone approaches games in the same way.
Yeah, but if we are talking D&D canon paladin, then you can just stove your "special snowflake paladin" and just leave the table. It does not work that way.


he refused to help a merchant ship that was under attack because he was completely and utterly pissed off with its owners


This shows of a small, weak, petty-minded PC, unfit for paladinhood. This PC is no paladin. You may play it as if he is, you may houserule it behind your table, but per canon of many D&D books, it is not.

This approach turns paladin into a character that reaps all benefits of divine powers as long it suits him, jumps off the wagon when he sees fit and intends to hop back on via Atonement when appropriate. This is not paladin. I'd call it a sad attempt at metagaming.

And lore-vise I can not imagine a god who would bestow divine powers on such a character.

Felyndiira
2016-02-05, 07:45 AM
@Felyndiira

Nor you, nor your friend you think so high of, seem to have any clue what is a paladin. Paladin is an individual, dedicated to Good cause. It is an embodiment of justice, perseverance and putting principles before own personal whims.

I disagree. A paladin is ideally an embodiment of justice, perseverance, and putting principles before your own personal whims. A paladin, in actuality, is a person who wishes to live up to those ideals and dedicates his life to them, enough that they gained divine power for it. You do not become incapable of evil the moment you take your first level in paladin; rather, you are still fully capable of succumbing to your own weaknesses, and fully capable of atoning for it once you truly realize your own faults and seek forgiveness. Paladins do fall and do get reinstated in D&D, after all; they even have rules and a spell for that.


Yeah, but if we are talking D&D canon paladin, then you can just stove your "special snowflake paladin" and just leave the table. It does not work that way.

This shows of a small, weak, petty-minded PC, unfit for paladinhood. This PC is no paladin. You may play it as if he is, you may houserule it behind your table, but per canon of many D&D books, it is not.

Do you play all warblades as charismatic selfish warmongers? The warblade fluff clearly says that they are. What about the "how your class interact with other classes" sections of classes to a T because they are printed somewhere in the rulebooks? How about the religion sections? Refluffing classes is one of the most encouraged and most favored things on this board, and no one here plays classes (or the many dips they have in various classes) exactly as WotC printed in their various fluff segments. We invent our own characters to go with the mechanics, that are tailed to our vision of the game. Would you berate a warblade who is emotionally insecure, joins the other adventurers due to a fate outside of her own choosing and learns to be more confident as the story progresses, just because it doesn't fit the fluff of a warblade as written in the ToB?

A paladin loses his powers when he breaks his oath or loses his alignment - that is the restrictive mechanical rule in effect regarding paladins in the game. In terms of roleplaying, this means that a player who is willing to can choose to lose his powers over a character defining moment. As a GM, are you saying that I should deny the paladin the ability to fall, or permanently revoke his paladin-hood the first time he fails to show mercy because he let one of the most traumatic moments of his life temporarily override his senses and tell him to be a fighter? To me, that's not the mark of a good GM at all; a paladin's fall is just as much a part of his class as his other class features. It's just an optional weakness that the players can choose not to pursue; but if a player chooses to play their paladin as a person, with their own beliefs and biases and prejudices as focal points for character development? Pelor forbid that I would tell him "no, just go and play ye standard good paladin. I will have no falling in my game."

There is no such thing as a "D&D canon paladin" in the same way that there is no such thing as a "D&D canon ranger" or "D&D canon cleric [of deity]". Even the canon characters are characters in their own right, and the system never restricts you from creating your own ideas that are not Soveliss or Drizzt for any class.


This approach turns paladin into a character that reaps all benefits of divine powers as long it suits him, jumps off the wagon when he sees fit and intends to hop back on via Atonement when appropriate. This is not paladin. I'd call it a sad attempt at metagaming.

And lore-vise I can not imagine a god who would bestow divine powers on such a character.

I'm sorry (and I don't think you intended for this), but aside from being a slippery slope, this is a bit insulting. You are, quite literally, implying that anyone who plays paladin in a way outside of your expectations are, quote, "a character that reaps all benefits of divine powers as long it suits him, jumps off the wagon when he sees fit and intends to hop back on via Atonement when appropriate." It doesn't matter when they act consistently as a character, is one of the strongest roleplayers on the table, and whatever else he may be. Clearly, he's just a munchkin bastard that is metagaming the game for his own benefits...for a class that isn't even that powerful in either the 3.5e or Pathfinder versions of the game.

As a GM, you should easily be able to adjudicate between good roleplaying and someone who is power-gaming the system.

Lore-wise, Gods are themselves mysterious things (and plenty of settings set the Gods as having human traits themselves, despite having portfolios and all that). In Pathfinder, the god Abadar is more concerned with law than he is with good, and yet he is one of the deities in the setting that grants paladin-hood (in the more restrictive PFS, no less). And really, who knows what thoughts are going through a god's mind when he gives his powers to one of the canonically fallen paladins? Just like people, D&D/Pathfinder Gods are not blobs of just their portfolios and nothing else; they act for very personal reasons sometimes, have ambition, and make mistakes in the same way that people do. And all of that makes for excellent jumping point for a character.

OldTrees1
2016-02-05, 08:13 AM
@Felyndiira

Nor you, nor your friend you think so high of, seem to have any clue what is a paladin. Paladin is an individual, dedicated to Good cause. It is an embodiment of justice, perseverance and putting principles before own personal whims.



Yeah, but if we are talking D&D canon paladin, then you can just stove your "special snowflake paladin" and just leave the table. It does not work that way.



This shows of a small, weak, petty-minded PC, unfit for paladinhood. This PC is no paladin. You may play it as if he is, you may houserule it behind your table, but per canon of many D&D books, it is not.

This approach turns paladin into a character that reaps all benefits of divine powers as long it suits him, jumps off the wagon when he sees fit and intends to hop back on via Atonement when appropriate. This is not paladin. I'd call it a sad attempt at metagaming.

And lore-vise I can not imagine a god who would bestow divine powers on such a character.

@Pinjata
Sorry, but are you claiming that playing an imperfect Paladin is badwrongfun? or are you merely claiming that DMs and Players that enjoy the internal conflict of the Paladin's 3 masters are ignorant? If either of these is your claim then no one should take you seriously.

So let me tell you of the Paladin's 3 masters. Not everyone playing a Paladin needs to flesh out the character to this depth and this depth does not necessitate conflict but it is inherent in the Paladin lore.

1) The Paladin themselves
Every character comes with their own personal motivations. Serving these motivations is serving yourself.
2) The God granting the powers
Every god has their own personal motivations. Wee Jas has different requirements for her Paladins than Pelor (the Burning Hate). Serving these requirements is serving the god granting the power. Obviously this is the master that controls taking away your powers(for God granted Paladins)
3) Good itself
Every character worthy of Paladinhood can recognize the Right thing can be done for its own sake. Doing the Right thing is serving this 3rd (but most important) master.

With 3 masters comes the potential for 3 internal conflicts. Not every Paladin will have these internal conflicts but the potential exists.

Let's look at the 1st conflict since it seems the one you objected to the most in your urge to call badwrongfun. The Paladin vs God internal conflict is when the Paladin is given a task that they do not want to do. Sure a character that was seen as highly likely to choose themselves over their God is unlikely to be given those God granted powers. However that is not the main case being discussed here. Rather this is the case of a normally obedient Paladin being asked one of the rare things the God wants them to do but they do not want to. Miko after her fall is a passable example (since the rules prohibit citing the 2 most famous examples) of Miko's need to be right causing her to continue to disobey her gods.

The 2nd conflict: God vs Good is an easier but even rarer conflict for it requires the God to order something that is not the most moral thing to do. Usually this is a sign that the God is not worth following. Example: The Burning Hate decides now is the time to order one of their LG paladins to go torture an innocent (under suitable deception as is the Burning Hate's way). The Paladin might realize the situation and refuse, only to be stripped of their god-granted powers until they connect with a worthy god.

The 3rd conflict: Self vs Good almost defines a Paladin in that the Paladin is the one that strives to do what is Right despite it not always being easy.

In conclusion: Some people like playing Paladins, get over it.

Pinjata
2016-02-06, 04:13 AM
@Felyndiira @OldTrees1

You have two good points, but they are the only ones. First is cconflict between loyalty to god, loyalty to good, loyalty to clergy. That is indeed a chance for a probable internal conflict of a paladin, his fall and eventual Atonement.

Letting people die because of some gripes with their employers(masters?) of all things is a petty personal trait and there is no way in hell such a character gets paladin levels. Ever. Or Atonement. Ever.

With that said, ther is a point of gods being quizzical. We may not know why was certain person bestowed paladin levels.

But with that said, you could also bestow paladin levels on CE character. It becomes just another level dip to take when optimizing.

Frozen_Feet
2016-02-06, 05:02 AM
@Pinjata: of course letting people die due to a petty grudge is unacceptable of a paladin. That is why they fell!

Presumably, the had a good enough track record to become a paladin. Miko's situation in the comic is homologous: she never was a nice person, but before murdering Shojo she still followed Saphire Guard orthodoxy and orthopraxy to earn keep her status.

Just because a paladin falls and becomes unfit for the class, doesn't mean they retroactively were never fit for the class.

Pinjata
2016-02-06, 08:09 AM
@Pinjata: of course letting people die due to a petty grudge is unacceptable of a paladin. That is why they fell!

Presumably, the had a good enough track record to become a paladin. Miko's situation in the comic is homologous: she never was a nice person, but before murdering Shojo she still followed Saphire Guard orthodoxy and orthopraxy to earn keep her status.

Just because a paladin falls and becomes unfit for the class, doesn't mean they retroactively were never fit for the class.
Indeed. And from canonic point of view, Mikos' plot line is retarded. Peoples' traits do not just "pop up". They have them from the start. EXCEPTIONALLY traumatic events may change them but you need those to justify the change. Someone being paladin for 10 years and then have some sort of "grudgy fit and letting people drown" just popping up is extremely bad roleplay and metagaming. It's applying relativity, where there is none.

Thing is, gods see people's hearts. They should (per canon) bestow powers only to who they deem fit. The ones who will endure unless exposed to something extreme.

Kyberwulf
2016-02-06, 10:15 AM
Except Gods have Nothing to do with Paladin Powers. Paladins don't get their powers from anywhere. They either have them, or they don't. They don't serve Deities, unless they choose to serve. Then they only fall because their was usually an oath made TO serve them. They fall because they Broke that Oath, not because the Deity takes it away from them.

OldTrees1
2016-02-06, 11:18 AM
Indeed. And from canonic point of view, Mikos' plot line is retarded. Peoples' traits do not just "pop up". They have them from the start. EXCEPTIONALLY traumatic events may change them but you need those to justify the change. Someone being paladin for 10 years and then have some sort of "grudgy fit and letting people drown" just popping up is extremely bad roleplay and metagaming. It's applying relativity, where there is none.

Thing is, gods see people's hearts. They should (per canon) bestow powers only to who they deem fit. The ones who will endure unless exposed to something extreme.

Half right. Traits don't "just pop up" but neither are they inherent to your initial state(people can and do change otherwise we would all be babies).

A person who once was paladin material can slowly change away from that. Eventually such a change would make them unfit to remain a Paladin. Miko's plot line is merely the ending scene of the shift wherein Miko started to emphasis L over G and her confidence in her interpretation of L (we hear of this developed trait when Shinjo first sends Miko off to track the OotS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html)). Zeal can be virtuous and overzealousness can be minor but can also develop to the point that the person is no longer Paladin material.

Sidenote: You might have noticed that my arguments are general. I may or may not agree with you in the specific case.


Except Gods have Nothing to do with Paladin Powers. Paladins don't get their powers from anywhere. They either have them, or they don't. They don't serve Deities, unless they choose to serve. Then they only fall because their was usually an oath made TO serve them. They fall because they Broke that Oath, not because the Deity takes it away from them.
Depends on the Paladin in question. Look at the context clues to identify which one the person is talking about. Pinjata and I were arguing inside the context of god granted powers with the god being active in the case of any fall. We were using that context because I choose it as it demonstrates the maximum variations on internal conflict. The Atheist Paladin of an Ideal would have fewer types of internal conflict and those would all be a subset of the internal conflicts of the Paladin of an Active God.

Apricot
2016-02-06, 11:37 AM
I think the only moral thing to do in this situation is to allow the players to deal with a situation that they've fully engaged with on their own terms, be relatively lenient on them in terms of alignment difficulties because of how incredibly difficult the encounter is, and to give them a ton of experience when it's all over as a reward for them getting seriously involved in what sounds like some good roleplay. Do your best to be impartial and to work through things properly in terms of the NPCs, and if things seem like they're getting too heated between the players, be prepared to intervene with some made-up background detail that will solve the entire affair or by just addressing them OOC with "hey, guys, this isn't going well, maybe we should move on."

Either way, enjoy the ride! Even if it was unintentional and even if it's painful, this sounds like it's going to be a campaign highlight. Congratulations; those are hard to come by.

OldTrees1
2016-02-06, 11:47 AM
I think the only moral thing to do in this situation is to allow the players to deal with a situation that they've fully engaged with on their own terms, be relatively lenient on them in terms of alignment difficulties because of how incredibly difficult the encounter is, and to give them a ton of experience when it's all over as a reward for them getting seriously involved in what sounds like some good roleplay. Do your best to be impartial and to work through things properly in terms of the NPCs, and if things seem like they're getting too heated between the players, be prepared to intervene with some made-up background detail that will solve the entire affair or by just addressing them OOC with "hey, guys, this isn't going well, maybe we should move on."

Either way, enjoy the ride! Even if it was unintentional and even if it's painful, this sounds like it's going to be a campaign highlight. Congratulations; those are hard to come by.

:smallconfused::smallbiggrin: Ha ha.
You addressed the situation as if the moral quandary was about what the DM should do (quite well done too). This is a bit hilarious since everyone else has been addressing the situation as if the moral quandary is the in-character situation that he characters are thinking about

Good answer. DMs are better off when being flexible with the Players' reaction to in character moral quandaries.

Apricot
2016-02-06, 11:58 AM
That was exactly my intent. I mean, how jarring would it be if you got really into this moral issue, where there honestly is no perfectly good answer, and then suddenly had your DM lay down the law from on high to say "This and ONLY this is right!"? And even worse, he got his cue from an internet forum! Far better to leave it as the proverbial exercise for the reader.

OldTrees1
2016-02-06, 12:15 PM
That was exactly my intent. I mean, how jarring would it be if you got really into this moral issue, where there honestly is no perfectly good answer, and then suddenly had your DM lay down the law from on high to say "This and ONLY this is right!"? And even worse, he got his cue from an internet forum! Far better to leave it as the proverbial exercise for the reader.

That would be jarring. If there is anything I have learned from studying ethics/morality, (especially via moral quandaries) it is that humans cannot narrow it down to a single accurate right answer (although individual humans can all too readily narrow it down to individual inaccurate answers). But that would not incite me to leave it as a proverbial exercise. If humans are incapable of answering any moral quandaries, then we need the discussion more than ever. Those discussions are the closest things to an accurate answer that we can trust (even more trustworthy than the discussion's conclusion).

Apricot
2016-02-06, 12:25 PM
That was the attitude I was trying to convey. I must have phrased my point quite incoherently, which happens a fair amount of the time. My apologies.

OldTrees1
2016-02-06, 12:32 PM
That was the attitude I was trying to convey. I must have phrased my point quite incoherently, which happens a fair amount of the time. My apologies.

Nah, no apologies needed. I saw 2 readings of your post (based on "leave as a proverbial exercise to the reader"). Since both were reasonable positions (individual exercise vs group discussion), I flipped a coin. The coin chose poorly. Quite an enjoyable exchange. :smallsmile:

goto124
2016-02-06, 09:49 PM
If humans are incapable of answering any moral quandaries, then we need the discussion more than ever.

Hopefully, the inability to answer a moral quandry doesn't affect the ability to... get on with the rest of the game.