Paladin of Devotion vs. Vengeance: What really matters [Archive]

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 02:20 AM

From another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?477871-6-Levels-of-Paladin-Multiclass-into-gt&p=20414249#post20414249):

That doesn't actually make me like Oath of Vengeance any better. It seems so shortsighted.

Paladin of Devotion understands that the only thing that really, truly matters is your moral character: who you are inside. The whole purpose of life is to be a good person and to help other people as much as possible so that they have the freedom to choose who they will be too. Paladin of Vengeance gets caught up in seeing the trees and not the forest: as if it were more important to keep someone physically alive than spiritually alive. The greater tragedy is for someone to sacrifice their soul--not in a technical religious sense of "soul", but the sense of "the core of who you are." If I sacrifice my soul, and therefore much of my power to influence other people's souls, in order to prolong the mere duration of my own or someone else's physical existence, then I have spent something of great value to achieve something of little value.

So, Paladins of Vengeance look to me as if they are too focused on a lesser evil. There's nothing a lich or an archdemon can do which actually matters in the long run, really, and certainly nothing which matters enough for me (or anyone else) to lie or steal or break my word in order to prevent it. Only the soul matters, in the end. Mine and everyone else's.

Talamare

2016-02-12, 02:25 AM

busterswd

2016-02-12, 02:41 AM

Your quote from the other thread:

(BTW this is also why I would not want to play a Vengeance Paladin. An Oath of Vengeance Paladin is like a Paladin of Devotion who's lost his faith in everything but himself.)

I'd argue the opposite. An Oath of Vengeance paladin doesn't care what happens to himself or his soul. Victory at any cost, including self. Only the mission matters.

It's certainly far more cynical/pessimistic than Devotion, but that doesn't necessarily make the worldview wrong. Evil doesn't play fair; why should an avenger allow it any quarter?

If you've played something like Dark Heresy, where everyone is screwed, everyone is corruptible, and the fabric of the universe is basically out to destroy good, this mindset isn't that strange.

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 02:51 AM

Well, if you let those Archdemon's go free. They will end up destroying lot of people's souls.

Just think of Archdemon's as Hitler, while protecting your loved ones around you is important. If Vengeance Paladin's don't take up the fight to stop Hitler, then everything goes to hell.

It's easy to keep a pure soul, when there is only love and peace surrounding you.
However, once every moment of your life is filled with fear, despair, poverty, and pain. It becomes quite a bit harder.
Vengeance Paladin's are the Vanguard that keep the sun shining.

That's certainly a Vengeance Paladin's perspective, but from my perspective, there is nothing an archdemon or Hitler can do that can destroy a soul (in the sense I'm using the word: moral character, not in the technical D&D sense of 'whatever goes to [whatever afterlife] when you die'). Only you can destroy your own soul, and that is what the Vengeance Paladin is doing.

You can't bring sunshine into the lives filled with fear, despair, poverty, and pain if you've destroyed your own soul already. And you can act swiftly and courageously to intervene and keep people from feeling fear, despair, poverty, and pain, which is worth doing in its own right. But that is a lesser goal, not worth sacrificing the greater goals for. If I can save you short-term pain by sacrificing my and your long-term growth, I should not make that trade, and I will not.

Your quote from the other thread:

I'd argue the opposite. An Oath of Vengeance paladin doesn't care what happens to himself or his soul. Victory at any cost, including self. Only the mission matters.

It's certainly far more cynical/pessimistic than Devotion, but that doesn't necessarily make the worldview wrong. Evil doesn't play fair; why should an avenger allow it any quarter?

If you've played something like Dark Heresy, where everyone is screwed, everyone is corruptible, and the fabric of the universe is basically out to destroy good, this mindset isn't that strange.

You say you're arguing the opposite, but it sounds like you and I actually agree. An Oath of Vengeance Paladin is one who has basically lost faith in everything but himself: "the universe is corruptible and corrupted, and if I don't act, all good will be destroyed forever." If you take a Paladin of Devotion and subtract all of his faith in God and in other people, but retain his desire to see good things happen to other people, you get a Paladin of Vengeance.

Cespenar

2016-02-12, 03:13 AM

There are roles for both. Ideally, you'd want to majority of your orders to be Paladins of Devotion, promoting strength of character as well as providing protection. Then again, you'd want a small cadre of Vengeance types on hold, for those few villains where you'd better suspend the righteousness for a while before they wreck too many lives.

Talamare

2016-02-12, 03:20 AM

busterswd

2016-02-12, 03:47 AM

You can't bring sunshine into the lives filled with fear, despair, poverty, and pain if you've destroyed your own soul already. And you can act swiftly and courageously to intervene and keep people from feeling fear, despair, poverty, and pain, which is worth doing in its own right. But that is a lesser goal, not worth sacrificing the greater goals for. If I can save you short-term pain by sacrificing my and your long-term growth, I should not make that trade, and I will not.

That's assuming the common people can't find sunshine, good, etc. on their own. Regular, good-hearted people can find the goodness and sanctity in life. Not everyone can punch the Devil in the face to prevent him from murdering an entire village. Or, to paraphrase the Dresden files:

"He may not be able to punch down doors and fight demons, but he'll be there for you when you get your heart broken, when you have a bad day, or when you need a shoulder to cry on."

You say you're arguing the opposite, but it sounds like you and I actually agree. An Oath of Vengeance Paladin is one who has basically lost faith in everything but himself: "the universe is corruptible and corrupted, and if I don't act, all good will be destroyed forever." If you take a Paladin of Devotion and subtract all of his faith in God and in other people, but retain his desire to see good things happen to other people, you get a Paladin of Vengeance.

I think we differ in what we're calling "faith". A Vengeance paladin has no illusions about himself or his actions. His duty overrides his personal code of conduct and beliefs, and he knows it. The last person he has "faith" in is himself.

And a person doesn't have to become a vengeance paladin because he's lost faith in everything. There's also no reason he can't believe that there are other forces of good out there, fighting in different ways, whether it's deities or other people. He does believe, however, that evil is formidable enough that it needs an extra push in order to prevent harm from coming to innocents. Good is by no means a foregone conclusion.

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 04:04 AM

That's assuming the common people can't find sunshine, good, etc. on their own. Regular, good-hearted people can find the goodness and sanctity in life. Not everyone can punch the Devil in the face to prevent him from murdering an entire village. Or, to paraphrase the Dresden files:

"He may not be able to punch down doors and fight demons, but he'll be there for you when you get your heart broken, when you have a bad day, or when you need a shoulder to cry on."

I think we differ in what we're calling "faith". A Vengeance paladin has no illusions about himself or his actions. His duty overrides his personal code of conduct and beliefs, and he knows it. The last person he has "faith" in is himself.

And a person doesn't have to become a vengeance paladin because he's lost faith in everything. There's also no reason he can't believe that there are other forces of good out there, fighting in different ways, whether it's deities or other people. He does believe, however, that evil is formidable enough that it needs an extra push in order to prevent harm from coming to innocents. Good is by no means a foregone conclusion.

It's interesting that you bring up the Dresden files, because I was already thinking of Uriel and Michael Carpenter in my head. One thing you see in the Dresden Files, especially in shorts like "The Warrior", is that Uriel and Michael have a fundamentally different set of priorities than Harry does. Harry is all about stopping vampires from eating people and preventing Outsiders from knocking down the Outer Gates. To Uriel, that doesn't seem to be a priority--in fact, from what Uriel says about his power to destroy galaxies, it looks as if Uriel is perfectly capable of completely destroying all of the Outsiders, if that was necessary. It's just not a priority, because what he's really interested in is the moral development of human souls: "free will" as he/Michael term it, and the exercise thereof. It's been a while since I read "The Warrior" but one thing I remember is that we see that Uriel considers it a major, major victory if Harry is there to speak a few words to a girl who is depressed, words that will change the way she sees herself and lives her life. One has the impression that to Uriel, that was as big a deal or bigger than when Harry destroyed the Red Court.

RE: "faith," perhaps you're right--perhaps we are using different definitions. I'm using it to mean "the agent or agents in whom you put your trust." Essentially, those whom you consider to be on your team in getting the right things done. What do you mean when you use that word?

Talamare

2016-02-12, 04:06 AM

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 04:22 AM

I like to say Avengers are not Good, they are Greater Good.

They don't care about doing Good Deeds
They care about the Greater Good of all Deeds

Example- A long time ago, there was another race besides Human, Dwarf, Elf... etc
They were called Murder Race, for the only thing this Race can do is Murder. Not Kill, they have no interest in 'just' Killing. Only Murder
The other Races have tried to reason with them, but everyone who tried was... well Murdered.
Now, research and observation determined that only the males of this species actually ever Murder anything. Real, Chaotic Evil
The females are actually incredibly rare amongst their Species and have no interest in Murder, for all intents and purpose they only enjoy making babies (calm down feminists). Fairly Lawful Good
Their reproductive system is quite impressive too, they are able to give birth repeatedly until they die after being 'seeded' even once.
Literally a full litter of new Murder Race every day, Good thing they mature into adulthood within a week
Now after centuries of War, with the Murder Race. Resources are tight, and their numbers still seem to be at no end. (Other races aren't a fan of being constantly randomly murdered)

A ploy is comes to pass, We will kill the females~!
A Devotion Paladin rises and declares "Kill the females? They have committed no sins, and they pray every day. They are truly creatures of Good. We must not... CANNOT! Kill them."
A Vengeance Paladin rises and declares "Tho it weighs my heart, I will mercifully slaughter the females. For that is what needs to be done for the Greater Good"

Hahaha, you say "Murder Race" and I instantly think "Forkrul Assail." (Malazan reference.)

I agree with you about what a Vengeance Paladin would say and do, and I think this perfectly illustrates the "faith only in himself" issue. I don't agree with you about how a Paladin of Devotion would view the issue--I think you're oversimplifying his thinking quite a bit--but let's keep the focus on Paladin of Vengeance for now:

There are multiple ways to resolve this problem. The males are making individual choices to murder things; the females are choosing to produce lots of males; the humans are choosing to let the murderbots live; God is choosing not to resurrect the murder victims (yet). Someone who has no faith in anyone but himself will think, "The only way to change the outcome is for me to take control. No one but me can be trusted to fix the problem."

Someone who has faith in the females might say, "If we talk to the females some more, they might agree to quit reproducing when shown the tragedies that result from all the males." Someone who has faith in the individual males might say, "Maybe this male will not commit murder. Maybe we can re-educate all the males not to commit murder." Someone who has faith in God (or the DM) might say, "Death is only temporary. God has a reason for creating these murderbots, and he has not yet commanded us to remove them, so let us bear with patience until things change."

A Paladin of Devotion is not necessarily obligated to have faith in either the males or the females, but a Paladin of Vengeance will definitely not have faith in either. Therefore, while a Paladin of Devotion might or might not be onboard with putting the females to death (probably depends on whether or not he views the females as culpable for knowingly creating murderbots--similar to a Necromancer knowingly creating skeletons--and what he thinks God expects of him), a Paladin of Vengeance will always be onboard with putting the females to death. And the Paladin of Vengeance will be far more excitable about it too, because he doesn't believe God can possibly put things right if the Paladin himself does not act now.

Lines

2016-02-12, 04:27 AM

That's certainly a Vengeance Paladin's perspective, but from my perspective, there is nothing an archdemon or Hitler can do that can destroy a soul (in the sense I'm using the word: moral character, not in the technical D&D sense of 'whatever goes to [whatever afterlife] when you die'). Only you can destroy your own soul, and that is what the Vengeance Paladin is doing.
We can argue over whether that's an inevitable consequence, but even if that was the entire point of the vengeance paladin is that that's a worthy sacrifice in order to stop evil and prevent harm. The vengeance paladin is willing to go further than the others and sacrifice anything to vanquish evil, including themselves if that becomes necessary.

You can't bring sunshine into the lives filled with fear, despair, poverty, and pain if you've destroyed your own soul already. And you can act swiftly and courageously to intervene and keep people from feeling fear, despair, poverty, and pain, which is worth doing in its own right. But that is a lesser goal, not worth sacrificing the greater goals for. If I can save you short-term pain by sacrificing my and your long-term growth, I should not make that trade, and I will not.
That's your opinion as a devotion paladin. The vengeance paladin sees the grieving survivors of a village raided by orcs, people who have lost their family and homes - he sees the girl who was raped over and over try to hold it together for the sake of her younger siblings who saw their parents die horribly and decides that preventing that from happening again is worth any sacrifice he can make, including his own soul. He'll heal everyone he can and give money to those who will use it to rebuild, but his first priority will be stopping his sworn enemy. He gathers what allies he can and sets out to make sure that this won't happen again, whatever the cost he has to pay.

You say you're arguing the opposite, but it sounds like you and I actually agree. An Oath of Vengeance Paladin is one who has basically lost faith in everything but himself: "the universe is corruptible and corrupted, and if I don't act, all good will be destroyed forever." If you take a Paladin of Devotion and subtract all of his faith in God and in other people, but retain his desire to see good things happen to other people, you get a Paladin of Vengeance.
That the viewpoint is pessimistic does not mean that it's incorrect. The paladin of vengeance makes no mention of losing faith - he can still have faith in himself, his god, his allies, his friends, his people, in the general goodness of people, in anything he chooses. The paladin of devotion is somebody who holds honour and courage as virtues in and of themselves, a paladin of vengeance is someone who is happy to discard such things if it means destroying the evil he is sworn to face.

Fight the Greater Evil: Given the choice, he'll ignore the lesser evil in face of the greater. If opportunists move in, selling the survivors goods at unconscionable rates that the survivors must pay because they're desperate the vengeance paladin will deal with them if he gets the chance, but they will be lower priority than slaying the orcs and preventing another massacre like this one.
No Mercy for the Wicked: He might choose legal or illegal means to deal with the peddlers abusing circumstance and may be merciful with them based on his personality and what's best for everyone, but the orcs he will hunt down and destroy. Where a devotion paladin may give quarter or may pause to allow a fair fight, the vengeance paladin will ruthlessly and efficiently annihilate them.
By Any Means Necessary: As above, the devotion paladin might balk at poisoning their well and setting up an ambush between them and the nearest water source, attacking them and slaying them in their confusion before they have time to react - the vengeance paladin, however, won't. They lost their chance at mercy when they committed whichever acts earned his oath of vengeance, and risking his own life where unnecessary or giving some the chance to escape is just another way of saying that he cares more about them than their inevitable victims.
Restitution: The reason he swore the oath of vengeance was the defense of those harmed by his enemies. His enemies need to be destroyed as soon as possible to prevent more harm being done, but harm was done initially and if he fails to prevent more he is responsible for the acts his foes commit. It's his job to help the victims where-ever possible - he swore to prevent their evil deeds, the only possible atonement is to repair and heal to the best of his ability and then fulfill his oath to destroy the evildoers.

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 04:50 AM

That's your opinion as a devotion paladin. The vengeance paladin sees the grieving survivors of a village raided by orcs, people who have lost their family and homes - he sees the girl who was raped over and over try to hold it together for the sake of her younger siblings who saw their parents die horribly and decides that preventing that from happening again is worth any sacrifice he can make, including his own soul. He'll heal everyone he can and give money to those who will use it to rebuild, but his first priority will be stopping his sworn enemy. He gathers what allies he can and sets out to make sure that this won't happen again, whatever the cost he has to pay.

Precisely. You've just described the Vengeance Paladin's point of view. I've described my point of view, which I believe reflects a Paladin of Devotion's point of view. I wouldn't play a Paladin of Vengeance, despite the awesomeness of their crunch (esp. action economy), because I'm not onboard with their mindset. Many of the posters on GITP feel the opposite: very fond of Paladin of Vengeance because it fits their mindset, but can't relate to Paladin of Devotion except as a simplistic caricature. In their minds, this makes Paladins of Vengeance more complex, nuanced, and interesting--because they aren't onboard with the mindset of a complex and nuanced Paladin of Devotion.

That the viewpoint is pessimistic does not mean that it's incorrect.

I didn't say it was incorrect. Only the DM for that universe can say what is correct or incorrect. It's certainly possible to build a universe where all the Paladins of Devotion are wrong, and the Paladins of Vengeance are right, and everyone really will be consigned to eternal torment if you don't "eat this kitten" right now. (ObTvTropes: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfYoureSoEvilEatThisKitten) For purposes of this discussion though, it doesn't matter who is really right or wrong. The PC's perception of that universe at the time is what will shape their morality and behavior. And the PC's perception can change over time, which can change his morality and behavior.

You can certainly tell a story of a Paladin of Devotion whose increasing cynicism about the universe and his allies turns him into a Paladin of Vengeance, and then the evil deeds he does because of taking sole responsibility upon himself canker his soul over time until he becomes consumed with hatred for evildoers more than the desire to prevent evil, and he becomes an Oathbreaker. Finally he winds up in a place where he doesn't even care who is hurt as long as he "wins" his private little war (against Orcus or whomever), which was started originally with good intentions but was corrupted by his cynicism. All the other Paladins of Devotion look on with compassion but think he is completely misguided, and when they need to step in to prevent him from hurting innocents, they will. "Anakin, my loyalty is to the Republic!" Cue fight scene.

Lines

2016-02-12, 04:55 AM

Precisely. You've just described the Vengeance Paladin's point of view. I've described my point of view, which I believe reflects a Paladin of Devotion's point of view. I wouldn't play a Paladin of Vengeance, despite the awesomeness of their crunch (esp. action economy), because I'm not onboard with their mindset. Many of the posters on GITP feel the opposite: very fond of Paladin of Vengeance because it fits their mindset, but can't relate to Paladin of Devotion except as a simplistic caricature. In their minds, this makes Paladins of Vengeance more complex, nuanced, and interesting--because they aren't onboard with the mindset of a complex and nuanced Paladin of Devotion.

I get where they're coming from - assuming you actually are playing it as good, the oath of vengeance is basically pure neutral good, while a lot of people (myself included) see oath of devotion as lawful good with the lawful sometimes interfering with the good. ie vengeance is good 12, evil 2, lawful 0, chaos 0 while devotion is good 8, evil 0, lawful 8, chaos 0. Obviously these are arbitrary values, but it seems a good summation of what a lot of people see when they say devotion and vengeance.

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 05:11 AM

I get where they're coming from - assuming you actually are playing it as good, the oath of vengeance is basically pure neutral good, while a lot of people (myself included) see oath of devotion as lawful good with the lawful sometimes interfering with the good. ie vengeance is good 12, evil 2, lawful 0, chaos 0 while devotion is good 8, evil 0, lawful 8, chaos 0. Obviously these are arbitrary values, but it seems a good summation of what a lot of people see when they say devotion and vengeance.

I agree.

If you'll forgive the tangent: Tolkien was a monotheist, and all of his stories are set in a monotheistic universe, but he basically had to invent a polytheistic pseudo-theology because you can't really have exciting adventure stories in a universe where an all-powerful, all-knowing benevolent god/God is openly steering the plot. So the Silmarillion/Lord of the Rings/etc. spend way more time talking about the Valar/Maiar (and especially Sauron, who is basically Hitler, and a little bit about his boss Morgoth) than about Eru/Illuvatar who is actually in charge of everything. Because if you talk about Eru then all the tension goes out of things, and you know that somehow Eru/Providence is going to arrange for Gollum to be in the right position to bite off Frodo's finger, and everything will turn out according to plan. In short, all the monotheism in Tolkien happens subtly and mostly off-screen.

To bring it back on point: I don't think you can effectively play a Paladin of Devotion unless you keep your focus on divine Providence/Eru/some all-powerful, benevolent controller god/God. I think Paladins of Devotion are intrinsically monotheistic in some sense. It may be overstating things to say this, but essentially I think any polytheistic/pagan Paladin is pretty much fated to eventually wind up a Paladin of Vengeance of some sort due to cognitive dissonance. I hypothesize further that one reason Paladins of Vengeance are so popular on the Internet is because few of the players are comfortable with monotheism. My hypothesis is falsifiable, and would be disproven if many people say "In real life, I'm devoutly Mormon/Catholic/Muslim/whatever, but I can't relate at all to Paladins of Devotion in D&D because XYZ." I predict that that will not happen though.

Cybren

2016-02-12, 05:25 AM

I agree.

If you'll forgive the tangent: Tolkien was a monotheist, and all of his stories are set in a monotheistic universe, but he basically had to invent a polytheistic pseudo-theology because you can't really have exciting adventure stories in a universe where an all-powerful, all-knowing benevolent god/God is openly steering the plot. So the Silmarillion/Lord of the Rings/etc. spend way more time talking about the Valar/Maiar (and especially Sauron, who is basically Hitler, and a little bit about his boss Morgoth) than about Eru/Illuvatar who is actually in charge of everything. Because if you talk about Eru then all the tension goes out of things, and you know that somehow Eru/Providence is going to arrange for Gollum to be in the right position to bite off Frodo's finger, and everything will turn out according to plan. In short, all the monotheism in Tolkien happens subtly and mostly off-screen.

To bring it back on point: I don't think you can effectively play a Paladin of Devotion unless you keep your focus on divine Providence/Eru/some all-powerful, benevolent controller god/God. I think Paladins of Devotion are intrinsically monotheistic in some sense. It may be overstating things to say this, but essentially I think any polytheistic/pagan Paladin is pretty much fated to eventually wind up a Paladin of Vengeance of some sort due to cognitive dissonance. I hypothesize further that one reason Paladins of Vengeance are so popular on the Internet is because few of the players are comfortable with monotheism. My hypothesis is falsifiable, and would be disproven if many people say "In real life, I'm devoutly Mormon/Catholic/Muslim/whatever, but I can't relate at all to Paladins of Devotion in D&D because XYZ." I predict that that will not happen though.

I'm a fairly strident atheist but I find Paladins of vengeance to be kind of juvenile, the sort of boring 90s antihero that frank Miller might have come up with in the dusk of his career, and Paladins of devotion to generally be more conceptually interesting. (Aside: my first d&d character was a lawful evil cleric of hextor)

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 05:49 AM

I'm a fairly strident atheist but I find Paladins of vengeance to be kind of juvenile, the sort of boring 90s antihero that frank Miller might have come up with in the dusk of his career, and Paladins of devotion to generally be more conceptually interesting. (Aside: my first d&d character was a lawful evil cleric of hextor)

That's interesting. Either you are unusual or my hypothesis is disproven and another must be found. Thanks for speaking up.

BTW, reviewing Tolkien makes me want to point out: if Aragorn and Gandalf and Frodo and Sam had behaved like Paladins of Vengeance, putting the mission ahead of morality, they would have lost the war and Sauron would have triumphed. This could have happened at a number of points but to choose one: on the slopes of Mount Doom, Gollum attacked Sam and Frodo. Sam fought him off and could have slain him, but pity stayed his hand, though Gollum was still a threat. If Sam had killed Gollum then and there, Gollum would never have destroyed the Ring, and Sauron would have reclaimed it shortly thereafter. By obeying The Rules even when it seemed inexpedient, Sam allowed Providence to give him the victory. That's because Tolkien was writing the universe. OTOH, if George R. R. Martin had been writing, Sam would have spared Gollum's life and then Gollum would have stabbed him in the back and then eaten him. :)

Lines

2016-02-12, 06:08 AM

To bring it back on point: I don't think you can effectively play a Paladin of Devotion unless you keep your focus on divine Providence/Eru/some all-powerful, benevolent controller god/God. I think Paladins of Devotion are intrinsically monotheistic in some sense. It may be overstating things to say this, but essentially I think any polytheistic/pagan Paladin is pretty much fated to eventually wind up a Paladin of Vengeance of some sort due to cognitive dissonance. I hypothesize further that one reason Paladins of Vengeance are so popular on the Internet is because few of the players are comfortable with monotheism. My hypothesis is falsifiable, and would be disproven if many people say "In real life, I'm devoutly Mormon/Catholic/Muslim/whatever, but I can't relate at all to Paladins of Devotion in D&D because XYZ." I predict that that will not happen though.

Good summation. Can they all be equated that way? What kind of god, pantheon or belief system would naturally lend itself more to the paladin of the ancients?

I'm a fairly strident atheist but I find Paladins of vengeance to be kind of juvenile, the sort of boring 90s antihero that frank Miller might have come up with in the dusk of his career, and Paladins of devotion to generally be more conceptually interesting. (Aside: my first d&d character was a lawful evil cleric of hextor)

That's my opinion on the oathbreaker - I think the paladin of vengeance is fine. To me the devotion paladin is the gallant knight, the vengeance paladin the avenger and the ancients paladin is... actually, reading it, your perspective really should be coming from the ancients paladin. 'If you allow the light to die in your own heart, you can't preserve it in the world'. Oathbreaker on the other hand is needlessly evil.

Cybren

2016-02-12, 06:15 AM

Spiritchaser

2016-02-12, 08:33 AM

Determining if the "greater" evil is an internal struggle or an external one is definitely powerful in defining how a character should think... But this is a very subjective belief.

It's also worth noting that it can be a lot more fun (clearly also subjective) to play a damaged or incomplete character than a Zen master, much in the same way that, at least 3 our of every 4 days, I'd say Jessica Jones is a more interesting character to watch than hundred eyes...

Arial Black

2016-02-12, 08:38 AM

This thread is strange.

From their respective viewpoints, Vengeance and Devotion paladins each think that their own point of view is 'right', so therefore any other is flawed at the very least.

I would expect each kind of paladin to state their case, and defend it in debate.

The strange thing is that we, the gamers, have an objective point of view, and can understand why each subjective PoV thinks it is 'right' without feeling the need to choose sides ourselves.

We, the gamers, shouldn't be arguing about which imaginary philosophy is actually 'right'; it's irrelevant to us! We just need to know that each paladin in the game believes their own PoV to be 'right'.

What are we arguing for?

Lines

2016-02-12, 09:11 AM

This thread is strange.

From their respective viewpoints, Vengeance and Devotion paladins each think that their own point of view is 'right', so therefore any other is flawed at the very least.

I would expect each kind of paladin to state their case, and defend it in debate.

The strange thing is that we, the gamers, have an objective point of view, and can understand why each subjective PoV thinks it is 'right' without feeling the need to choose sides ourselves.

We, the gamers, shouldn't be arguing about which imaginary philosophy is actually 'right'; it's irrelevant to us! We just need to know that each paladin in the game believes their own PoV to be 'right'.

What are we arguing for?
It's fun to argue as if from the paladin's viewpoint. I think I did a pretty good job for vengeance.

Cybren

2016-02-12, 10:05 AM

KorvinStarmast

2016-02-12, 10:10 AM

We, the gamers, shouldn't be arguing about which imaginary philosophy is actually 'right'; it's irrelevant to us! We just need to know that each paladin in the game believes their own PoV to be 'right'.

What are we arguing for? I recall reading a post by Gary Gygax (under the name Colonel Play doh) about how he didn't care for D&D 3.x. (Not that it matters at this point, since TSR had already kicked him to the curb over a decade before WoTC got the game ... )

I think part of his disagreement has to do with equality and balance. The original game had three character classes that were NOT equal. (They got "name level" at different levels and even had different XP progression in terms of points per level). The follow on that resulted in AD&D 1e had a variety of characters that weren't equal either. The game model was a mixed bag of skills and talents working together to succeed (or die trying) to complete adventures/quests, stories ... the group being more important than any one individual.

Paladins had some hard minimum requirements to meet before you even go to be one, as did Illusionists and Rangers. (Unearthed Arcana for 1e mitigate that somewhat via the variable die roll per stat desired for class desired table).

That means that at the conceptual level, Paladins are very rare for a reason: the class is very hard to qualify for ..., this Warrior touched by the gods is indeed a rare creature even in literary traditions.

As a nod to "balance" the Paladin being more powerful than a regular warrior comes with a price or a limitation. Was it perfectly balanced? Not in the beginning, and it's been an uphill battle ever since. Balance was something the first versions of D&D struggled with even though that without balance it was an amazingly successful and popular and fun game. Mix in the "on off switch" approach to alignment (and GG has some serious influence on this in the way that his rules for how alignment can help or hinder a character, or how it can cause a Paladin to fall) and you get a clunky and unbalanced system that remains for whatever reason one of the core roles in this game.

WoTC keeps trying to make it fit better. (Nobel efforts, says I). The Oath Based Paladins is their latest attempt to keep a long favorite class and make it fit better (how many "I hate/dislike paladin" threads can one find on the internet?) One aim is to make it less difficult to run yet still retain the feel of that blessed/special warrior trope ... a trope that is millennia old. If we look at Joseph Campbells "hero with a thousand faces" as an approach, the Paladin/holy warrior has been with humans in stories and legends for a very, very long time.

A Vengeance Paladin doesn't create the Sun. The Sun will rise on it's own. A Vengeance Paladin keeps the Archdemon's from darkening the light. This is a beautiful and pithy basis for understanding that role.

In a world where multiple gods exist -- gods mess about in human affairs to greater or lesser degrees in human affairs (very much the greek and norse models here, as well as Amerind, among others) ... handing out divine favor and gifts as tangible things (that cleric can turn the undead and make them run off since he channels a bit of divine power!) ... and where Deities and Powers hear oaths, which when taken in a certain way tap into the divine energies that already are available to Selected Creatures ... then it 's really hard to argue that there isn't a divine element in this setting, founded in a Deity or a Power, and that the Oath stands on its own.

What matters? Fighting evil. That is the consistent theme in All Three oath paladins, and even moreso with the latest paladin from SCAG.

Spectre9000

2016-02-12, 10:46 AM

Let me start off by saying I've read nothing but the OP.

So, I don't view Oath of Vengeance Paladins as sacrificing others souls for their mortal well being. I see Oath of Vengeance Paladins as becoming a necessary evil to thwart greater evil. They sacrifice themselves, their soul included, so that others need not sacrifice and can remain mortally and spiritually pure, because they have faith that evil can be ultimately defeated. They become demons to fight devils so to speak. In this respect, a Oath of Vengeance paladin will give far more to the cause of fighting evil, fully sacrificing their entire essence, than a Oath of Devotion paladin who fights evil, with their actual goal being to remain as pure as possible whilst doing it, and thus not sacrificing their soul.

Oath of Vengeance paladins, in my view, are those willing to curse themselves to eternal damnation in order to gain the necessary might to fight true evil. They're a no-holds-barred paladin who does what is necessary to actually better the world. An Oath of Devotion Paladin seems to me to care more about their own salvation than the salvation of the world at large. I would say the Oath of Devotion paladin actually has less faith in the world and the fight against evil than the Oath of Vengeance Paladin, as the Oath of Vengeance Paladin will give their all for the fight.

Lines

2016-02-12, 11:11 AM

There's a legitimate argument that the term paladin shouldn't be used for people that aren't using the oath of devotion, that the D&D and traditional definition of what it is to be a paladin shouldn't be cheapened by broadening it to include morally gray jack bauer types, or whatever an oath of the ancients paladin is. It's very difficult, in the context of a traditonal d&d paladin and what their ethical system usually entails, to not see the path of vengeance as a step away from being an oathbreaker, and from the interpretation a lot of people seem to have of it, it seems like that's how people tend to play them anyway.

I think Paladins are really interesting, and a lot of that comes from the tension and conflict between their code of conduct and the rigors of an adventuring life. The Oath of Vengeance seems to have been made for people that enjoyed playing avengers in 4e, and their oath certainly doesn't seem as over the top as a lot of people make it out to be (the writers are practically begging the reader to not use it as an excuse for torture and murder, with the way they chose the words, for however much good that did them), but ultimately it just takes one of the more interesting parts of the class and gives you an excuse button in case you have to do anything morally difficult. In that respect it kind of reminds me of the Cavalier from Hackmaster (a class that has a ridgid code of conduct,comically full of holes- you have to accept a surrender, but only if they surrender properly, and strange gestures like waving a white flag could be a spell, better finish them off.)

In regards to what the oath of the ancients paladin is, it's basically the good side to the oath of devotion on steroids. Everything is basically 'be the change you want to see in the world' - a paladin should be friendly and joyous, should keep the light alive in themselves so that they can preserve it in the world. Be free and merry so that others may be free and merry too, stand against the darkness and and kindle hope through acts of mercy and kindness.

So basically, yeah, if you split the oath of devotion into its 'good' and 'lawful' aspects, the oath of the ancients ignores the lawful aspects and doubles down on the good aspects. I really think you're wrong regarding moral difficulty - the oath of vengeance doesn't mean getting to ignore the moral quandaries an oath of devotion paladin might have, it means having different priorities. The oath of the ancients and the oath of vengeance are basically opposite sides of the same coin - the ancients paladin promotes good by increasing the amount of good, the vengeance paladin promotes good by decreasing the amount of evil.

Mith

2016-02-12, 11:19 AM

Anyone here a fan of the Discworld series by Sir Terry Prachett?

I ask because I think the line drawn between Devotion and Vengeance can be compared to Carrot Ironfounderson and Samueal Vimes.

Carrot does everything needed to stay the right path, no matter what happens. He is also an extremely effective and efficient at achieving his goals.

Vimes does things at the dark grey end of the law, and he fights dirty to get things done, but he has lines that he Does. Not. Cross.

Both of these men achieve the same outcome of maintaining the peace of their city. One is not better than the other. They are more or less effective in different areas of their job, but they are equally competent.

Spectre9000

2016-02-12, 11:21 AM

Mith

2016-02-12, 11:27 AM

I was more thinking of times where Carrot gets into a fist fight and loses quickly due to the fact that he "fights fair". :smallsmile:

However, Carrot can get people to tell him things because he's a genuinely nice person and people want to talk to him. He is trustworthy, reliable, and well liked.

Vimes is just the first two of those traits.

It's been a while since I have read the Watch series of the Discworld, so I could be mis-remembering details.

Plus Vimes does hold himself back. He's fallen into the darkness, and built himself back up. They both hold themselves back, just in different ways.

But each to their own views.

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 11:30 AM

I don't really agree with the assertion that Paladins of devotion necessitate montheism though, especially as what is a monotheistic faith and what is a single cult in a cultural region that doesnt assert sole divinity isn't necessarily clear in a setting (see: late republican/early imperial Rome).

I always saw Paladins as devout lay warriors that had some strong orthodoxy that bound them to a greater code than mere chivalry. The Paladins in the Ultima series are devoted to honor one of the games seven virtues that form the ethical/philosophical religion of the game, and of course we get the term paladin from the twelve peers of charlemganes court, they were a temporal, not religious, order, although many people in the era were devoted to their religion

[forgive my layman's use of philosophical terminology below. I find philosophy boring for its own sake, but occasionally useful when communicating with other people. I'm using the below terms primarily on the off-chance that you're already familiar with them, because it will speed discussion if we are all on the same page about what things mean. -Max]

Let's call it a "conjecture" instead of an "assertion." The conjecture can be disproven, and your own experience is part of that disproof. My question would be:

What does the polytheist/atheist Paladin of Devotion's mental model look like, and is it robust over time?

The Paladin of Devotion has what is essentially virtue ethics or deontological ethics, depending on how you look at it. Virtue ethics means your morality centers on "what shows good character?" whereas deontological ethics centers on "Did you follow the rules?" I've found that in real life, these are both equivalent to each other and to utilitarian ethics ("What will the ultimate impact be on other people?") if and only if you believe in what Tolkien would have called divine Providence (so that showing good character will ultimately never cost other people in terms of impact on them) and if you believe that the rules you're following are divinely inspired by someone who perfectly understands cause in effect. In other words, faith in God unifies utilitarianism and virtue/deontological ethics so they are distinctions without a difference.

The Paladin of Vengeance follows a basically utilitarian model.

When you say that you see paladins as having some strong orthodoxy that binds them to a greater code, I agree--but will that code be stable and robust over time even in the face of seeing horrible things, or are they going to eventually decide, "You know what? Zarkanianism doesn't really help. What really matters is helping people." My conjecture is that the only code that will be stable is tied to faith in divine Providence, which requires a belief in an all-powerful all-knowing benevolent god/God (monotheism) or set of gods/Gods acting in perfect concert (henotheism/polytheism but functionally similar to monotheism since there is no potential for conflict between all-powerful entities with identical information and motives).

It's fine if my conjecture is wrong, but if so, can you help me understand what mindset you see e.g. a Paladin of Zeus having?

================================================== ===

Good summation. Can they all be equated that way? What kind of god, pantheon or belief system would naturally lend itself more to the paladin of the ancients?

I don't think there's a direct correlation. I'm claiming (conjecturing) that a Paladin of Devotion must necessarily be functionally monotheistic; but a Paladin of Vengeance could be monotheistic as well (mujahideen/Osama bin Ladin see themselves this way), and so could a Paladin of Ancients. I think Paladin codes are mostly independent of religion, I just don't see how Paladin of Devotion could work in the mind of someone who doesn't believe that a higher power is in charge in the driver's seat.

That being said, for some reason you say Paladin of Ancients and I think "Zoroastrianism". If D&D were real, I would predict that the highest percentage of paladins coming out of a Zoroastrian culture would be Paladins of Ancients. Virtue ethics, ecological ties. No strong deontological code of behavior per se that I know of--no equivalent of the Ten Commandments and the Pentateuch. That says "Paladin of Ancients" to me. I'm in no way an expert on Zoroastrianism though, that's just my impression.

Oramac

2016-02-12, 11:50 AM

I love this thread!!! I've loved Paladins ever since I started playing one in WoW 10 years ago, and learning about them (in and out of game) ever since.

I do believe, however, that this thread has failed to address the real question that differentiates any Paladin from any other Paladin (not just Devotion/Vengeance).

That question being: "WHY did the character choose his path?"

This thread has focused quite a lot on the What, but not enough on why. I believe the why is far more important, for it defines each characters motivations and beliefs in a more personal sense, and allows them (which is to say, us) to reflect on their unique, individual Calling as a Paladin.

For example: I'm currently playing a Worgen Paladin of Vengeance. See my sig for the Race. Before becoming a Paladin, he would have been classified as a simple Fighter/Ranger who hunted food for his pack.

When he came of age, he was sent on his Rite of Passage, and upon returning he found his entire pack had been murdered overnight. Yes, he knows there's a stigma about his race, but this wasn't simply scared people. There were necromantic symbols around and several marks consistent with undead.

Right there, his rage marked him with power, and a burning Vengeance against those who would wield the power of Undeath. He took an Oath of Vengeance and vowed to destroy the evil in this world, whatever the cost.

Lines

2016-02-12, 11:55 AM

I would say Carrot is stronger because he maintains the "luxury of purity", whilst Vimes does not. It's like saying two guys that accomplish the same thing are equal, despite one of them doing it with a hand tied behind their back.

Not really. Carrot wouldn't be able to do what Vimes does, either.

Talamare

2016-02-12, 11:57 AM

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 12:02 PM

I just read Ancient's Paladin (you know, the middle plant one, The 4e Warden, The OP Spell Resist one)

and after reading it. I don't think MaxWilson is a Devotion Paladin at all, I think he's actually an Ancient Paladin

Then why do I relate much more strongly to the PHB description of Oath of Devotion than Oath of Ancients? Oath of Ancients feels incomplete to me--it's missing the parts of about the need for honesty and keeping your word, for example.

Also, I feel like Oath of Ancients paladins place a higher priority than I do on being happy. An Oath of Ancients paladin might have no problem telling a little white lie in order to spare someone's feelings ("No, that dress doesn't make you look fat") as long as they didn't think it would cause long-term problems ("she's not going to buy that dress anyway, it's too expensive").

Slightly different priorities.

OldTrees1

2016-02-12, 12:07 PM

[forgive my layman's use of philosophical terminology below. I find philosophy boring for its own sake, but occasionally useful when communicating with other people. I'm using the below terms primarily on the off-chance that you're already familiar with them, because it will speed discussion if we are all on the same page about what things mean. -Max]

Let's call it a "conjecture" instead of an "assertion." The conjecture can be disproven, and your own experience is part of that disproof. My question would be:

What does the polytheist/atheist Paladin of Devotion's mental model look like, and is it robust over time?

The Paladin of Devotion has what is essentially virtue ethics or deontological ethics, depending on how you look at it. Virtue ethics means your morality centers on "what shows good character?" whereas deontological ethics centers on "Did you follow the rules?" I've found that in real life, these are both equivalent to each other and to utilitarian ethics ("What will the ultimate impact be on other people?") if and only if you believe in what Tolkien would have called divine Providence (so that showing good character will ultimately never cost other people in terms of impact on them) and if you believe that the rules you're following are divinely inspired by someone who perfectly understands cause in effect. In other words, faith in God unifies utilitarianism and virtue/deontological ethics so they are distinctions without a difference.

The Paladin of Vengeance follows a basically utilitarian model.

When you say that you see paladins as having some strong orthodoxy that binds them to a greater code, I agree--but will that code be stable and robust over time even in the face of seeing horrible things, or are they going to eventually decide, "You know what? Zarkanianism doesn't really help. What really matters is helping people." My conjecture is that the only code that will be stable is tied to faith in divine Providence, which requires a belief in an all-powerful all-knowing benevolent god/God (monotheism) or set of gods/Gods acting in perfect concert (henotheism/polytheism but functionally similar to monotheism since there is no potential for conflict between all-powerful entities with identical information and motives).

It's fine if my conjecture is wrong, but if so, can you help me understand what mindset you see e.g. a Paladin of Zeus having?

I hope you don't mind me butting in.

I think you are right in your premise that Paladin's of Devotion operate under either Virtue or Deontological ethics. What I found strange and unsupported was you emphasis on unifying the Paladin's ethics with Consequentialist(Ex: Utilitarian) ethics. While belief in a monotheistic deity can unify those ethics, why would it matter to someone following Virtue Ethics or Deontological ethics?

As a brief mental model of an example mind:
"I exist with the capability of recognizing and making decisions with moral character. Having this capability I inherit a duty to do the options that I ought to make in these decisions. Everything else* is of lesser importance."

*Everything else includes existence/nonexistence of divine beings, snails, and rocks shaped like triangles.
**Now whether that example mind is robust is certainly a question. You will notice it is very vague and abstract as if it were all that remained. The remains are quite robust even if what once was there was not.

Arial Black

2016-02-12, 12:16 PM

There's plenty on this thread about how devotion paladins view vengeance paladins, but what about the other way around.

According to the OP, vengeance cares more about saving lives now while ignoring the more important priority that is the 'immortal soul'. That a slight taint on a persons soul to stay alive (or save the lives of others) is worthless if it imperils their souls.

....Yes!!! That's the difference! The devotion paladin would choose to allow all manner of evils to befall those supposedly in his care! You know what that looks like? It looks like, "The only thing required for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

In other words, you'd allow the innocents to be slaughtered when you could have saved them, because of how it may reflect on you in a theoretical afterlife.

Y'know what? I'd rather have the kind of paladin who will save the lives of innocents while I look after my own immortal soul, thank you very much! And the lives and sanity of my wife, children, village, civilisation, world....!

Who would you want protecting you? The guy who won't save your life in case it risks your soul? Or the guy who will save you, even if it costs him his own?

I know which I'd choose. I know which one is the true hero.

Talamare

2016-02-12, 12:16 PM

Then why do I relate much more strongly to the PHB description of Oath of Devotion than Oath of Ancients? Oath of Ancients feels incomplete to me--it's missing the parts of about the need for honesty and keeping your word, for example.

Also, I feel like Oath of Ancients paladins place a higher priority than I do on being happy. An Oath of Ancients paladin might have no problem telling a little white lie in order to spare someone's feelings ("No, that dress doesn't make you look fat") as long as they didn't think it would cause long-term problems ("she's not going to buy that dress anyway, it's too expensive").

Slightly different priorities.

Because a Devotion Paladin is not against destroying his soul, which is what your main point is.

So, if I were to use arbitrary %s.
Vengeance Paladins are 100% willing to destroy their souls for the Greater Good
Devotion Paladins are 50% willing, since they want to minimize the harm they cause. However if needed they will do the deed and be responsible for their actions after
Ancients Paladins are like 0% willing, They mention it in their Tenet's like 3x to not do actions that would destroy their souls.

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 12:24 PM

I hope you don't mind me butting in.

I think you are right in your premise that Paladin's of Devotion operate under either Virtue or Deontological ethics. What I found strange and unsupported was you emphasis on unifying the Paladin's ethics with Consequentialist(Ex: Utilitarian) ethics. While belief in a monotheistic deity can unify those ethics, why would it matter to someone following Virtue Ethics or Deontological ethics?

As a brief mental model of an example mind:
"I exist with the capability of recognizing and making decisions with moral character. Having this capability I inherit a duty to choose the options I ought to make in these decisions. Everything else* is of lesser importance."

*Everything else includes existence/nonexistence of divine beings, snails, and rocks shaped like triangles.
**Now whether that example mind is robust is certainly a question. You will notice it is very vague and abstract as if it were all that remained. The remains are quite robust even if what once was there was not.

I want to say, "Yes, I think you've just described a plausible atheist Paladin of Devotion who remains a Paladin of Devotion no matter what kind of crisis is currently happening." But I'm just not 100% sure, without playing things out at the table, what's going to happen with that paladin when cognitive dissonance comes into play, assuming that bad things happen to people that he feels badly about.

What's your opinion? Do you think this mindset can be maintained indefinitely?

There's plenty on this thread about how devotion paladins view vengeance paladins, but what about the other way around.

According to the OP, vengeance cares more about saving lives now while ignoring the more important priority that is the 'immortal soul'. That a slight taint on a persons soul to stay alive (or save the lives of others) is worthless if it imperils their souls.

....Yes!!! That's the difference! The devotion paladin would choose to allow all manner of evils to befall those supposedly in his care! You know what that looks like? It looks like, "The only thing required for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

In other words, you'd allow the innocents to be slaughtered when you could have saved them, because of how it may reflect on you in a theoretical afterlife.

Y'know what? I'd rather have the kind of paladin who will save the lives of innocents while I look after my own immortal soul, thank you very much! And the lives and sanity of my wife, children, village, civilisation, world....!

Who would you want protecting you? The guy who won't save your life in case it risks your soul? Or the guy who will save you, even if it costs him his own?

I know which I'd choose. I know which one is the true hero.

You know, I tried to be pretty explicit in the OP that I am not talking about souls in the technical, religious sense of "what happens to you after you die." I'm talking about moral character, who you are in your innermost core. I realize that it's confusing to refer to both these things by the same term "soul" but I really did try to draw a distinction, because otherwise I'd be agreeing with what you write here: preserving your eternal reward is not the point from a Paladin (of Devotion)'s perspective. Depending on the rules of your universe it might not even be a side-effect.

OldTrees1

2016-02-12, 12:39 PM

I want to say, "Yes, I think you've just described a plausible atheist Paladin of Devotion who remains a Paladin of Devotion no matter what kind of crisis is currently happening." But I'm just not 100% sure, without playing things out at the table, what's going to happen with that paladin when cognitive dissonance comes into play, assuming that bad things happen to people that he feels badly about.

What's your opinion? Do you think this mindset can be maintained indefinitely?

From personal experience I know what remains(the stuff in the ""s) can be maintained indefinitely even under the belief that Humans cannot identify what is/is not moral/immoral (which honestly hits much harder than bad things happening to good people). Without such a belief not only could the mindset be maintained indefinitely but specific examples would be quite concrete and specific rather than abstract and vague. Is the mindset doomed to be hit with such a belief? Other IRL examples* hint towards no, most IRL examples* of this mindset fail to ever adopt/consider the crippling belief.

Yes, this atheist Paladin of Devotion mindset can be maintained indefinitely.

*examples sampled from observations by this observer

Lines

2016-02-12, 12:53 PM

I just read Ancient's Paladin (you know, the middle plant one, The 4e Warden, The OP Spell Resist one)

and after reading it. I don't think MaxWilson is a Devotion Paladin at all, I think he's actually an Ancient Paladin

Sounds about right. Ancients is about purity and joy, devotion is about duty and honour, vengeance is about... well, the best way I can put it is responsibility. A vengeance paladin says there's no excuses, if evildoers wreck havoc on the world then it's because the paladin didn't stop them. Anyone got a couple of words for that?

Oramac

2016-02-12, 12:56 PM

A vengeance paladin says there's no excuses, if evildoers wreck havoc on the world then it's because the paladin didn't stop them. Anyone got a couple of words for that?

Restitution, like the PHB says. Also, Retribution might work (for the evildoers).

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 01:04 PM

From personal experience I know what remains(the stuff in the ""s) can be maintained indefinitely even under the belief that Humans cannot identify what is/is not moral/immoral (which honestly hits much harder than bad things happening to good people). Without such a belief not only could the mindset be maintained indefinitely but specific examples would be quite concrete and specific rather than abstract and vague. Is the mindset doomed to be hit with such a belief? Other IRL examples* hint towards no, most IRL examples* of this mindset fail to ever adopt/consider the crippling belief.

Yes, this atheist Paladin of Devotion mindset can be maintained indefinitely.

*examples sampled from observations by this observer

Excellent! Consider my conjecture disproven then. Thanks for correcting me.

Pex

2016-02-12, 01:06 PM

As I see it, Vengeance's view is "It's Evil? It must die! Let the gods sort it out." He doesn't wantonly kill everything in sight, just that once a Foe is established the Foe's life is forfeit. Outside of combat he can still be all goody-two-shoes as the next Paladin. Devotion can and does kill Foes, but they're more willing to allow for a chance of Redemption.

For a simplistic metaphorical analogy:

Devotion: Judge
Ancients: Jury
Vengeance: Executioner

OldTrees1

2016-02-12, 01:16 PM

Sounds about right. Ancients is about purity and joy, devotion is about duty and honour, vengeance is about... well, the best way I can put it is responsibility. A vengeance paladin says there's no excuses, if evildoers wreck havoc on the world then it's because the paladin didn't stop them. Anyone got a couple of words for that?

Final Responsibility:
I am myself. I can decide my choices and the only choices I can decide are my own. Others have the potential to act to solve the problem, but their actions are not one of my options. Their potential to act and their potential not to act do not affect the options I have. As such I must accept Final Responsibility when deciding how to proceed if I want to ensure that the problem ends solved. Anything I could have stopped but didn't is my fault. The burden of this responsibility, whether deserved or undeserved, ensures that the problem will be solved. (Others can say it even better)

Basically it is an intolerance for the existence of the evil extreme enough to dictate at least 1 of the moral agents adopt a strategy that ensures the under no circumstance will the evil persist. It is an extremely effective necessary position if one needs to ensure the evil is stopped.

Excellent! Consider my conjecture disproven then. Thanks for correcting me.
You have a good system. You're welcome.

Oramac

2016-02-12, 01:56 PM

That question being: "WHY did the character choose his path?"

I gotta say, I'm surprised (and a bit disappointed) that the Why has never been addressed.

That said, I am quite enjoying this thread.

busterswd

2016-02-12, 02:11 PM

It's interesting that you bring up the Dresden files, because I was already thinking of Uriel and Michael Carpenter in my head. One thing you see in the Dresden Files, especially in shorts like "The Warrior", is that Uriel and Michael have a fundamentally different set of priorities than Harry does. Harry is all about stopping vampires from eating people and preventing Outsiders from knocking down the Outer Gates. To Uriel, that doesn't seem to be a priority--in fact, from what Uriel says about his power to destroy galaxies, it looks as if Uriel is perfectly capable of completely destroying all of the Outsiders, if that was necessary. It's just not a priority, because what he's really interested in is the moral development of human souls: "free will" as he/Michael term it, and the exercise thereof. It's been a while since I read "The Warrior" but one thing I remember is that we see that Uriel considers it a major, major victory if Harry is there to speak a few words to a girl who is depressed, words that will change the way she sees herself and lives her life. One has the impression that to Uriel, that was as big a deal or bigger than when Harry destroyed the Red Court.

RE: "faith," perhaps you're right--perhaps we are using different definitions. I'm using it to mean "the agent or agents in whom you put your trust." Essentially, those whom you consider to be on your team in getting the right things done. What do you mean when you use that word?

Faith, to me, is your trust and belief in a being or aspect of life. The belief part is the essential difference for me. It's not enough to think that someone is doing the "right" thing. Path to hell, yada yada. Whatever you put your faith in has to be something that's so good and so incorruptible that even in times of doubt, your faith will still lead you to believe in that being or aspect. Vengeance Paladins don't really have faith in their own souls. They know they're tainted, but it's a willing choice they made. Their code and ambitions may be necessary, but it doesn't mean they're personally pure.

Re: Dresden files. Uriel is interested in "interfering". Uriel literally CAN'T, because he lacks free will and the ability to directly manipulate it (as do all non-mortal races). He relies on people like Dresden and Michael to do good's bidding. Although I haven't read The Warrior, yet.

Did you read Skin Games yet? That's where the quote is from; it points out the impact a mere human can have, even if they're not a major league evil slayer. But sometimes you really, really need that evil slaying.

It's really easy to think of a vengeance Paladin as a brooding anti hero or Miko (EVIL MUST DIE SLASH SLASH SLASH), but that's reductionist. A vengeance paladin is someone who has measured the weight of his own needs, and the needs of protecting the many from evil; stopping evil won. I'd point to somebody who signs up for the military in order to fight for a better world; even if they may have to injure or kill someone, they're fighting for a cause greater than them.

TLDR: The key difference for a Vengeance Paladin is how important their own self is, ie: it's not.

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 02:22 PM

I gotta say, I'm surprised (and a bit disappointed) that the Why has never been addressed.

That said, I am quite enjoying this thread.

It's probably because this thread is about philosophy and moral values, not the biography of specific characters. I think your topic is worthy of discussion, but it's a different thread: "What made your paladin realize he had a Calling" or something like that.

Faith, to me, is your trust and belief in a being or aspect of life. The belief part is the essential difference for me. It's not enough to think that someone is doing the "right" thing. Path to hell, yada yada. Whatever you put your faith in has to be something that's so good and so incorruptible that even in times of doubt, your faith will still lead you to believe in that being or aspect. Vengeance Paladins don't really have faith in their own souls. They know they're tainted, but it's a willing choice they made. Their code and ambitions may be necessary, but it doesn't mean they're personally pure.

Ah, I see the disconnect. Yes, that's a different meaning of the word than the one I'm using. It's just a semantic disagreement then, not a substantive one.

Oramac

2016-02-12, 02:27 PM

It's probably because this thread is about philosophy and moral values, not the biography of specific characters. I think your topic is worthy of discussion, but it's a different thread: "What made your paladin realize he had a Calling" or something like that.

I would disagree. The philosophy and moral values of any given Oath (or any other subclass, for that matter) depend greatly on why the character chose his path.

Why did the Assassin Rogue choose that path? What philosophy/values led him to that path? Conversely, what about the path forged (or re-forged) his previous philosophy/values?

The same could be asked of any person in any profession. The why is just as important as the what.

MaxWilson

2016-02-12, 02:33 PM

Did you read Skin Games yet? That's where the quote is from; it points out the impact a mere human can have, even if they're not a major league evil slayer. But sometimes you really, really need that evil slaying.

You mean this paraphrase? "He may not be able to punch down doors and fight demons, but he'll be there for you when you get your heart broken, when you have a bad day, or when you need a shoulder to cry on."

I don't think that's from Skin Game. I believe it's Harry talking to Molly, back in Changes. As such, even if it included your unspoken coda ("but sometimes you really, really need that evil slaying"), you couldn't claim that it represents Uriel's or Michael's viewpoint. In fact, in Skin Game we see pretty much the opposite. Michael is extremely reluctant to SPOILER for fear of SPOILER, and he asks Uriel what is at stake.

What's Uriel's response: "A soul." And then Michael smiles and is like, "Well, okay. Why didn't you say so in the first place?" Uriel didn't say, "Millions of people will die if you don't," and one has the distinct impression that "Millions of people will die" would not have been enough to move Michael to risk SPOILER. Uriel and Michael have a very different perspective on the universe than Harry does.

It's really easy to think of a vengeance Paladin as a brooding anti hero or Miko (EVIL MUST DIE SLASH SLASH SLASH), but that's reductionist. A vengeance paladin is someone who has measured the weight of his own needs, and the needs of protecting the many from evil; stopping evil won. I'd point to somebody who signs up for the military in order to fight for a better world; even if they may have to injure or kill someone, they're fighting for a cause greater than them.

I agree that a vengeance paladin can be nuanced. But I also think you're incorrect when you say that a vengeance paladin is the only one who cares about something more than himself. You can't be a (non-Oathbreaker) paladin without caring about others more than yourself--that's part of the base definition of paladin. But I would point you to this conversation as an example of a devotion vs. vengeance conversation:

Steve Rogers: You just can’t stop yourself from lying, can you?
Nick Fury: I didn’t lie. Agent Romanoff had a different mission than yours.
Steve Rogers: Which you didn’t feel obliged to share.
Nick Fury: I’m not obliged to do anything.
Steve Rogers: Those hostages could’ve died, Nick.
Nick Fury: I sent the greatest soldier in history to make sure that didn’t happen.
Steve Rogers: Soldiers trust each other, that’s what makes it an army. Not a bunch of guys running around and shooting guns.
Nick Fury: The last time I trusted someone, I lost an eye. Look, I didn’t want you doing anything you weren’t comfortable with. Agent Romanoff is comfortable with everything.
Steve Rogers: I can’t lead a mission when the people I’m leading have missions of their owns.
Nick Fury: It’s called compartmentalization. Nobody spills the secrets because nobody knows them all.
Steve Rogers: Except you.
Nick Fury: You’re wrong about me. I do share. I’m nice like that.

Fury and Romanoff represent the Vengeance perspective: it's okay to lie to your teammates if you need to. Rogers is saying, no, that has bad long-term consequences. It's not a matter of one of them being more selfish than the other, but it is an example of them having different priorities.

AZGrowler

2016-02-12, 02:41 PM

This thread is strange.

From their respective viewpoints, Vengeance and Devotion paladins each think that their own point of view is 'right', so therefore any other is flawed at the very least.
I don't think the two types of paladins would necessarily see the other as wrong or flawed. A Vengeance paladin would likely see a Devotion paladin as an exemplar of what people should be, whether that applies to what their deity says or according to the laws and/or customs of their nation/kingdom. Without someone demonstrating what is right, there would be more people that would require the Vengeance paladin's tender ministrations. They would know that, in some situations, sending a Devotion paladin to handle a particular problem would make more sense then sending a Vengeance paladin. Capitol punishment isn't required for every crime.

Similarly, a Devotion paladin would probably respect the difficult choices that a Vengeance paladin has to make, and, more importantly, has to live with. They'd likely recognize the need for a gardener to clear out the weeds so the beneficial plants can thrive. Also, they'd acknowledge that some people are willing to risk the very things they hold most dear to achieve a better future for the greatest number. Likewise, they'd probably know that sometimes justice requires extreme measures, and they might not be the person that's best suited for them.

There could be even be a modicum of jealousy between the types. A Devotion paladin could sometimes wish he had the freedom to make expeditious decisions. Likewise a Vengeance paladin could find himself wishing that he didn't have to live with the guilt of what he's done, even if it was ultimately better for others.

There's nothing that says that Vengeance paladins have to be gloomy, brooding 80's anti-heroes. They could be indistinguishable from other paladins most of the time, and only get stern when the chips are down. When they're not hunting a big bad, they're delivering minor bad guys to the authorities. Or, in other words, most of the time they're like Adam West's Batman, or the one from Super Friends. When they're after a particular evil/corrupt/unjust villain, they become Frank Miller's or Christopher Nolan's Batman. Except, when they capture the Joker, they don't put him Arkham.

Also other fictional examples of Vengeance paladins would be the Magus Killer from Fate/Zero and EMIYA from Fate/Stay Night. They did whatever they could to save the greatest possible number of people. Kill one to save ten. Kill one hundred to save one thousand. The Magus Killer even killed his own father when he was a child because his father's experiments doomed an entire village. Later, he risked the destruction of an entire city to prevent the manifestation of all the world's evil from getting loose into the world.

EvanescentHero

2016-02-12, 02:50 PM

There's been a lot of talk about the oaths of Devotion and Vengeance, and a little about Ancients, but I'm curious how people think paladins of the Crown fit into this discussion.

Grey Watcher

2016-02-12, 04:04 PM

I'm just gonna drop my 2cp into this particular well:

As I see it, (and please do bear in mind that this is my personal interpretation of how these two archetypes differ) the Devotion and Vengeance Paladins are kind of like two archetypes you see in cop shows/movies.

Devotion is the idealistic, by-the-book cop. The one who swears by "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Everyone under his watch gets their due process and their fair say, no matter how corrupt or corner-cutting his precinct and no matter how many torch-and-pitchfork wielding rioters are outside ready to hang the accused on the spot.

Vengeance is the hard-bitten, cynical cop who bends, or even breaks, the rules to see the perp brought down. His superiors probably chew him out routinely for being a loose cannon, but he's a loose cannon that gets results. He's not above roughing people up, bribery, and getting chummy with petty criminals to see that people like murderers, rapists, and human traffickers get taken out. He's more likely to kill dangerous perp rather than risk that they might wiggle their way out of punishment by hiring a slick lawyer. He always gets his man, even if it's not pretty.

Which one is right depends heavily on the tone of the show (or campaign). Devotion can be portrayed as the only man who can truly be trusted to bring justice or he can be seen as naive and ineffectual. Vengeance can be seen as the only one who can do what must be done to bring justice or he can be seen as a hothead who tramples the very society he's allegedly protecting in his haste to kill the bad guys.

So anyway, that's my best analogy for what the two represent. As for how Ancients and the Crown fit into this, I haven't the foggiest. :smallbiggrin:

OldTrees1

2016-02-12, 04:44 PM

I would disagree. The philosophy and moral values of any given Oath (or any other subclass, for that matter) depend greatly on why the character chose his path.

Why did the Assassin Rogue choose that path? What philosophy/values led him to that path? Conversely, what about the path forged (or re-forged) his previous philosophy/values?

The same could be asked of any person in any profession. The why is just as important as the what.

When you have a character defined by moral action and a moral code, why they "choose" that philosophy might matter startlingly little to that character (although it might matter to the player). This is mostly because moral codes become their own reason unlike other choices one may make.

Now you said the philosophy & moral values of any given Oath could depend greatly on "Why". This is true, but the "Why" for a particular philosophy & moral values can vary greatly depending on the Paladin. I am sitting on a couch. There is a "Why" that resulted in my situation, however once I am here there are numerous "Why"s that could have lead me here with no difference of significance to me in this situation.

So "Why" is a very important question, but rather negligible to the Paladins debating in this thread.

Oramac

2016-02-12, 05:02 PM

Now you said the philosophy & moral values of any given Oath could depend greatly on "Why". This is true, but the "Why" for a particular philosophy & moral values can vary greatly depending on the Paladin.

That's the point, actually. Six different Vengeance Paladins could have six different sets of values and philosophies resulting in six different reasons why they took up the Oath of Vengeance.

The reverse is also possible. Six different reasons why a Paladin took the Oath of Vengeance could result in six different sets of values and philosophies.

Talamare

2016-02-12, 10:18 PM

Fury and Romanoff represent the Vengeance perspective: it's okay to lie to your teammates if you need to. Rogers is saying, no, that has bad long-term consequences. It's not a matter of one of them being more selfish than the other, but it is an example of them having different priorities.

I disagree that Romanoff is a Paladin at all, but closer a Rogue. That minor aspect aside.

I agree that Fury is a Vengeance Paladin, not because he lied. Honestly, he didn't lie at all.
This isn't even a case of "lying by omission" either. He gave different people different tasks.
What makes him a Vengeance Paladin tho, is that he understands that the hostages were not the most important part of the mission.
Defeating the bad guys who are controlling the grunts is. Do achieve that he needed information on who the bad guys were.
This exchange between Fury and Rogers, just makes me feel that Roger's is incredibly naive despite being frontline in combat for like a decade.

OldTrees1

2016-02-12, 11:04 PM

That's the point, actually. Six different Vengeance Paladins could have six different sets of values and philosophies resulting in six different reasons why they took up the Oath of Vengeance.

The reverse is also possible. Six different reasons why a Paladin took the Oath of Vengeance could result in six different sets of values and philosophies.

You missed 1/2-2/3rd of my post.

"Why"s -> Oath is a Many -> One relationship and thus results in "Why"s -> "Moral Theories" being a Many -> Many relationship (your point)

For any "Moral Theory": "Why"s -> "Moral Theory" is a Many -> One relationship. Thus a Paladin will care significantly less about their particular "Why" than about their "Moral Theory" (1st missed part of my point)

This thread has mostly been Paladin's debating, thus what they care about is more relevant than what they care less about. (2nd missed part of my point)

So yes, while your point is true and even important when making a Paladin as a Player, your question is of negligible concern to what was the crux of this thread.

Sigreid

2016-02-12, 11:24 PM

So my perspective of the three oaths:

Devotion: Think Superman. Certain of his own power, and the temptations of that power he has resolved to keep himself in a tight reign to ensure that his power is a benefit and not a curse to mankind. A devotion paladin is always seeking the least harmful method of protecting that which is good.

Vengeance: Like Batman in the context of the comics where a Robin has just died and he's kind of lost his mind. He believes that evil is out there, and it is legion and you can't save the world with half measures that leave the big bad to threaten the world again. He's harsh, and brutal, but he hasn't lost sight of what it's really all about and draws the line where his actions will harm innocent bystanders. If innocents are hurt because of his actions or he fails to protect the innocents, he will be wracked with guilt and do all within his power to make it up to them even if they never know he is their benefactor. He accepts that some will see him as a villain as dangerous as the monsters he hunts, but is determined to not become a monster himself.

Ancients: Ancients believes that darkness (evil) is legion and always seeking to grow. As such, the darkness must be fought at all times, and on any battlefield on which it appears. Unlike the vengeance paladin, the Ancients paladin believes that in order to push back the darkness you also have to grow the light. It's not enough to destroy evil hearts, you can never truly win that way. You must grow the light in as many hearts as possible through inspiration and kindness so that the light grows faster than the darkness leaving the darkness nowhere to hide.

JBPuffin

2016-02-13, 12:15 AM

This is quite the interesting debate. Paladins of Devotion are do-gooders - and honestly, kind of wishy-washy, as a notable group of their tenets ask for the paladin's discretion. Ancients - to me, happiness and good certainly aren't equal. Other peoples' happiness comes secondary to their purity; I'd rather keep others pure than happy. Most people when discussing Vengeance over-emphasizes the brutal side while ignoring the fact that a Paladin of Vengeance could just as easily be a relentless aid worker, someone who fights the evils of poverty, hunger, and abuse by giving others the power to fight back just as much as fighting themselves. A Paladin of Vengeance will do whatever is necessary to reduce evil - including getting others involved in their fight. Devotion and Ancients are much less likely to do so, although they often magnetize a group of others who are inspired by their zeal or take advantage of their desires for peaceful resolutions and ergo won't kill them for being "imperfect" (sometimes meaning up to Nice Evil).

Addaran

2016-02-13, 08:30 AM

I remember reading in this or the other threat about how sacrificing the paladin's soul (by him committing evil) his never a good trade for protecting others or their souls, mentioning that only the person can corrupt his own soul.

It makes sense for a Devotion paladin who follow a good God that is more interested in free will and his followers making the right choice to matter what. In a world like D&D tough, things can happen to the soul. A lich can eat it, destroying it forever. You can trap the soul someplace, making it live in limbo forever. Demon/devil have some way to capture it and torture it for eternity.
In that light, it would make sense for a paladin to be willing to lose his morality and go to hell, if it means protecting the souls and lives of many. It can also be said that it's better to commit an evil act and defeat the lich then try to atone then be faced with total annihilation.

TMost people when discussing Vengeance over-emphasizes the brutal side while ignoring the fact that a Paladin of Vengeance could just as easily be a relentless aid worker, someone who fights the evils of poverty, hunger, and abuse by giving others the power to fight back just as much as fighting themselves. A Paladin of Vengeance will do whatever is necessary to reduce evil - including getting others involved in their fight.

Haven't though of that. A vengeance paladin could train the victims to fight back, reasoning that sacrificing some lives to beat evil is a fair trade. Works particularly well if he follows a warrior god that honor dying in combat.

I could see the paladin training the merchants into a militia that can fight back against the thieves' guild that go so far as killing them/their family if they don't pay protection money.

MaxWilson

2016-02-13, 08:44 AM

Addaran

2016-02-13, 09:02 AM

I'm the one who said that, and I explicitly called out that I'm not talking about the kind of afterlife-related "soul" that can be eaten/trapped/etc. in D&D. What I mean by "soul" is "the core of who you are." See OP of this thread.

Haha, read both threads a while ago, didn't think of re-reading the OP.

I can still see some willing to sacrifice the core of who they are if it means saving the religious souls of many or if it means preventing others from sacrificing the core of who they are. (Think the movie cliche of the main character killing the disarmed bad guy before the innocent kid can do it to avenge his family, even if that character value life/honor above all)

Becoming a "monster" so the others aren't faced with the tough choice of becoming or not a monster (wich some would probably take). Of course, i'm talking a real good guy who's have to do bad things but feels guilty about it. Not a murderhobo needing an excuse.

LordVonDerp

2016-02-13, 09:31 AM

LordVonDerp

2016-02-13, 09:35 AM

You know, I tried to be pretty explicit in the OP that I am not talking about souls in the technical, religious sense of "what happens to you after you die." I'm talking about moral character, who you are in your innermost core.

A man who would let thousands die to avoid telling a lie has no moral character to damage.

Sredni Vashtar

2016-02-13, 09:46 AM

mgshamster

2016-02-13, 09:47 AM

Honesty means knowing when to lie.

"Honesty is the best policy. Once you can fake that, you've got it made." :)

Specter

2016-02-13, 09:59 AM

In my opinion, the Nolan Batman movies give great insight into the path of a Vengeance Paladin.

Batman in essence is hated by many because of his selfish and at the same time selfless commitment: he doesn't want recognition for his work, he just does what no one else can. In Batman Begins, he still has a lot of Devotion going for him, pursuing the righteous path in exchange of efficiency. But when the Joker frames Harvey Dent and brings chaos into the whole city, he decides to literally give up his image and just do what is necessary.

EDIT: Actually, if you want to see how a Vengeance Paladin archetypically plays, just google/watch 'Dirty Harry'.

MaxWilson

2016-02-13, 01:41 PM

A man who would let thousands die to avoid telling a lie has no moral character to damage.

What a fascinating opinion.

Sigreid

2016-02-13, 05:18 PM

In keeping with the Superman = Devotion and Batman = Vengeance, you're describing Wonder Woman with that view of the Ancients Oath. I like that a lot, because it shows that while the three Oaths each tackle their never-ending battle differently, they can get along with and almost compliment each other.

I'll take your word on Wonder Woman. The only things I know about her are that her powers have changed very drastically into almost being Superman in drag and Linda Carter was hot.

Lines

2016-02-14, 05:23 AM

What a fascinating opinion.

Isn't that pretty much everbody's opinion? I mean almost nobody would let thousands of people die just to avoid telling a lie, only the most utterly selfish people that exist would even consider it.

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 05:41 AM

Isn't that pretty much everbody's opinion? I mean almost nobody would let thousands of people die just to avoid telling a lie, only the most utterly selfish people that exist would even consider it.

It's fascinating on several levels:

(1) Blame-shifting, from the culprit who does the killing onto a third party,
(2) Not only devalues but actively denigrates honesty,
(3) Utter lack of self-awareness about points #1 and #2.

So no, I don't think "pretty much everybody" does think that way. I think it's a very revealing statement.

Lines

2016-02-14, 05:48 AM

It's fascinating on several levels:

(1) Blame-shifting, from the culprit who does the killing onto a third party,
(2) Not only devalues but actively denigrates honesty,
(3) Utter lack of self-awareness about points #1 and #2.

So no, I don't think "pretty much everybody" does think that way. I think it's a very revealing statement.

(1) If you cause several thousand people to die, you're to blame. Sure, if you're not the cause then whoever caused it is more to blame than you are, but 'I'm not as much to blame as *insert reason here* is' is not a reasonable excuse for letting thousands die.

(2) No, it's not. It's not devaluing honesty in any way, honesty is just nowhere near as good as several thousand people being alive. Look, arms are important right? Nobody is gonna devalue or denigrate having arms. And yet I and almost certainly you would happily lose an arm to save several thousand people.

(3) I'm aware of points #1 and #2. While the truth has an integral value to it, by itself it doesn't even come close to outweighing the value of somebody's life, let alone the lives of thousands and having someone to blame is nowhere near as important as letting several thousand people live. Awareness and agreement are not the same thing.

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 05:52 AM

(1) If you cause several thousand people to die, you're to blame. Sure, if you're not the cause then whoever caused it is more to blame than you are, but 'I'm not as much to blame as *insert reason here* is' is not a reasonable excuse for letting thousands die.

(2) No, it's not. It's not devaluing honesty in any way, honesty is just nowhere near as good as several thousand people being alive. Look, arms are important right? Nobody is gonna devalue or denigrate having arms. And yet I and almost certainly you would happily lose an arm to save several thousand people.

(3) I'm aware of points #1 and #2. While the truth has an integral value to it, by itself it doesn't even come close to outweighing the value of somebody's life, let alone the lives of thousands and having someone to blame is nowhere near as important as letting several thousand people live. Awareness and agreement are not the same thing.

That's an interesting opinion. Clearly you know what is important to you.

Lines

2016-02-14, 05:56 AM

That's an interesting opinion. Clearly you know what is important to you.

You're claiming that you would rather let several thousand people die than lie? No other values attached, the lie isn't going to cause a bunch of other people to die or anything, just the value of you telling the truth vs thousands of lives. You'd even consider telling the truth?

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 06:20 AM

You're claiming that you would rather let several thousand people die than lie? No other values attached, the lie isn't going to cause a bunch of other people to die or anything, just the value of you telling the truth vs thousands of lives. You'd even consider telling the truth?

Correct, I would not sell my honor for anything. Or at least, I hope that I would not.

The classical response in such situations is to try to tell the truth in a way that will not get anyone killed, perhaps because the enemy does not realize the implications of whatever truth you tell--but lying your way out of trouble is not an option for me and mine.

Lines

2016-02-14, 06:28 AM

Correct, I would not sell my honor for anything. Or at least, I hope that I would not.

The classical response in such situations is to try to tell the truth in a way that will not get anyone killed, perhaps because the enemy does not realize the implications of whatever truth you tell--but lying your way out of trouble is not an option for me and mine.

Except that since this is a not particularly complicated hypothetical, there is no third option which allows you to tell the truth and have those thousands survive.

I don't understand where that attitude could possibly come from, though. Surely you consider thousands of lives to be a very important thing? Most anybody would sacrifice far more than their integrity to save thousands of lives - how can any aspect of one person possibly outweigh the lives of thousands? Even if it wasn't only having to tell a lie but also sacrificing your own life you'd still be getting a return of several thousand to one on your payment.

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 06:30 AM

Except that since this is a not particularly complicated hypothetical, there is no third option which allows you to tell the truth and have those thousands survive.

I don't understand where that attitude could possibly come from, though. Surely you consider thousands of lives to be a very important thing? Most anybody would sacrifice far more than their integrity to save thousands of lives - how can any aspect of one person possibly outweigh the lives of thousands? Even if it wasn't only having to tell a lie but also sacrificing your own life you'd still be getting a return of several thousand to one on your payment.

Where does your attitude come from? Why do you value mere fleshy life so highly? What is life without honor?

I would certainly give my life to save thousands of others. That is trading like for like.

And remember, my choice costs me nothing unless your absurd hypothetical comes to pass. Your choice affects you here and now. Your word cannot be believed.

Cybren

2016-02-14, 06:33 AM

It's hard to discuss ethics in the abstract because we don't live in the abstract. We live in the mess prime material plane. I don't think "lie to save thousands" is a valid thought excercise. It's too vague. What do you mean by "lie"? A direct lie? A lie-by-omission? A fabrication? A decoy army or a feint attack? A cheeky bluff? Who are you lying to? How are people not dying? Is it immoral to lie to the person trying to kill thousands? Probably not, if that lie foils their plan. Is it immoral for superman to have a secret identity to protect his loved ones? I'd argue it is, in that it doesn't give them informed consent on if they want to associate with someone dangerous and don't have the knowledge of the threat they may face to adequately protect themselves - after all, even when perry and Lois and jimmy didn't know who superman really is they still got attacked by aliens pretty often

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 06:35 AM

It's hard to discuss ethics in the abstract because we don't live in the abstract. We live in the mess prime material plane. I don't think "lie to save thousands" is a valid thought excercise. It's too vague? A direct lie? A fabrication? A cheeky bluff? Who are you lying to? How are people not dying? Is it immoral to lie to the person trying to kill thousands of only to the thousands? Probably not, if that lie foils their plan. Is it immoral for superman to have a secret identity to protect his loved ones? I'd argue it is, in that it doesn't give them informed consent on if they want to associate with someone dangerous and don't have the knowledge of the threat they may face to adequately protect themselves - after all, even when perry and Lois and jimmy didn't know who superman really is they still got attacked by aliens pretty often

Tangent: I'd argue that Superman's "secret identity" is Superman. His "real" identity is Clark Kent.

Cybren

2016-02-14, 06:36 AM

Tangent: I'd argue that Superman's "secret identity" is Superman. His "real" identity is Clark Kent.
No I agree with that, but the identity of who he truly isn't really relevant to his lie

Lines

2016-02-14, 06:40 AM

Where does your attitude come from? Why do you value mere fleshy life so highly? What is life without honor?

If life without honour is valueless to you, and lying apparently removes that honour, fine. In that situation you lie, save thousands of lives and kill yourself - dilemma solved and you're still thousands of lives up.

I would certainly give my life to save thousands of others. That is trading like for like.

Then we're agreed on the first choice of action (lie, save several thousand lives) it's just in my case I to keep living afterwards and in yours you don't.

And remember, my choice costs me nothing unless your absurd hypothetical comes to pass. Your choice affects you here and now. Your word cannot be believed.

Of course it can, it'll only be broken if breaking it will gain something more worthwhile than other people trusting me, which the lives of several thousand people obviously are. I'd much rather be thought to be a liar than have several thousand people I could have saved die. Anyone neutral or above would, come to think of it anyone who wasn't an extremely specific type of lawful evil or just completely unconcerned with the lives of others (which can be any of the evils) would do the same.

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 06:49 AM

If life without honour is valueless to you, and lying apparently removes that honour, fine. In that situation you lie, save thousands of lives and kill yourself - dilemma solved and you're still thousands of lives up.

What. Does not compute.

It is the willingness to lie which establishes the absence of honor, long before the silly hypothetical ever comes to pass.

Then we're agreed on the first choice of action (lie, save several thousand lives) it's just in my case I to keep living afterwards and in yours you don't.

You don't seem to understand.

Of course it can, it'll only be broken if breaking it will gain something more worthwhile than other people trusting me, which the lives of several thousand people obviously are. I'd much rather be thought to be a liar than have several thousand people I could have saved die.

We've already established that you're a liar. The only question remaining is the price. Ten thousand lives is apparently a sufficient price, but somehow I doubt it's the minimum price you'd accept. Any claim that you make must automatically be evaluated by the listener: "What would Lines get out of lying to me about this?" "How likely is it that he is telling the truth?"

That's no kind of a way to live, in my opinion. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but it is a very strongly-held opinion, as strong as your stated opinion that I have no moral character because I hold honor dearer than life. Clearly we feel very differently, and there's no real way to reconcile our views.

Lines

2016-02-14, 07:02 AM

We've already established that you're a liar. The only question remaining is the price. Ten thousand lives is apparently a sufficient price, but somehow I doubt it's the minimum price you'd accept. Any claim that you make must automatically be evaluated by the listener: "What would Lines get out of lying to me about this?" "How likely is it that he is telling the truth?"
No, it isn't, unless the person I'm talking to is ridiculously lawful. Almost any person who hears about that would think no differently of me, because their own answer to 'would I prefer to lie or kill several thousand people' will also be 'I would thousands of people to stay alive'.

That's no kind of a way to live, in my opinion. I don't mean that as a personal attack, but it is a very strongly-held opinion, as strong as your stated opinion that I have no moral character because I hold honor dearer than life. Clearly we feel very differently, and there's no real way to reconcile our views.
I don't care if you hold honour dearer than life - unless your death would severely negatively impact others, that's just choosing between the value of your life and your perception of your honour, both of which are things that belong to you. It's holding your honour more valuable than the lives of several thousand others that makes you lawful evil.

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 07:19 AM

You still have yet to answer why you value quantity of life per se so highly. Hello, Repugnant Conclusion.

You're pretty much obligated now to have as many children as you can physically manage. Otherwise, since physics does not respect the Arrow of Time, you are cutting their lives short from the other direction.

Lines

2016-02-14, 07:24 AM

You still have yet to answer why you value life per se so highly. Hello, Repugnant Conclusion.

I never said I value my life highly. The only two values in the truth vs several thousand lives question are, as stated, the truth and several thousand deaths. I value the truth significantly less than I value several thousand lives, since not valuing several thousand lives highly is pretty much the definition of evil.

Edit to add your edit:

You're pretty much obligated now to have as many children as you can physically manage. Otherwise, since physics does not respect the Arrow of Time, you are cutting their lives short from the other direction.
Valuing the continuation of life is not the same as valuing its creation.

Arial Black

2016-02-14, 09:04 AM

'Good' can be thought of as the attitude that the well-being of others is more important than my own; altruism.

'Evil' can be thought of as the attitude that my own well-being (however that is defined) is more important than the well-being of others; selfishness.

Believing that your own integrity has more importance than the lives of a thousand innocents is an Evil attitude. It is selfish in the extreme. Sure, it is the kind of Evil that believes that it is Good, but that won't matter to the casualties to your Pride.

It's the 'Nazis at the Door' scenario: Nazis turn up at your Berlin door during WW2. 'Are there any Jews in your house? If there are, we'll come and take them away to death camps. None of your semantic games, simply answer yes or no, and if you refuse we'll take that as a yes'.

If you lie, you'll save the lives of the Jews who are in your house. They are in your house because you took them in so that they would not be sent to death camps, giving your word that you will protect them.

The Nazis trust your word, because you're a paladin who is known for never lying. This makes you proud.

So, lie and save them, or tell the truth and they die.

To tell the truth here is to actively allow Evil to end the lives of innocents. It puts your own well-being (your integrity, as you see it yourself) as more worthy of protecting than the well-being (the very lives) of those you have given your word to protect.

If you tell the truth here, you will have betrayed not only the lives of innocents but your own word; how does your integrity stand up to that?

The point of thought exercises such as this is to be a difficult choice. In situations where 'telling the truth' and 'saving lives' are served by the same action, there is no moral dilemma. By imagining a situation where you must choose one at the expense of another, this helps us see which is more important.

From the perspective of the innocents, if you betray the innocents to the Nazis just so you didn't feel bad about telling a lie, then you have done evil: betrayed the lives of innocents to save your own feelings.

This Devotion paladin is going to wake up an Oathbreaker, and wonder why the gods have been so unfair to him!

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 11:48 AM

It's the 'Nazis at the Door' scenario: Nazis turn up at your Berlin door during WW2. 'Are there any Jews in your house? If there are, we'll come and take them away to death camps. None of your semantic games, simply answer yes or no, and if you refuse we'll take that as a yes'.

If you lie, you'll save the lives of the Jews who are in your house. They are in your house because you took them in so that they would not be sent to death camps, giving your word that you will protect them.

The Nazis trust your word, because you're a paladin who is known for never lying. This makes you proud.

So, lie and save them, or tell the truth and they die.

False dichotomy. Since I'm not an idiot, and I've spent my whole life preparing for this question, I'll take the option you've made easiest for me. The answer is "No," and it's not a lie.

The Jews are in the basement, not in the house. But I have no obligation to tell the Nazis that.

(There are additional lines of defense too, in case they had asked a different question. The exit to the basement is also well-hidden, so that a refusal to answer the yes/no question ("All men are children of God, Captain Runolfson. If I had Jewish friends here I would not give them up to you.") might lead to a cursory search that would miss the Jews--since the Nazis might assume I was just refusing to cooperate on general grounds, without realizing that they really do need to keep searching until they find some Jews. The Jews also have guns, and so do I--if we get discovered and need to go down fighting we can, although I will endeavor not to kill any Nazi soldiers unless I must, because their lives are precious too in the sight of God.)

To tell the truth here is to actively allow Evil to end the lives of innocents. It puts your own well-being (your integrity, as you see it yourself) as more worthy of protecting than the well-being (the very lives) of those you have given your word to protect.

Again with the insistence on the importance of flesh. The Nazis cannot damage that which matters most. Your insistence on loving flesh makes you vulnerable.

This Devotion paladin is going to wake up an Oathbreaker, and wonder why the gods have been so unfair to him!

That's kind of a fun scenario: an Oathbreaker who is an Oathbreaker by fiat of the DM. He lives a completely virtuous life, yet has all these crazy powers over undead because the DM has a twisted sense of morality.

Lines

2016-02-14, 12:11 PM

False dichotomy. Since I'm not an idiot, and I've spent my whole life preparing for this question, I'll take the option you've made easiest for me. The answer is "No," and it's not a lie.

The Jews are in the basement, not in the house. But I have no obligation to tell the Nazis that.
The basement is part of the house, but even so - since everyone knows you as a man who tells the strict truth as he sees it but twists the words and intent so that he can lie with it, they instead ask a series of questions to make sure they miss nothing (please note that asking a barrage of slightly different questions was a frequently used technique back then, this is not unrealistic even without the reputation you would undoubtedly garner with an Aes Sedai style of truth interpretation. They ask, waiting for a response after each question and indicating any twisting of your words will be interpreted to mean you are hiding Jews "Answer all these questions to the best of your knowledge, if you are unsure give the answer you think most likely to be correct - Where are the nearest Jews? Have there been any Jews in or around your house in the last week? Have you ever hidden Jews? Who was the most recent Jew you talked to, and where is that Jew now? Are there any Jews in your house? Are there any properties owned by you that you do not consider covered by that last question, and if there are are there now or have there been in the last week Jews in said property or properties? Have you agreed to hide Jews? Have you ever given instructions to Jews on where to hide? Did you answer any of these questions in a way that avoids telling me something I am likely to want to know? Knowing that the intent of my questions was to find Jews, have you answered any of those questions in a way that will make me less likely to find any Jews that may exist?"

Again with the insistence on the importance of flesh. The Nazis cannot damage that which matters most. Your insistence on loving flesh makes you vulnerable.
They can damage what matters most, the lives of thousands of innocents. Nothing you possess could possibly compare with the value of what would be lost if you told the truth. The insistence on loving flesh might make someone vulnerable, but in doing so they protect the innocent. That's the definition of a paladin.

That's kind of a fun scenario: an Oathbreaker who is an Oathbreaker by fiat of the DM. He lives a completely virtuous life, yet has all these crazy powers over undead because the DM has a twisted sense of morality.
But he hasn't lived a completely virtuous life. In his pursuit of the lawful part of his alignment (truth telling) he has allowed an unconscionable evil to come to pass (the death of thousands) and has thus fallen. He kept his oath of honour, but in doing so broken his oath of compassion and righteousness. He is now in every sense of the word an Oathbreaker, having been so committed to the letter of the law that he has let the evil he swore to protect the good from wreak untold harm.

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 12:14 PM

The basement is part of the house, but even so - since everyone knows you as a man who tells the strict truth as he sees it but twists the words and intent so that he can lie with it, they instead ask a series of questions to make sure they miss nothing (please note that asking a barrage of slightly different questions was a frequently used technique back then, this is not unrealistic even without the reputation you would undoubtedly garner with an Aes Sedai style of truth interpretation. They ask, waiting for a response after each question and indicating any twisting of your words will be interpreted to mean you are hiding Jews "Answer all these questions to the best of your knowledge, if you are unsure give the answer you think most likely to be correct - Where are the nearest Jews? Have there been any Jews in or around your house in the last week? Have you ever hidden Jews? Who was the most recent Jew you talked to, and where is that Jew now? Are there any Jews in your house? Are there any properties owned by you that you do not consider covered by that last question, and if there are are there now or have there been in the last week Jews in said property or properties? Have you agreed to hide Jews? Have you ever given instructions to Jews on where to hide? Did you answer any of these questions in a way that avoids telling me something I am likely to want to know? Knowing that the intent of my questions was to find Jews, have you answered any of those questions in a way that will make me less likely to find any Jews that may exist?"

That brings us to the second line of defense. Quoting from the edit which I was apparently writing while you wrote this (because of GITP's policy on not double posting, it's easy for followup comments to get overlooked):

(There are additional lines of defense too, in case they had asked a different question. The exit to the basement is also well-hidden, so that a refusal to answer the yes/no question ("All men are children of God, Captain Runolfson. If I had Jewish friends here I would not give them up to you.") might lead to a cursory search that would miss the Jews--since the Nazis might assume I was just refusing to cooperate on general grounds, without realizing that they really do need to keep searching until they find some Jews. The Jews also have guns, and so do I--if we get discovered and need to go down fighting we can, although I will endeavor not to kill any Nazi soldiers unless I must, because their lives are precious too in the sight of God.)

So no, you don't get to ask your barrage of questions. The only answer you get is, "All men are children of God, Captain Runolfson. If I had Jewish friends here I would not give them up to you." The best outcome you can hope for is that you find the secret exit and get to fight me to the death.

Well, actually the best outcome you can hope for is that your conscience is pricked and that you realize that maybe being a Nazi thug isn't such a great thing. Then you can redeem yourself by also turning on the Nazi regime, maybe save some Jewish lives on your own by turning your "searches" into pro-forma fake searches that find nothing. You wouldn't have the opportunity to do so if the Paladin had simply lied to you instead of testifying as to the truth.

But if you choose not to do that, the best outcome you can hope for from a Nazi perspective is to fight me to the death.

Lines

2016-02-14, 12:21 PM

That brings us to the second line of defense. Quoting from the edit which I was apparently writing while you wrote this (because of GITP's policy on not double posting, it's easy for followup comments to get overlooked):

So no, you don't get to ask your barrage of questions. The only answer you get is, "All men are children of God, Captain Runolfson. If I had Jewish friends here I would not give them up to you." The best outcome you can hope for is that you find the secret exit and get to fight me to the death.

Well, actually the best outcome you can hope for is that your conscience is pricked and that you realize that maybe being a Nazi thug isn't such a great thing. Then you can redeem yourself by also turning on the Nazi regime, maybe save some Jewish lives on your own by turning your "searches" into pro-forma fake searches that find nothing. You wouldn't have the opportunity to do so if the Paladin had simply lied to you instead of testifying as to the truth.

But if you choose not to do that, the best outcome you can hope for from a Nazi perspective is to fight me to the death.

But that is easily done. It's not like the Nazis did not have power in Germany, obviously. You would be quickly killed and you house searched, the Jews found end very likely all end up dead. In this scenario we are positing, you are known to be a man of your word, one who would rather die than break it - if you simply answer all questions with actual lies "I have never hidden any Jews, there are no Jews here, if I knew of their location I would tell you, etc etc" then they will believe you and move on. By declaring that if you had Jews you would not give them up you will have your house thoroughly searched and if you resisted you would die, followed eventually by the Jews you swore to protect.

A paladin, however, would take his oath to protect the Jews to be the highest priority and lie rather than getting himself and those he swore to protect killed.

Arial Black

2016-02-14, 12:55 PM

False dichotomy. Since I'm not an idiot, and I've spent my whole life preparing for this question, I'll take the option you've made easiest for me. The answer is "No," and it's not a lie.

The Jews are in the basement, not in the house. But I have no obligation to tell the Nazis that.

(There are additional lines of defense too, in case they had asked a different question. The exit to the basement is also well-hidden, so that a refusal to answer the yes/no question ("All men are children of God, Captain Runolfson. If I had Jewish friends here I would not give them up to you.") might lead to a cursory search that would miss the Jews--since the Nazis might assume I was just refusing to cooperate on general grounds, without realizing that they really do need to keep searching until they find some Jews. The Jews also have guns, and so do I--if we get discovered and need to go down fighting we can, although I will endeavor not to kill any Nazi soldiers unless I must, because their lives are precious too in the sight of God.)

It seems as though you have spent your whole life preparing to avoid the question rather than answer it.

If you refuse the test (by avoiding the choice) then you have not been tested.

The point of thought experiments such as these is not to avoid them, but to demonstrate which you think has higher priority: the lives of innocents or...your own ego!

Not only would you choose yourself over multiple others (which is merely selfish) but you would sacrifice their very lives just so your ego wouldn't be bruised. That is Evil.

Again with the insistence on the importance of flesh. The Nazis cannot damage that which matters most. Your insistence on loving flesh makes you vulnerable.

They are not just bits of flesh! Their lives are so much more than some combination of water and carbon, and if you allow their lives to be ended then everything that they are dies, not just the elements which make the physical body.

Next time you murder an innocent, use the defence of, "Matter cannot be destroyed, so I've not really hurt the person at all, despite the fact that I threw their unconscious form into a giant blender", and see how far that gets you.

That's kind of a fun scenario: an Oathbreaker who is an Oathbreaker by fiat of the DM. He lives a completely virtuous life, yet has all these crazy powers over undead because the DM has a twisted sense of morality.

Yeah, I told you he'd think it was unfair! He allowed innocents under his protection get killed just to avoid his own ego getting bruised, and wonders why the gods (as well as the world) understands that to be Evil!

"Yeah, I would rescue the baby that's fallen into the path of the steamroller, but I promised that I'd keep an eye on this pie that's cooling on the windowsill. You wouldn't want me to break my word, would you? You can always have more babies, but my integrity is more important than your baby's life!"

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 01:00 PM

Yeah, I told you he'd think it was unfair! He allowed innocents under his protection get killed just to avoid his own ego getting bruised, and wonders why the gods (as well as the world) understands that to be Evil!

Who said it was unfair? It's actually kind of awesome. "I've been blessed with power over undead, so that I and my band of trusty undead Holocaust victims can save Jews from Nazis!"

How poetic, right?

Arial Black

2016-02-14, 01:06 PM

Who said it was unfair? It's actually kind of awesome. "I've been blessed with power over undead, so that I and my band of trusty undead Holocaust victims can save Jews from Nazis!"

How poetic, right?

So now you believe that bringing more undead into the world, letting those unquiet souls know no rest, is preferable to your own ego getting bruised.

The dictionary definition of 'evil' is simply a portrait of this paladin.

Lines

2016-02-14, 01:18 PM

So now you believe that bringing more undead into the world, letting those unquiet souls know no rest, is preferable to your own ego getting bruised.

The dictionary definition of 'evil' is simply a portrait of this paladin.
To be fair, that part's not evil. Any paladin in his position should be raising as many skeletons as possible and going Nazi killing.

The bit where he happily allows innocents to die just so he doesn't have to tell a lie, that bit I object to.

mgshamster

2016-02-14, 01:25 PM

To be fair, that part's not evil. Any paladin in his position should be raising as many skeletons as possible and going Nazi killing.

The bit where he happily allows innocents to die just so he doesn't have to tell a lie, that bit I object to.

Not a fan of the Oath of Devotion? Telling a lie to protect the innocent seems like it would be very much in line with the Ancients or the Vengence. The Devotion oath strictly forbids telling a lie - a devotion paladin will need to find another way to protect those innocent than telling a lie.

Lines

2016-02-14, 01:31 PM

Not a fan of the Oath of Devotion? Telling a lie to protect the innocent seems like it would be very much in line with the Ancients or the Vengence. The Devotion oath strictly forbids telling a lie - a devotion paladin will need to find another way to protect those innocent than telling a lie.

Sidebar on breaking your oath: 'sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils'. If the choice is to break his oath by telling a lie or to break his oath by letting innocents die (and there is no third solution here) the paladin is expected to choose the option that does the most good, which is in this case without a doubt telling a lie to save lives.

mgshamster

2016-02-14, 01:36 PM

Sidebar on breaking your oath: 'sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils'. If the choice is to break his oath by telling a lie or to break his oath by letting innocents die (and there is no third solution here) the paladin is expected to choose the option that does the most good, which is in this case without a doubt telling a lie to save lives.

Followed by penitence for telling a lie and losing your paladin powers until you do. Seems like a fair trade for breaking your oath to save innocents. Sacrifice of the self to save others.

If you don't care that you've told a lie and broke your oath - then more serious consequences may arise.

OldTrees1

2016-02-14, 01:43 PM

@MaxWilson
@Lines
@Arial Black

Quite a lot of back and forth. Personally I think I see lots of misrepresentation of eachother's positions. May I jump in?

1) Kant suggesting testing responses to situations by seeing if that response contradicts itself. The "lying to a murder to protect their victim" was one of his examples.

A murderer comes to your door asking if their victim is inside. You can either lie, tell the truth, or 3rd option. If you propose to always lie to murders about where their victims are, then the murder knows to never trust where you say the victim is. As such lying to the murder with the intent of deceiving the murder is a self contradicting proposal (since the means fail to achieve their ends).

Now Kant uses this example to disprove a disproof (double negatives are important) of his claim that one should never lie. Personally I disagree with Kant about whether one should/should not ever lie but here is the context.

2) Many Philosophers have discussed the difference (and if there is one) between killing and letting die. A notable example is the trolly problem (which is widespread enough that I will presume you know about or can quickly look up). While not everyone agrees that difference exists (and those that do might disagree on what the difference is), a lot of people see a difference.

3) Back to the original statement:
"A man who would let thousands die to avoid telling a lie has no moral character to damage."
A) See "let die" vs kill.
B) Note "has no moral character" was later clarified as mistaken/morally bankrupt rather than the literal meaning.
C) See lie with the intent to deceive

4) Integrity
There is a difference between the proposals:
Lie to deceive when convenient
Lie to deceive to get out of trouble
Lie to deceive to prevent deaths
Lie to deceive to prevent deaths of thousands
All of them are contradictory in that they destroy your credibility in that moment. However the scope of the lost integrity is different. If I were to adopt the 4th proposal, the murder in Kant's example would still trust me since I would not be lying to them. As such we need to carefully notice that the integrity sacrificed by lying in the original case (prevent the deaths of thousands) will not affect the integrity of the person's day to day life.

5) Lost credibility vs telling the truth
Taking for granted that lying to deceive is self contradictory, choosing for your words to have no credibility in a circumstance in order to not tell the truth is different from communicating the truth.

Lines

2016-02-14, 01:48 PM

Followed by penitence for telling a lie and losing your paladin powers until you do. Seems like a fair trade for breaking your oath to save innocents. Sacrifice of the self to save others.

If you don't care that you've told a lie and broke your oath - then more serious consequences may arise.

Not how that works, actually. You seek absolution or perform an all night vigil or undertake a fast, you only have a chance to lose abilities if you willfully violate your oath and and show no sign of repentance. Lie to save lies, go about continuing to save them and pray once you get the chance and you won't lose nor risk losing your abilities.

OldTrees1

2016-02-14, 01:54 PM

you only have a chance to lose abilities if you willfully violate your oath and and show no sign of repentance.

Lie to save lies, go about continuing to save them and pray once you get the chance and you won't lose nor risk losing your abilities.

The bolded section is ambiguous about whether it included repentance. If the Paladin still doesn't see anything to repent for, then they couldn't repent, and thus mgshamster's statement is potentially applicable.

If you don't care that you've told a lie and broke your oath - then more serious consequences may arise.

Lines

2016-02-14, 02:00 PM

The bolded section is ambiguous about whether it included repentance. If the Paladin still doesn't see anything to repent for, then they couldn't repent, and thus mgshamster's statement is potentially applicable.

But the paladin does see something worth repenting over, otherwise he wouldn't have chosen the oath of devotion. He feels bad that he had to break that part of his vows - he doesn't regret having done it, obviously, he and any other paladin would do it again in a heartbeat since one becomes a paladin to protect the innocent, but he regrets that circumstances necessitated he do so and will seek penance as soon as he can do so without endangering others.

mgshamster

2016-02-14, 02:33 PM

But the paladin does see something worth repenting over, otherwise he wouldn't have chosen the oath of devotion. He feels bad that he had to break that part of his vows - he doesn't regret having done it, obviously, he and any other paladin would do it again in a heartbeat since one becomes a paladin to protect the innocent, but he regrets that circumstances necessitated he do so and will seek penance as soon as he can do so without endangering others.

If a paladin of devotion will continually break their oath in a heartbeat, then they are no longer viable as a paladin. If they're willing to lie so often despite their oath to never tell a lie, then they need to choose a different oath.

This scenario is extremely difficult for a devotion paladin; other Paladins find the solution to be much easier - they have no qualms about lying to save innocents. But a devotion paladin is different. They will do whatever they can to find a way to save the innocents while also not breaking their vow of honesty. Even if push comes to shove.

MaxWilson

2016-02-14, 03:29 PM

If a paladin of devotion will continually break their oath in a heartbeat, then they are no longer viable as a paladin. If they're willing to lie so often despite their oath to never tell a lie, then they need to choose a different oath.

This scenario is extremely difficult for a devotion paladin; other Paladins find the solution to be much easier - they have no qualms about lying to save innocents. But a devotion paladin is different. They will do whatever they can to find a way to save the innocents while also not breaking their vow of honesty. Even if push comes to shove.

Come on, this is D&D. The dilemma isn't that bad. As with all things D&D, the answer is violence. A devotion Paladin knows exactly what to do in this situation: roll initiative.

j/k

Lines

2016-02-14, 04:39 PM

If a paladin of devotion will continually break their oath in a heartbeat, then they are no longer viable as a paladin. If they're willing to lie so often despite their oath to never tell a lie, then they need to choose a different oath.
No, they don't. The likelihood of them being faced over and over with a situation that necessitates lying to save thousands of lives is practically 0. A paladin who would only lie in the most die of circumstances would still choose to lie again and again if the choice to save several thousand lives came up because those are incredibly dire circumstances. The phrase 'would not hesitate to lie if it would save thousands of lives' should describe almost every paladin.

This scenario is extremely difficult for a devotion paladin; other Paladins find the solution to be much easier - they have no qualms about lying to save innocents. But a devotion paladin is different. They will do whatever they can to find a way to save the innocents while also not breaking their vow of honesty. Even if push comes to shove.
Yes, they will. But if lying to save thousands of lies is the only way to do it then they will do it, because to do otherwise is to declare your oath and your integrity as more important than the lives of thousands of people. A paladin of devotion takes his oath in the service of righteousness, to allow his oath to stand between himself and the righteous course of action is to become an oathbreaker.

And no, it isn't extremely difficult. Choosing between telling a lie and doing their duty is extremely difficult for a paladin. Choosing between telling a lie and the chance of great harm to an innocent is difficult. Choosing between telling a lie and letting a good person die is not difficult. Choosing between telling a lie and letting thousands of people die is not even a choice. A paladin unhesitatingly does the right thing. That's what makes them a paladin.

Come on, this is D&D. The dilemma isn't that bad. As with all things D&D, the answer is violence. A devotion Paladin knows exactly what to do in this situation: roll initiative.

j/k
So, we've reached this point. Can you state straight out you either would lie to save the lives of the Jews in the scenario or would refuse to answer and thus get them killed?

mgshamster

2016-02-14, 04:51 PM

A paladin of devotion takes his oath in the service of righteousness, to allow his oath to stand between himself and the righteous course of action is to become an oathbreaker.

Ok. We've come through the looking glass here. We're now claiming that a paladin following his oath is breaking his oath and becoming an Oath Breaker.

This is ridiculous.

Lines

2016-02-14, 04:55 PM

Ok. We've come through the looking glass here. We're now claiming that a paladin following his oath is breaking his oath and becoming an Oath Breaker.

This is ridiculous.

His oath includes several parts, one of these parts is telling the truth and one of these parts is compassion, righteousness and good. Either way you're breaking the oath, it's just you're choosing between letting several thousand people die or telling a lie. These are not equal choices, if you choose the former you will immediately and irrecoverably fall under any sane DM for deliberately allowing thousands of innocent people you could have easily saved to die.

If a paladin is stuck with a situation in which two parts of his oaths conflict he is obligated to pick the more Good solution, how is that in any way ridiculous?

Talamare

2016-02-14, 05:17 PM

pwykersotz

2016-02-14, 05:37 PM

I'm 100% behind Max on this one.

The Devotion Paladin believes in powers beyond himself. He believes good is more powerful than evil. He believes that even though he is flawed, that as long as he is true to goodness that he will find a way. Sometimes he might fail, and it might be because he was not wise enough, or because he did not understand this situation he was fighting. It might be his own failures that caused this, or someone else's, but the Devotion Paladin never believes that fighting evil with evil is a viable choice. That only empowers evil.

A Devotion Paladin will drop to his knees and pray to his deity when met with an impassible situation. There is NEVER a valid reason to take the lesser of two evils, remember, the Devotion Paladin believes that good is stronger, and if he is faithful that he can find the right way which MUST exist. A Paladin who must not lie, or even break the spirit of that lie, must pray for an answer, and he might be rewarded for unyielding faith, or he might need to choose to slay or apprehend the evil that has come before him, or any number of other answers.

Of course, some of this is subject to the DM. In a gritty world where the DM refuses to support the Paladin's beliefs, that good is stronger than evil, then the Paladin is objectively a naive fool. In one where the DM supports the belief system, the Paladin will always have a way out. What makes this particularly at odds with real life is that we have categorical proof in the words of the DM how the world works. You can't juxtaposition this with the real world, because ultimately we who are in it don't know. We have logic, faith, science, tradition, and moral viewpoints built upon any number of criteria, but it's all a work in progress, or complete guesswork/theory. That's why one man's Paladin is another man's naive fool, and why these arguments always go everywhere.

But I believe in Paladins. :smallsmile:

Mith

2016-02-14, 06:11 PM

To skip all the philosophy debate, here may be another way to look at the three different paladins:

The OoD: Be the light that shines like the beacon to those in the dark, guiding them out of the Dark. Stand between those who cannot protect themselves and those who seek to do harm.

The OotA: Nurture the light in those who stand on the brink of darkness. Light can grow from the smallest of places, and so long as it exists, Darkness can never truly win.

The OoV: Fight the Darkness as it is found. Go out beyond the walls that are built by the OoD, beyond the communities that flourish behind those walls under the watchful gaze of the OotA, and purge the Darkness from it's strongholds. End the Darkness where it stands. The Light will grow when no Darkness remains.

So the OoD and the OoV are not necessarily antagonistic to each other. Someone has to hold the walls, and someone has to go out to the war zones. The OoD is inherently reactionary and can only move in defense. The OoV can be on the offensive.

Lines

2016-02-14, 11:58 PM

I skimmed the last 2 pages so I just want to say a few of my POVs

1- I disagree with Max and agree with Limes, on the first few posts on the 3rd page
2- Max completely avoided the Nazi at the door scenario with like a double bs answer.
2.1- Basements ARE a part of the house
2.2- You basically did lie to the Nazis so you broke your vow regardless
3- There is one solution for a Devotion Paladin opening the door. He tells the truth and tells them that if they try to take them to the camp, he will stop them. (and probably get taken too, c'est la vie)
4- I believe Devotion Paladins can be Evil, and If you're not lying to keep yourself pure. That will make you Evil
4.1- When you think about it, being a True Good Devotion Paladin is pretty difficult. A lot of it goes against human nature.

Agree with most of that but it's Lines, not Limes and your solution in 3- is not a good one. Assuming it's not an actual D&D paladin in Nazi Germany (we were discussing the person at the door as an ordinary civilian), fighting to the death and immediately dying followed by them finding the Jews is not something a good person does. It's letting innocent people die because of your pride.

I'm 100% behind Max on this one.

The Devotion Paladin believes in powers beyond himself. He believes good is more powerful than evil. He believes that even though he is flawed, that as long as he is true to goodness that he will find a way. Sometimes he might fail, and it might be because he was not wise enough, or because he did not understand this situation he was fighting. It might be his own failures that caused this, or someone else's, but the Devotion Paladin never believes that fighting evil with evil is a viable choice. That only empowers evil.

A Devotion Paladin will drop to his knees and pray to his deity when met with an impassible situation. There is NEVER a valid reason to take the lesser of two evils, remember, the Devotion Paladin believes that good is stronger, and if he is faithful that he can find the right way which MUST exist. A Paladin who must not lie, or even break the spirit of that lie, must pray for an answer, and he might be rewarded for unyielding faith, or he might need to choose to slay or apprehend the evil that has come before him, or any number of other answers.

Of course, some of this is subject to the DM. In a gritty world where the DM refuses to support the Paladin's beliefs, that good is stronger than evil, then the Paladin is objectively a naive fool. In one where the DM supports the belief system, the Paladin will always have a way out. What makes this particularly at odds with real life is that we have categorical proof in the words of the DM how the world works. You can't juxtaposition this with the real world, because ultimately we who are in it don't know. We have logic, faith, science, tradition, and moral viewpoints built upon any number of criteria, but it's all a work in progress, or complete guesswork/theory. That's why one man's Paladin is another man's naive fool, and why these arguments always go everywhere.

But I believe in Paladins. :smallsmile:

You do realise right next to the oaths there's a sidebar which specifically states than sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, right? If the devotion paladin falls to his knees and prays and still can't find another solution (Nazi Germany is a pretty good substitute for this, imagine a situation where the paladin is aware that if he fights he will die and the thousands will soon die after him, but if he lies they will survive) then the Good course of action is to lie and keep them alive.

You seem to be saying the paladin can only exist in a world where the DM bends over backwards to give them a third solution where none should logically exist. What if the paladin exists in a sandbox game, one in which every player is just a character in the world and the DM isn't going to change things to make them feel special? A paladin does not need the world to be the way you are saying. A paladin wants the world to be the way you are saying, and he tries to be the change he wants to see in the world (especially the ancients paladin), but a paladin can still exist in world in which there are no magical outs to a difficult situation. He just needs to make difficult choices.

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 12:53 AM

You seem to be saying the paladin can only exist in a world where the DM bends over backwards to give them a third solution where none should logically exist.

You seem to be misrepresenting pwykersotz due to assuming that they are a consequentialist like you are. If they follow deontological ethics then it would be natural to conclude the opposite of what consequentialist ethics would conclude in this case.

So by taking their conclusion but trying to squeeze it through your consequentialist perspective you end up with crazy misrepresentations like "Paladins requiring a bending over backwards DM".

Talamare

2016-02-15, 01:05 AM

your solution in 3- is not a good one. Assuming it's not an actual D&D paladin in Nazi Germany (we were discussing the person at the door as an ordinary civilian), fighting to the death and immediately dying followed by them finding the Jews is not something a good person does. It's letting innocent people die because of your pride.

It's actually is what a 'good' person would do, but perhaps not a smart person.
He is not lying
He is not instantly resorting to violence
Finally, He is giving the Nazi a non violent option

The Tenet's make his choices very very difficult
He cannot lie
He is not afraid of the Nazi
He needs to show compassion not only for the Jews, but the Nazi soldiers as well
-Since let's be honest, Nazi were bad, but not every Soldier were
He needs to be responsible for his action, and obey those who has authority over him
-He has a duty to protect the Jews he has given his word he would protect
--He needs to respect and obey the Nazi, since they are still the ruling party
He cannot rush to attack
He cannot outright kill the Nazi

Like I said, most of this is against human nature. Hell, even against common sense. In this situation even the Nazi's are like, "are you serious, if you had just lied we would have just moved on, do you know how much paperwork we need to do for each person? Come on, look our CO isn't even paying attention, just nod your head no and pretend bro"

pwykersotz

2016-02-15, 01:13 AM

You do realise right next to the oaths there's a sidebar which specifically states than sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils, right? If the devotion paladin falls to his knees and prays and still can't find another solution (Nazi Germany is a pretty good substitute for this, imagine a situation where the paladin is aware that if he fights he will die and the thousands will soon die after him, but if he lies they will survive) then the Good course of action is to lie and keep them alive.

You seem to be saying the paladin can only exist in a world where the DM bends over backwards to give them a third solution where none should logically exist. What if the paladin exists in a sandbox game, one in which every player is just a character in the world and the DM isn't going to change things to make them feel special? A paladin does not need the world to be the way you are saying. A paladin wants the world to be the way you are saying, and he tries to be the change he wants to see in the world (especially the ancients paladin), but a paladin can still exist in world in which there are no magical outs to a difficult situation. He just needs to make difficult choices.

OldTrees1 has the right of it. In addition, I'd like to clarify the DM role in this. The DM merely determines what is objectively true for the universe. The Devotion Paladin would behave the same regardless. He might not be rewarded with special divine favor for his faith (since in that case there might be none to give), but he acts and operates the same.

And that sidebar you mention is related to breaking your oath, which I think weighs in better with my argument than yours.

Lines

2016-02-15, 01:20 AM

It's actually is what a 'good' person would do, but perhaps not a smart person.
He is not lying
He is not instantly resorting to violence
Finally, He is giving the Nazi a non violent option

The Tenet's make his choices very very difficult
He cannot lie
He is not afraid of the Nazi
He needs to show compassion not only for the Jews, but the Nazi soldiers as well
-Since let's be honest, Nazi were bad, but not every Soldier were
He needs to be responsible for his action, and obey those who has authority over him
-He has a duty to protect the Jews he has given his word he would protect
--He needs to respect and obey the Nazi, since they are still the ruling party
He cannot rush to attack
He cannot outright kill the Nazi

Like I said, most of this is against human nature. Hell, even against common sense. In this situation even the Nazi's are like, "are you serious, if you had just lied we would have just moved on, do you know how much paperwork we need to do for each person? Come on, look our CO isn't even paying attention, just nod your head no and pretend bro"

I have no idea why everyone's complicating things so much. The paladin is supposed to be a good person, so he picks the path that doesn't lead to innocent people dying and if he has no choice but to break his code to do that (since letting innocent people die is also against the code, he's breaking it either way), he repents once he has the chance.

Cybren

2016-02-15, 01:26 AM

I have no idea why everyone's complicating things so much. The paladin is supposed to be a good person, so he picks the path that doesn't lead to innocent people dying and if he has no choice but to break his code to do that (since letting innocent people die is also against the code, he's breaking it either way), he repents once he has the chance.

Except the original conjecture, which you're still implying, is that it's "easy" or "Obvious", but that's not really what an oath is. It's not a "guideline" or "suggestion", it's an oath. It's supposed to be hard, critically hard, life-defining hard to violate. The sidsbar on sometimes having to break it is to give players an out to role play those kinds of hard decisions without DMs arbitrarily declaring something one way or another. But if your paladin thinks it's a valid idea in the abstract to break her oath when it's convenient, your paladin doesn't really believe in that oath. Paladins are not fighters that have cool magic powers, they're warriors that embody a code of ethics. I

pwykersotz

2016-02-15, 01:33 AM

Malifice

2016-02-15, 01:37 AM

Lines

2016-02-15, 01:37 AM

Except the original conjecture, which you're still implying, is that it's "easy" or "Obvious", but that's not really what an oath is. It's not a "guideline" or "suggestion", it's an oath. It's supposed to be hard, critically hard, life-defining hard to violate. The sidsbar on sometimes having to break it is to give players an out to role play those kinds of hard decisions without DMs arbitrarily declaring something one way or another. But if your paladin thinks it's a valid idea in the abstract to break her oath when it's convenient, your paladin doesn't really believe in that oath. Paladins are not fighters that have cool magic powers, they're warriors that embody a code of ethics. I

Again, saving thousands of lives is not a matter of convenience. They embody a code of ethics, and the highest part of that code is to defend the innocent - it may not be a pleasant thing to break your code, but in a situation where every action breaks it in some way any paladin who isn't evil would choose the option that saves thousands of lives.

Cybren

2016-02-15, 01:39 AM

Malifice

2016-02-15, 01:42 AM

Again, saving thousands of lives is not a matter of convenience. They embody a code of ethics, and the highest part of that code is to defend the innocent - it may not be a pleasant thing to break your code, but in a situation where every action breaks it in some way any paladin who isn't evil would choose the option that saves thousands of lives.

My LE vengance paladin is prepared to engage in genocide, pogroms and torture for the 'greater good' of Faerun.

He's ultimately saving millions of lives by unifying them under a fascist Banite theocracy.

Cybren

2016-02-15, 01:44 AM

Relevant to the thread: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html

Lines

2016-02-15, 01:45 AM

The paladin didn't take an oath to follow these rules except when they don't. They took an oath that sometimes makes them make hard choices, the consequences of which they have to sometimes deal with. If they intend to violate the oath, they don't really value it. That it's a dire circumstance isn't a change to that. It wouldn't be a dire circumstance if it was an easy choice, and if it is an easy choice then they don't value their oath

Let me rephrase what you're saying: 'In a situation in which both choices result in violating their oath, they would violate their oath. That means they don't value their oath!'

Seriously, you seem to be forgetting the part where letting thousands of people die is also a violation of everything it means to be a paladin. That a paladin would choose the lesser of two evils doesn't make them not a paladin, given that inaction is also a choice and would result in thousands of deaths.

Cybren

2016-02-15, 02:01 AM

Nothing in the devotion oath involves directly and clearly establishing consequentialism, or even implying it. The paladin may not see it as them letting thousands die. They aren't the one choosing to harm the thousands. Someone else is. The paladin might feel compelled to stop them, they might feel their only choice is to break their oath, but they may not feel that their failure to do so makes them complicit in it, and probably don't. That's the vengeance paladin. They even have a thing about it "Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds."

A devotion paladin may feel that they have to stop the people harming the thousands, because of their Courage, but they still are beholden to their Honesty. They have to act, but they have a lot of tools to do so. If their first tool is to toss out the literal first tenant of their oath, they don't value their oath. The original way this was presented was "OF COURSE a devotion paladin would lie in this situation" rather than "maybe, after exhausting all other options. Remember, the sidebar on violating your oath is about sometimes situations coming up that are hard, and states that [i]willfully[/] violating your oath could have serious consequences. If your plan a is lie, that seams pretty willful.

georgie_leech

2016-02-15, 02:06 AM

The bolded section is ambiguous about whether it included repentance. If the Paladin still doesn't see anything to repent for, then they couldn't repent, and thus mgshamster's statement is potentially applicable.

Point of order, you can still believe that lying was the right thing to do but be apologetic for it. '[Non-specific thing being prayed to], I have been faced with a choice of either lying, or letting innocents die. The forces arrayed against me were too great for me to slay outright, and in the heat of the moment, I chose to tarnish my values to save their lives. [Non-specific thing being prayed to], I hope that you can forgive me for my failure to find another way, and I pray for the strength to forgive myself.'

pwykersotz

2016-02-15, 02:16 AM

Point of order, you can still believe that lying was the right thing to do but be apologetic for it. '[Non-specific thing being prayed to], I have been faced with a choice of either lying, or letting innocents die. The forces arrayed against me were too great for me to slay outright, and in the heat of the moment, I chose to tarnish my values to save their lives. [Non-specific thing being prayed to], I hope that you can forgive me for my failure to find another way, and I pray for the strength to forgive myself.'

I would personally say that this Paladin might be forgiven, but would not be restored to power. In my viewpoint, as long as the Paladin believed that the oathbreaking act that they committed was for a greater good than their oath, then they don't put enough stock in the oath for it to grant them power. Only the realization that they should never have broken their oath in the first place and a reaffirmation that it will not happen again would be enough to restore them.

Talamare

2016-02-15, 02:29 AM

Nothing in the devotion oath involves directly and clearly establishing consequentialism, or even implying it. The paladin may not see it as them letting thousands die. They aren't the one choosing to harm the thousands. Someone else is. The paladin might feel compelled to stop them, they might feel their only choice is to break their oath, but they may not feel that their failure to do so makes them complicit in it, and probably don't. That's the vengeance paladin. They even have a thing about it "Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds."
You're right that Vengeance definitely has it, the closest Devotion get is by paraphrasing "protect the weak" and "punish those who threaten them"
So, if you're letting innocents die. You're neither protecting, nor punishing those who threaten them.

Note, I assume in the "steps to killing someone", that one does not skip straight to killing.
As in, I do a threatening action... such as move my sword in a fast thrusting/stabbing motion to an innocent... That's enough for the Paladin to intervene, hopefully he will manage to protect the weak before the threatening action pierces the innocent's heart...

georgie_leech

2016-02-15, 05:41 AM

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 06:14 AM

So what's the magical third option that let's him to break his oath in that Nazi example, and is it possible to conceive and act on it in the extremely short window of time allowed to him?

You have to think ahead so you're not acting on short notice. In real life, for example, if someone suspects you of being their Secret Santa and confronts you: you can't deny it because that would be a lie, and you can't admit it because that would all spoil the fun.

You can, however, give a non-answer to deflect or evade the question. "Oh, you have a secret Santa! That sounds like fun. I should try that." If someone is suspicious enough for that not to fool them, then fooling them is not possible--just as with the Nazis. It's silly to claim they're going to spend lots of time going over permutations of questions trying to catch you in your words. No, if they're suspicious enough to do that, they're going to be searching your house already. At that point, saying "Captain Runolfson, what you are doing is wrong and I will hinder it if I may" is the right and only thing to do. Lying would accomplish nothing that courage and honesty would not do better.

Zalabim

2016-02-15, 07:07 AM

You have to think ahead so you're not acting on short notice. In real life, for example, if someone suspects you of being their Secret Santa and confronts you: you can't deny it because that would be a lie, and you can't admit it because that would all spoil the fun.

You can, however, give a non-answer to deflect or evade the question. "Oh, you have a secret Santa! That sounds like fun. I should try that." If someone is suspicious enough for that not to fool them, then fooling them is not possible--just as with the Nazis. It's silly to claim they're going to spend lots of time going over permutations of questions trying to catch you in your words. No, if they're suspicious enough to do that, they're going to be searching your house already. At that point, saying "Captain Runolfson, what you are doing is wrong and I will hinder it if I may" is the right and only thing to do. Lying would accomplish nothing that courage and honesty would not do better.

Just to be clear, we're talking about someone searching your house for their secret Santa gift now.

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 08:09 AM

Let me rephrase what you're saying: 'In a situation in which both choices result in violating their oath, they would violate their oath. That means they don't value their oath!'

Seriously, you seem to be forgetting the part where letting thousands of people die is also a violation of everything it means to be a paladin. That a paladin would choose the lesser of two evils doesn't make them not a paladin, given that inaction is also a choice and would result in thousands of deaths.

Well, actually:
If there is a situation where all available options (even after looking past the stated options) result in breaking the oath, someone following deontological ethics would reject the oath as disproven (or seek atonement for not having the wisdom to see the valid option). Moral action is defined by what action(s) are valid choices for what one ought to choose when facing a choice of moral significance, as such there does not exist a choice of moral significance that lacks a moral choice.

Consequentialist ethics on the other hand is all about choosing the greatest good and thus believe they have a moral obligation to break their oaths everytime the oaths fail to calculate the greatest good.

Point of order, you can still believe that lying was the right thing to do but be apologetic for it. '[Non-specific thing being prayed to], I have been faced with a choice of either lying, or letting innocents die. The forces arrayed against me were too great for me to slay outright, and in the heat of the moment, I chose to tarnish my values to save their lives. [Non-specific thing being prayed to], I hope that you can forgive me for my failure to find another way, and I pray for the strength to forgive myself.'
Agreed, under certain ethical systems. Although the specific prayer you choose does not seem to be so specific in its choice of ethical system (due to not specifying that lying was the right thing to do).

Lines

2016-02-15, 08:23 AM

I would personally say that this Paladin might be forgiven, but would not be restored to power. In my viewpoint, as long as the Paladin believed that the oathbreaking act that they committed was for a greater good than their oath, then they don't put enough stock in the oath for it to grant them power. Only the realization that they should never have broken their oath in the first place and a reaffirmation that it will not happen again would be enough to restore them.
You are continuing to ignore the fact that they have to break their oath either way. How should they have never broken their oath? Either they tell the truth and thousands die (breaking the compassion, good and righteousness part) or lie (and break the honesty part). There was no option to not break their oath. Does this mean that every time an enemy NPC wants to depower a paladin opponent, all they have to do is present them with a situation containing no good solution?

You have to think ahead so you're not acting on short notice. In real life, for example, if someone suspects you of being their Secret Santa and confronts you: you can't deny it because that would be a lie, and you can't admit it because that would all spoil the fun.

You can, however, give a non-answer to deflect or evade the question. "Oh, you have a secret Santa! That sounds like fun. I should try that." If someone is suspicious enough for that not to fool them, then fooling them is not possible--just as with the Nazis. It's silly to claim they're going to spend lots of time going over permutations of questions trying to catch you in your words. No, if they're suspicious enough to do that, they're going to be searching your house already. At that point, saying "Captain Runolfson, what you are doing is wrong and I will hinder it if I may" is the right and only thing to do. Lying would accomplish nothing that courage and honesty would not do better.
I mentioned the many questions because in this instance they were aware the person stuck to the letter of the truth, so they just asked a bunch of different ways.

You're still trying to avoid answering the question - the paladin is in a situation in which if he does not tell a direct lie, thousands of innocent people will die. He cannot see a third solution and for the purposes of this question there is no third solution - what does a lawful good paladin of devotion do?

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 08:39 AM

You are continuing to ignore the fact that they have to break their oath either way. How should they have never broken their oath? Either they tell the truth and thousands die (breaking the compassion, good and righteousness part) or lie (and break the honesty part). There was no option to not break their oath. Does this mean that every time an enemy NPC wants to depower a paladin opponent, all they have to do is present them with a situation containing no good solution?

By "breaking their oath," you mean "breaking the oath of Vengeance," right? Because the Oath of Devotion says nothing at all about needing to guarantee success. An Oath of Devotion Paladin is in 100% compliance with his oath if he hides his friends (Jewish or otherwise) from those who would harm them, keeps his word, tells no lie, and courageously fights to protect his friends from those who would harm them. It may or may not be possible for him to defeat the whole Nazi army, nor perhaps to evade them and exfiltrate. But "it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, man should be diligent, that thereby he may gain the prize."

Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.

I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.

=============================================

You're still trying to avoid answering the question - the paladin is in a situation in which if he does not tell a direct lie, thousands of innocent people will die. He cannot see a third solution and for the purposes of this question there is no third solution - what does a lawful good paladin of devotion do?

It's funny. I've answered that question three times, including in the post you quoted just now. I'm not going to change my answer just because you ask a fourth time.

He says, "Captain Runolfson, what you are doing is wrong and I will hinder it if I may. If there are Jews hidden somewhere in this city, you will have to go through me to get to any of them." And then if necessary, he makes attack rolls until he runs out of HP.

Lines

2016-02-15, 08:57 AM

It's funny. I've answered that question three times, including in the post you quoted just now. I'm not going to change my answer just because you ask a fourth time.

He says, "Captain Runolfson, what you are doing is wrong and I will hinder it if I may. If there are Jews hidden somewhere in this city, you will have to go through me to get to any of them." And then if necessary, he makes attack rolls until he runs out of HP.
You're continuing to deliberately ignore what's being said. The Nazi situation is not the paladin situation. I just outlined the paladin situation, in the Nazi situation they will ask you a direct and thorough question regarding the location of Jews in and around your house. If you answer that you have hidden no jews and there are none in or around your house they will leave, if you tell the truth they will find the jews, if you say they are wrong they will search your house and find the jews and if you attack them they will kill you and find the jews.

The paladin situation is the nonspecific two choices, lie or thousands die one.

By "breaking their oath," you mean "breaking the oath of Vengeance," right? Because the Oath of Devotion says nothing at all about needing to guarantee success. An Oath of Devotion Paladin is in 100% compliance with his oath if he hides his friends (Jewish or otherwise) from those who would harm them, keeps his word, tells no lie, and courageously fights to protect his friends from those who would harm them. It may or may not be possible for him to defeat the whole Nazi army, nor perhaps to evade them and exfiltrate. But "it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, man should be diligent, that thereby he may gain the prize."

Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.

I will protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Again stop conflating the Nazi/jew thing with the paladin thing. They are not related, the Nazi thing was questioning Cybren what he personally would do.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 09:02 AM

You're continuing to deliberately ignore what's being said. The Nazi situation is not the paladin situation. I just outlined the paladin situation, in the Nazi situation they will ask you a direct and thorough question regarding the location of Jews in and around your house. If you answer that you have hidden no jews and there are none in or around your house they will leave, if you tell the truth they will find the jews, if you say they are wrong they will search your house and find the jews and if you attack them they will kill you and find the jews.

The paladin situation is the nonspecific two choices, lie or thousands die one.

Again stop conflating the Nazi/jew thing with the paladin thing. They are not related, the Nazi thing was questioning Cybren what he personally would do.

Okay then. Nonspecific answer to a nonspecific question: lying is not an option, so what you're basically telling me is, "Thousands die with no way to stop it." It stinks to be one of your (N)PCs I guess.

This is no different from "murder a hundred people or thousands die." The culpability rests on the one killing them. In this case it's you, the DM, plus whatever nonspecific NPCs you set up to be your sock puppets in this nonspecific situation.

Cybren

2016-02-15, 09:05 AM

Lines

2016-02-15, 09:09 AM

Okay then. Nonspecific answer to a nonspecific question: lying is not an option, so what you're basically telling me is, "Thousands die with no way to stop it." It stinks to be one of your (N)PCs I guess.

This is no different from "murder a hundred people or thousands die." The culpability rests on the one killing them. In this case it's you, the DM, plus whatever nonspecific NPCs you set up to be your sock puppets in this nonspecific situation.

But lying is an option. The paladin is physically capable of lying, and doing so will save thousands. I'm asking you whether he should do so or not.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 09:10 AM

But lying is an option. The paladin is physically capable of lying, and doing so will save thousands. I'm asking you whether he should do so or not.

I'm telling you that lying is not an option. I understand that you don't want to accept that answer, but it's not going to change no matter how many times you ask it. You're the one who's killing those people--you don't get to displace the blame onto the paladin.

He's not going to lie.

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 09:12 AM

You're continuing to deliberately ignore what's being said. The Nazi situation is not the paladin situation. I just outlined the paladin situation, in the Nazi situation they will ask you a direct and thorough question regarding the location of Jews in and around your house. If you answer that you have hidden no jews and there are none in or around your house they will leave, if you tell the truth they will find the jews, if you say they are wrong they will search your house and find the jews and if you attack them they will kill you and find the jews.

The paladin situation is the nonspecific two choices, lie or thousands die one.

You are living with your 3 roommates (A, B, and C). A murder breaks in and
Case 1: Promises to kill A & B unless you kill either A or B.
Case 2: Promises to kill A & B unless you kill C.
Case 3: Promises to kill A & B unless you pick which will die.

People operating under different ethical systems might differ on how many of these cases are/are not identical. For instance in you "most lives continued" consequentialist system, you would see all 3 cases as identical. Others would see stark differences between "1 vs 2" or "1 or 2 vs 3". You will get nowhere in your argument with MaxWilson until you recognize the fundamental differences between the two of you.

Lines

2016-02-15, 09:17 AM

You are living with your 3 roommates (A, B, and C). A murder breaks in and
Case 1: Promises to kill A & B unless you kill either A or B.
Case 2: Promises to kill A & B unless you kill C.
Case 3: Promises to kill A & B unless you pick which will die.

People operating under different ethical systems might differ on how many of these cases are/are not identical. For instance in you "most lives continued" consequentialist system, you would see all 3 cases as identical. Others would see stark differences between "1 vs 2" or "1 or 2 vs 3". You will get nowhere in your argument with MaxWilson until you recognize the fundamental differences between the two of you.

I understand the differences. I do not like attempts to weasel out of answering the question because they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm telling you that lying is not an option. I understand that you don't want to accept that answer, but it's not going to change no matter how many times you ask it. You're the one who's killing those people--you don't get to displace the blame onto the paladin.

He's not going to lie.
Lying is an option. He can lie, that makes it an option. That is how the word 'choice' works. Sure, he's taken a very serious oath not to and is the kind of person to whom such an oath is incredibly important, but that just means he would very much rather he not lie, it doesn't mean he can't.

And this isn't about blame. People can talk about who to blame all they want, but at the end of the day a paladin who had the chance to save the lives of several thousand people but chose not to is Evil in every sense. This is something paladins of vengeance seem to understand much better than the other types, at the end of the day final responsibility belongs to you.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 09:21 AM

I understand the differences. I do not like attempts to weasel out of answering the question because they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Really, Lines? You may not like the answer but you can't claim it hasn't been given, over and over and over. It's not going to change.

Lines: "Lie and tell me that 2+2 equals 7 or I push this button and kill six thousand people right here and now."
Paladin: ???

I don't know the Paladin's next move in detail but it's not going to involve lying to Lines the way he is asking.

Lying is an option. He can lie, that makes it an option. That is how the word 'choice' works. Sure, he's taken a very serious oath not to and is the kind of person to whom such an oath is incredibly important, but that just means he would very much rather he not lie, it doesn't mean he can't.

You're wrong about this. I'm telling you over and over, he can't lie. That's why I relate well to Paladins of Devotion, and why I can't play a spook or a Paladin of Vengeance effectively: I can't willingly lie either. The best I can do is try to evade the question or let you jump to the wrong conclusion, but since you've insisted that none of those are options, he has no options. There's no dilemma involved in that situation, just a tragedy that's about to happen.

mgshamster

2016-02-15, 09:25 AM

But lying is an option. The paladin is physically capable of lying, and doing so will save thousands. I'm asking you whether he should do so or not.

The paladin has sworn a vow of honesty and cannot lie.

This question isn't about whether the paladin needs to lie to save lives, it's about whether the paladin is willing to forsake an Oath to save lives.

If a paladin will readily and easily say "yes," then the paladin would have fallen long ago. If the paladin will say yes with a heavy heart and only as the very last resort as all other options have gone away, then the paladin truly needs to make a choice: Fall from Grace or Save Lives. That is the choice.

Other people don't need to make that choice. Other people are not beholden to an Oath - and even those who are, they are not beholden to the truth.

Some Devotions Paladins will break their Oath to save lives. Others will not. In either case, if you blame the Paladin for the lost lives, then you are blaming the victim - it is no different than blaming the Jews for simply not converting to something else - they have that choice as well. These are all victims, and victims are not at fault for the evil that other men wrought upon them. If a paladin does not violate his Oath to save lives, then the paladin is not therefore breaking his oath when other men commit evil - the fault is entirely at the feet of those other men.

Paladins do not break their oath when other men do evil.

Lines

2016-02-15, 09:29 AM

Really, Lines? You may not like the answer but you can't claim it hasn't been given, over and over and over. It's not going to change.

No, it hasn't. Everybody who is incorrect about this has deliberately tried to shift, misunderstand or conflate questions in order to avoid directly answering any of the questions properly. We'll try this again - a lawful good devotion paladin is in a situation where he knows thousands of innocent people will die. He has tried to find other solutions because he does not want to break his oath, but to the best of his knowledge can prevent this situation coming to pass only by telling a direct lie. This situation is not 'tell a lie or I kill all these people' - the situation is different than that, maybe the case is that the gods are not going to be watching for the next week or so and if the paladin doesn't lie and say yes they are watching, many people will commit all manner of crimes because they know their place in the afterlife won't be affected. Who knows, the specifics are not important and will not be discussed because that will inevitably lead to people trying for a third solution, one that and I want to make this very clear does not exist in this situation. There is no third option, there are no specifics regarding how they die, why they die or what the mechanism is, he either directly lies or thousands of innocent people die.

Does he lie or not? If he does not, how does his alignment not immediately change to lawful evil for allowing thousands of deaths he could have prevented for the sake of adhering to his oath?

Cybren

2016-02-15, 09:29 AM

I don't understand the problem here? If you want to have lying as an option, two of the oaths don't require Honesty. Alternatively there are 11 other classes to choose from.

There's a problem here in that ethical dilemmas aren't real. They're not very strong arguments, since they're hypotheticals with distinct and exclusive options, but events that transpired in real time rarely would actually play out that way. They're useful for discussing ethical systems, not simulating actual events.

Edit: I don't think you understand the point of a Paladins oath. The entire point of the oaths are to be restrictive. You're supposed to have a hard time with these situations. Your attitude that it is obvious that the paladin should lie indicates that it is not a hard decision for you. That means you are willfully breaking your oath, ergo, you suffer the consequences of breaking your oath.

The oaths are SUPPOSED to make the Paladins life difficult. They're SUPPOSED to occasionally force the paladin into situations where they have to weigh the options of breaking their oath or allow something Bad to happen. They're not supposed to be discarded at the convenience of the paladin when they stop being easy.

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 09:31 AM

I understand the differences. I do not like attempts to weasel out of answering the question because they know they don't have a leg to stand on.

Oh, you do understand the differences?
Then surely you must recognize that maxWilson has been repeated answering you that under his ethical system:
1) Letting die =/= killing and thus is not immoral (immoral killing is immoral but that is on the killer not the Paladin even when the killer is nature/circumstances)
2) Greater good does not excuse immoral action
3) Lying is immoral

Under maxWilson's ethical system the correct action for a Paladin in a "Lie or let die" scenario is to "not lie and thus let die".

Does he lie or not? If he does not, how does his alignment not immediately change to lawful evil for allowing thousands of deaths he could have prevented for the sake of adhering to his oath?
He does not lie.
His alignment is affected by the ethical system the DM is using. If the DM is using the ethical system outlined above then the alignment would not change. If the DM were using your ethical system then the alignment would drop to LE. If you were honest when you said you understand the differences then you should have already known this answer.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 09:32 AM

No, it hasn't. Everybody who is incorrect about this has deliberately tried to shift, misunderstand or conflate questions in order to avoid directly answering any of the questions properly. We'll try this again - a lawful good devotion paladin is in a situation where he knows thousands of innocent people will die. He has tried to find other solutions because he does not want to break his oath, but to the best of his knowledge can prevent this situation coming to pass only by telling a direct lie. This situation is not 'tell a lie or I kill all these people' - the situation is different than that, maybe the case is that the gods are not going to be watching for the next week or so and if the paladin doesn't lie and say yes they are watching, many people will commit all manner of crimes because they know their place in the afterlife won't be affected. Who knows, the specifics are not important and will not be discussed because that will inevitably lead to people trying for a third solution, one that and I want to make this very clear does not exist in this situation. He either directly lies or thousands of innocent people die.

Does he lie or not? If he does not, how does his alignment not immediately change to lawful evil for allowing thousands of deaths he could have prevented for the sake of adhering to his oath?

No, he doesn't lie. How many times do I have to answer this directly before you realize that I've answered it?

And I don't care what you think his alignment is. This isn't a thread about alignment. If in your morality, all Paladins of Devotion read "Lawful Evil" when touched by a sprite, then sprites think they're Lawful Evil. That has very little effect on anything in-game, it just means that alignment is wacky when Lines is DMing.

Oh, you do understand the differences?
Then surely you must recognize that maxWilson has been repeated answering you that under his ethical system:
1) Letting die =/= killing and thus is not immoral (immoral killing is immoral but that is on the killer not the Paladin even when the killer is nature/circumstances)
2) Greater good does not excuse immoral action
3) Lying is immoral

Under maxWilson's ethical system the correct action for a Paladin in a "Lie or let die" scenario is to "not lie and thus let die".

Thanks, OldTrees/Cybren/msghamster/et alia. It's comforting to know that I'm not really speaking gibberish incomprehensible to other human beings, even when repeated accusations on this thread makes me feel that way. :-P You all have saved me from having to bang my head on a wall this morning.

Lines

2016-02-15, 09:33 AM

Oh, you do understand the differences?
Then surely you must recognize that maxWilson has been repeated answering you that under his ethical system:
1) Letting die =/= killing and thus is not immoral (immoral killing is immoral but that is on the killer not the Paladin)
2) Greater good does not excuse immoral action
3) Lying is immoral

Under maxWilson's ethical system the correct action for a Paladin in a "Lie or let die" scenario is to "not lie and thus let die".

Yeah and for some reason he tries very hard to avoid saying precisely that. I get where he's coming from - he's wrong, but I get where he's coming from - it's the constant slight evasion that bugs me.

No, he doesn't lie. How many times do I have to answer this directly before you realize that I've answered it?

And I don't care what you think his alignment is. This isn't a thread about alignment. If in your morality, all Paladins of Devotion read "Lawful Evil" when touched by a sprite, then sprites think they're Lawful Evil. That has very little effect on anything in-game, it just means that alignment is wacky when Lines is DMing.
Finally, thank you. And you may not care what I think his alignment is, I was asking what you think his alignment is. Your choice regarding whether or not you answer.

mgshamster

2016-02-15, 09:35 AM

Everybody who is incorrect about this has deliberately tried to shift, misunderstand or conflate questions in order to avoid directly answering any of the questions properly.

Who's lying now? You're clearly not a devotion paladin.

Cybren

2016-02-15, 09:36 AM

Who knows, the specifics are not important and will not be discussed because that will inevitably lead to people trying for a third solution, one that and I want to make this very clear does not exist in this situation.

Okay see this is the part of your argument that doesn't make sense. We don't role pay in arbitrary ethical dilemmas. We role play, hopefully, in worlds with actors with their own motivations and independent moving parts. There's no situation, in a real game, where this weirdly specific thing would come up

Lines

2016-02-15, 09:36 AM

Who's lying now? You're clearly not a devotion paladin.
Nobody, he finally answered directly.

Okay see this is the part of your argument that doesn't make sense. We don't role pay in arbitrary ethical dilemmas. We role play, hopefully, in worlds with actors with their own motivations and independent moving parts. There's no situation, in a real game, where this weirdly specific thing would come up
We don't exist in real life in arbitrary ethical dilemmas either. The point of an arbitrary ethical dilemma is to determine the values at play without letting specifics bog us down - we could go into vast detail concocting a situation that ended up being lie or thousands die, but it's a lot simpler to just pose it as a hypothetical directly.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 09:37 AM

Finally, thank you. And you may not care what I think his alignment is, I was asking what you think his alignment is. Your choice regarding whether or not you answer.

"Finally"? How is that any different from what I said, for example, in post #135? "He's not going to lie." In fact, I said essentially the same thing in the OP of this thread: there's nothing you can do which will make a Paladin of Devotion lie.

Argh. At least you're happy now.

mgshamster

2016-02-15, 09:39 AM

Nobody, he finally answered directly.

Don't lie, Lines.

Lines

2016-02-15, 09:40 AM

"Finally"? How is that any different from what I said, for example, in post #135? "He's not going to lie."

Argh. At least you're happy now.

In #135 you altered the question by claiming that lying wasn't an option.

Don't lie, Lines.

That isn't a lie. He did answer directly.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 09:42 AM

In #135 you altered the question by claiming that lying wasn't an option.

Sigh. I don't understand your rules for answering questions, but at least you finally seem to get it. I hope you have a nice day.

Cybren

2016-02-15, 09:42 AM

Nobody, he finally answered directly.

We don't exist in real life in arbitrary ethical dilemmas either. The point of an arbitrary ethical dilemma is to determine the values at play without letting specifics bog us down - we could go into vast detail concocting a situation that ended up being lie or thousands die, but it's a lot simpler to just pose it as a hypothetical directly.

Those ethical dilemmas are only useful in discussing abstract ethical systems. In the real world the trolley problem wouldn't ever come up. In the case of the paladin, we already know enough about his ethical system to know they wouldn't lie.

Lines

2016-02-15, 09:44 AM

Sigh. I don't understand your rules for answering questions, but at least you finally seem to get it. I hope you have a nice day.

I kept asking a direct question and you kept deliberately avoiding giving a direct answer - in that instance, by altering the question by claiming that he could not lie.

mgshamster

2016-02-15, 09:46 AM

Those ethical dilemmas are only useful in discussing abstract ethical systems. In the real world the trolley problem wouldn't ever come up. In the case of the paladin, we already know enough about his ethical system to know they wouldn't lie.

To change the tune a bit, the trolley problem has also been useful in brain diagraming using MRIs to map neurological pathways at the moment the question is asked. It's led to some very fascinating results in neuroscience. It goes beyond philosophy. :)

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 09:47 AM

Yeah and for some reason he tries very hard to avoid saying precisely that. I get where he's coming from - he's wrong, but I get where he's coming from - it's the constant slight evasion that bugs me.

Finally, thank you. And you may not care what I think his alignment is, I was asking what you think his alignment is. Your choice regarding whether or not you answer.

I recognize that you, due to your ethical system, consider his ethical system to be wrong (and vice versa).

However I would like to shatter your self deception by pointing out: He answered you in post 73 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20421134&postcount=73).

I kept asking a direct question and you kept deliberately avoiding giving a direct answer - in that instance, by altering the question by claiming that he could not lie.

Ah, I see you don't understand deontological ethics. Given a moral choice someone using deontological ethics eliminated every immoral choice since they are not valid answers. That is what MaxWilson said: He said lying was not an option therefore the paladin would choose the only remaining option (which by definition for working deontological codes must be at least morally permissible).

mgshamster

2016-02-15, 09:50 AM

I recognize that you, due to your ethical system, consider his ethical system to be wrong (and vice versa).

However I would like to shatter your self deception by pointing out: He answered you in post 73 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20421134&postcount=73).

How come those links never work for me? It just brings up a blank page. Every time a poster links in the GitP forums, it doesn't work for me. I'm on an iPhone. Anyone know why or can lead me to the answer?

Lines

2016-02-15, 09:50 AM

Those ethical dilemmas are only useful in discussing abstract ethical systems. In the real world the trolley problem wouldn't ever come up. In the case of the paladin, we already know enough about his ethical system to know they wouldn't lie.

We know it wouldn't ever come up. That doesn't mean the answers gained from it can never be applied to real life. If you want a real life example of this kind of thing it's already been given, and it's something that happened regularly at the time - someone in Nazi Germany has hidden jews in their house, they are asked directly if they have hidden jews in their house. They either lie or their house is searched and the jews are discovered.

You cannot get out of answering an arbitrary ethical dilemma simply because it would not happen in real life, the point is testing what the answer would be in a possible situation without getting bogged down in the specific details.

I recognize that you, due to your ethical system, consider his ethical system to be wrong (and vice versa).

However I would like to shatter your self deception by pointing out: He answered you in post 73 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20421134&postcount=73).

That was a switch. The thousands of people dying is a paladin question, the nazi germany one is a what would you do in this situation question, he avoided answering the paladin thing by putting himself there instead.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 09:51 AM

I kept asking a direct question and you kept deliberately avoiding giving a direct answer - in that instance, by altering the question by claiming that he could not lie.

Is there anyone in this whole thread except Lines who has been in any doubt at all as to my position on whether I or a Paladin of Devotion played by me would tell a lie to save a life or a thousand lives? Seeing as how I opened the thread with that position in the OP and have reiterated it ten or more times over the course of the last hundred and fifty posts... [shake my head]

I'm glad I finally found the magic combination of words which made Lines understand that I actually meant what I said. This was nevertheless an enormously frustrating communication exercise.

Lines

2016-02-15, 09:52 AM

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 09:54 AM

How come those links never work for me? It just brings up a blank page. Every time a poster links in the GitP forums, it doesn't work for me. I'm on an iPhone. Anyone know why or can lead me to the answer?

Huh. I don't know. It works on Windows PCs. Ask android users and Mac PC users to see if it is phone or apple related.

That was a switch. The thousands of people dying is a paladin question, the nazi germany one is a what would you do in this situation question, he answered with himself in place of the paladin.

??? Why would that matter? Most ethical systems do not privilege the author. MaxWilson answered what he through was correct (based upon his ethical system) for anyone in that situation. There is no differentiating "answering what the paladin ought to do" from "answering what I ought to do".

mgshamster

2016-02-15, 09:57 AM

One you could have solved instantly by just directly answering the question.

He has answered the question. Many times. You just keep twisting and very-specifically-parsing his words in a manner to make it so he didn't answer the question in the exact way you wanted.

That is dishonest and deceitful.

You're not doing this to gain insight or to discover something about Max or a Paladin of Devotion - you're doing this to "win" and argument on the Internet.

That is the *only* reason why you developed such an arbitrary and specific scenario and voided all specifics out to create a sole binary choice - to win an argument that has no bearing in real life or in game play.

There is absolutely no new information gained in this discussion. It's all been about you winning.

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 10:01 AM

That is the *only* reason why you developed such an arbitrary and specific scenario and voided all specifics out to create a sole binary choice - to win an argument that has no bearing in real life or in game play.

Hey, let's be fair. Creating abstract binary choices is a very useful tool for asking clarifying questions about someone else's ethical system. Sure there are cases in deontological ethics where the answer to a binary choice may be ERROR*, but that was not the case in this circumstance & is not the case in consequentialist ethics that Line's brain works in. Therefore I don't think it is fair to claim the scenarios were created out of a desire to win.

*A subset of cases with inherent 3rd options, or unrealistic cases with no valid choice, or erroneous deontological codes.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 10:01 AM

Just to be clear, we're talking about someone searching your house for their secret Santa gift now.

Thank you, Zalabim. I needed that little bit of levity. :)

mgshamster

2016-02-15, 10:27 AM

Hey, let's be fair. Creating abstract binary choices is a very useful tool for asking clarifying questions about someone else's ethical system. Sure there are cases in deontological ethics where the answer to a binary choice may be ERROR*, but that was not the case in this circumstance & is not the case in consequentialist ethics that Line's brain works in. Therefore I don't think it is fair to claim the scenarios were created out of a desire to win.

*A subset of cases with inherent 3rd options, or unrealistic cases with no valid choice, or erroneous deontological codes.

Fair. I agree that you're correct in the original proposal. I maintain my analysis after the fourth time that Max answered the question and Lines kept repeating the scenario - and then further altered the scenario to make it even more specific until he got the exact wording of the answer he wanted just to prove that he was Right and Max was Wrong.

Lines

2016-02-15, 10:30 AM

Fair. I agree that you're correct in the original proposal. I maintain my analysis after the fourth time that Max answered the question and Lines kept repeating the scenario - and then further altered the scenario to make it even more specific until he got the exact wording of the answer he wanted just to prove that he was Right and Max was Wrong.

Uh, no. Proving that letting thousands of people die is bad is about on the level of proving that water is wet. It's, uh, kind of basic.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 10:32 AM

Uh, no. Proving that letting thousands of people die is bad is about on the level of proving that water is wet. It's, uh, kind of basic.

Therefore, all Dungeon Masters are Chaotic Evil.

mgshamster

2016-02-15, 10:33 AM

Uh, no. Proving that letting thousands of people die is bad is about on the level of proving that water is wet. It's, uh, kind of basic.

You're absolutely right that killing thousands of people can be wrong. In this scenario, the blame lies solely on those doing the killing and not on the person trying to stop them.

You are including the paladin in the blame, which is just as morally wrong as blaming those who would be killed for not converting.

CantigThimble

2016-02-15, 10:35 AM

Uh, no. Proving that letting thousands of people die is bad is about on the level of proving that water is wet. It's, uh, kind of basic.

I recommend you try finding people who take their religion seriously and having some frank discussions about what they would or would not say to save lives. I've gotten some unexpected answers for interesting reasons. However this is DEFINITELY not the place or the general medium in which to be having that kind of discussion.

mgshamster

2016-02-15, 10:37 AM

I recommend you try finding people who take their religion seriously and having some frank discussions about what they would or would not say to save lives. I've gotten some unexpected answers for interesting reasons. However this is DEFINITELY not the place or the general medium in which to be having that kind of discussion.

I agree with you here, and as such in going to stop engaging in this specific topic.

I propose we move on.

Lines

2016-02-15, 10:39 AM

You're absolutely right that killing thousands of people can be wrong. In this scenario, the blame lies solely on those doing the killing and not on the person trying to stop them.

You are including the paladin in the blame, which is just as morally wrong as blaming those who would be killed for not converting.

No, you're using the word 'blame' where it has no meaning. If someone could have prevented those deaths and didn't, that's evil. If the rampaging orc horde destroys a kingdom the answer is not 'it was the orcs' fault, not mine!'. The answer, if you're a paladin, is it is your job to stop evil things happening if you can.

CantigThimble

2016-02-15, 10:51 AM

No, you're using the word 'blame' where it has no meaning. If someone could have prevented those deaths and didn't, that's evil. If the rampaging orc horde destroys a kingdom the answer is not 'it was the orcs' fault, not mine!'. The answer, if you're a paladin, is it is your job to stop evil things happening if you can.

This is a complicated part of philosophy that is looked at in a lot of different ways by people in the real world. Your best bet is talking to those kinds of people in person to gain a better understanding of why they think what they do rather than trying to discuss moral principles on the internet, which is just a recipe for misunderstanding and frustration.

Lines

2016-02-15, 11:02 AM

This is a complicated part of philosophy that is looked at in a lot of different ways by people in the real world. Your best bet is talking to those kinds of people in person to gain a better understanding of why they think what they do rather than trying to discuss moral principles on the internet, which is just a recipe for misunderstanding and frustration.

Not quite how that works. It's allowed to be as complicated as it wants, and I'm sure it must warrant a lot of discussion, but in regards to this there is only one thing that is relevant - the paladin will protect the innocent. He won't bandy about with phrases like 'I'm not to blame', he'll make sure they don't die because he's a paladin. A paladin is someone who is aware there are a thousand and one excuses that can be given to justify not stopping evil and ignores them all.

Not all situations are this simple. If someone is kidnapped then as an individual instance it would make sense to pay ransom for them, but overall doing so ensures more people will be kidnapped because you're rewarding it - there are many, many issues where the answer is complicated and different paladins might have different answers. This is not one of them. Any paladin who isn't evil will choose the lives of thousands over his own spiritual fulfillment.

pwykersotz

2016-02-15, 11:35 AM

You are continuing to ignore the fact that they have to break their oath either way. How should they have never broken their oath? Either they tell the truth and thousands die (breaking the compassion, good and righteousness part) or lie (and break the honesty part). There was no option to not break their oath. Does this mean that every time an enemy NPC wants to depower a paladin opponent, all they have to do is present them with a situation containing no good solution?

The Devotion Paladin doesn't believe in binary choices, he believes there is ALWAYS the "right" way. Basically, whether or not your scenario is objectively true, the Devotion Paladin doesn't believe that it's objectively true, and will continue to pursue anything he believes to be an option that has a chance of saving everyone involved. If the GM is a consequationalist, he might fall either way, but that basically just means that in this world the beliefs of the Paladin are objectively wrong, not that he will not continue to labor under them.

And to turn this argument on its head a bit, the Paladin also doesn't believe a peasant is evil just because he failed to club unconscious the necromancer who was slaughtering people out of fear for his own life. Could he have saved thousands? Yes. Was he evil? No, just terrified, the necromancer is the evil one. Because that's part of the problem; in these white-room ethical exercises, there exists something that never happens on either the player side of the game or in real life. Certainty. You might argue that if the villager knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was able to knock out the necromancer and that he would survive then he would be evil for not saving those lives, and I'd still disagree for the same reasons listed above, but that's the thing, no one ever truly knows. People try to find the "third option" in real life all the time, even when it's obvious there isn't any. And sometimes, despite the odds, they succeed.

In short, the ethical system your are attacking claims your argument cannot possibly exist in the real world. So while it's a useful tool for discussion to a certain point (we've passed that point), the deontological supporter will never be able to answer your view to your satisfaction.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 11:48 AM

In short, the ethical system your are attacking claims your argument cannot possibly exist in the real world. So while it's a useful tool for discussion to a certain point (we've passed that point), the deontological supporter will never be able to answer your view to your satisfaction.

Point of order: the viewpoint I've espoused isn't strictly deontological. It's as much virtue ethics as deontological, and arguably it's consequentialist as well. It's just not consistent with a consequentialist utility function which prioritizes the life of the body over anything else.

pwykersotz

2016-02-15, 12:06 PM

Point of order: the viewpoint I've espoused isn't strictly deontological. It's as much virtue ethics as deontological, and arguably it's consequentialist as well. It's just not consistent with a consequentialist utility function which prioritizes the life of the body over anything else.

Fair. I've pigeonholed the argument into deontology vs consequentionalism because it served as a convenient shorthand for insight, I agree that the whole picture is far more complicated.

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 12:17 PM

Uh, no. Proving that letting thousands of people die is bad is about on the level of proving that water is wet. It's, uh, kind of basic.

Sorry, but proving "letting die" =/= "immoral killing" is much more basic (note this says nothing about whether "letting die" is immoral, merely that if it were to be immoral it would not be for the same reason immoral killing is immoral). Revisit the trolly problem until you are willing to consider the situation rather than blindly assert with unfounded confidence. Whether or not "letting die" is immoral is heavily debated by people much smarter and wiser than you (or I).

However I would also suggest double checking the forum rules before continuing. IIRC there might be something in there that is relevant.

Point of order: the viewpoint I've espoused isn't strictly deontological. It's as much virtue ethics as deontological, and arguably it's consequentialist as well. It's just not consistent with a consequentialist utility function which prioritizes the life of the body over anything else.

You have a better vantage point to see your own position so I will not be arrogant enough to think to correct you. However I will say you mostly used the language of deontology and made simple absolute assertions (mostly alien to consequentialism). That said I did see some virtue ethics verbage in the first few posts. So if the viewpoint you espoused was that complex, it was not clear on this end.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 12:35 PM

You have a better vantage point to see your own position so I will not be arrogant enough to think to correct you. However I will say you mostly used the language of deontology and made simple absolute assertions (mostly alien to consequentialism). That said I did see some virtue ethics verbage in the first few posts. So if the viewpoint you espoused was that complex, it was not clear on this end.

Remember, that's why I was interested in the atheist viewpoint, way back at the beginning of the thread: because virtue/deontological/utilitarian ethics are unified from my perspective (if the goal is not to lie so you won't be a liar so you can grow in power and wisdom and be the kind of person God is, then all three ethics are equivalent), and I was curious what the viewpoint would be if you took God out of the equation. You persuaded me that it's possible for someone to drop the consequentialist aspects while retaining the virtue/deontological aspects.

And I've been really explicit, over and over, that I don't view the death of the body as more important than the life of the soul. That's a consequentialist explanation right there.

I haven't used much virtue-ethics language because there's too much danger of that phraseology looking like flame-bait here on the Internet.

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 01:17 PM

Remember, that's why I was interested in the atheist viewpoint, way back at the beginning of the thread: because virtue/deontological/utilitarian ethics are unified from my perspective (if the goal is not to lie so you won't be a liar so you can grow in power and wisdom and be the kind of person God is, then all three ethics are equivalent), and I was curious what the viewpoint would be if you took God out of the equation. You persuaded me that it's possible for someone to drop the consequentialist aspects while retaining the virtue/deontological aspects.

And I've been really explicit, over and over, that I don't view the death of the body as more important than the life of the soul. That's a consequentialist explanation right there.

I haven't used much virtue-ethics language because there's too much danger of that phraseology looking like flame-bait here on the Internet.

Ah. I compartmentalized the conversations so I did not connect that you were the same person.

Good call about virtue ethics phrasing.

georgie_leech

2016-02-15, 02:58 PM

pwykersotz

2016-02-15, 03:01 PM

OldTrees1

2016-02-15, 03:10 PM

Seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle a bit. Putting aside the ethics discussion for a moment, what should a Devotion Paladin do when the Oath conflicts with itself? For instance, suppose a non-specific Devotion Paladin was faced with the same situation O-Chul is here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html) Here, Honesty is at odds with Compassion, as he can aid and protect the weak and innocent by lying. Failure to save lives isn't against the Oath, but failing to even try is. What can they do that doesn't break their Oath?

Putting aside the ethics discussion -> Proceeds to ask an ethical question. :smalltongue:

It depends on the ethical system the paladin is operating under. I am presuming it is a true conflict with no valid 3rd option to avoid the conflict.

Deontology suggests this cannot happen for the correct code. Thus it happening indicates a failure in your understanding (I presumed otherwise above) or the code is imperfect and needs replacing.
Consequentialism suggests oaths are always in conflict with themselves and it is up to the paladin to choose the best option.
Virtue Ethics doesn't focus on the character of single events. (My understanding of this field is limited so I will stop while ahead)

However your example (Honesty & Compassion in O-Chul's case) is not a true conflict as O-Chul demonstrated.

However your listing of Honesty and Compassion reminded me of something:
Oaths can contain more than merely moral obligations/prohibitions. This is especially true when zoomed out to abstract levels like "I will be compassionate".

Oaths can contain the virtues and the ideals a Paladin seeks to sustain/personify. However unlike moral obligations, it is not a moral failing to not live up to an ideal when situations conspire to pit it against a moral obligation. O-Chul sought both the ideals of Honesty and Compassion but did not have a moral failing from his actions in that case.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 03:10 PM

Seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle a bit. Putting aside the ethics discussion for a moment, what should a Devotion Paladin do when the Oath conflicts with itself? For instance, suppose a non-specific Devotion Paladin was faced with the same situation O-Chul is here. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html) Here, Honesty is at odds with Compassion, as he can aid and protect the weak and innocent by lying. Failure to save lives isn't against the Oath, but failing to even try is. What can they do that doesn't break their Oath?

That's not just a Devotion paladin problem. What does a Vengeance paladin do when they have the chance to make Restitution for their enemies' misdeeds ("If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds.") but it involves compromising No Mercy for the Wicked ("Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.")? For example, one of the victims of the evil wizard was a little girl, whose parents were killed by the evil wizard. But now he has repented of his evil ways. Oh and by the way, her dad was the formerly-evil wizard's brother, and the wizard is her uncle and her only family left in the world. You could make restitution to the girl for her lost parents by allowing her remorseful and no-longer-evil uncle to raise her, thus arguably violating No Mercy, or you could kill him, thus arguably violating Restitution.

You can always construct an artificial situation which brings tenets into conflict with each other.

BTW, in O-Chul's case, he could legitimately have just told the truth right off the bat. I actually don't even know why he bothered lying in the first place--it obviously didn't improve the situation, nor would have even if it had worked.

================================================== ==

The same thing as O-Chul, and the Paladin wouldn't fall for it (just like O-Chul didn't fall). O-Chul did try to the best of his ability while adhering to his oath. Same thing here.

Well, O-Chul did actually try to lie. He's just a lousy liar. He's got different values than I do, more akin to Lines' value system.

pwykersotz

2016-02-15, 03:24 PM

Well, O-Chul did actually try to lie. He's just a lousy liar. He's got different values than I do, more akin to Lines' value system.

Ugh...this is why skimming is bad. I clicked and flash recognized the same scene as this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html).

georgie_leech

2016-02-15, 04:18 PM

That's not just a Devotion paladin problem. What does a Vengeance paladin do when they have the chance to make Restitution for their enemies' misdeeds ("If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed by their misdeeds.") but it involves compromising No Mercy for the Wicked ("Ordinary foes might win my mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.")? For example, one of the victims of the evil wizard was a little girl, whose parents were killed by the evil wizard. But now he has repented of his evil ways. Oh and by the way, her dad was the formerly-evil wizard's brother, and the wizard is her uncle and her only family left in the world. You could make restitution to the girl for her lost parents by allowing her remorseful and no-longer-evil uncle to raise her, thus arguably violating No Mercy, or you could kill him, thus arguably violating Restitution.

You can always construct an artificial situation which brings tenets into conflict with each other.

BTW, in O-Chul's case, he could legitimately have just told the truth right off the bat. I actually don't even know why he bothered lying in the first place--it obviously didn't improve the situation, nor would have even if it had worked.

================================================== ==

Well, O-Chul did actually try to lie. He's just a lousy liar. He's got different values than I do, more akin to Lines' value system.

I agree, it's always possible for there to be situations where the tenets are in conflict with each other. That's why I disagree with the idea that repentance means you must genuinely believe that violating the Oath was the wrong thing to do to properly repent. In the unlikely scenario that O-Chul was thrust into a similar situation, he would likely choose the same actions. It's worth noting that he did try the truth; he's been stubbornly insisting he doesn't know how Girard gate was guarded, which Redcloak refused to accept. Once innocent lives were brought in, he attempted to lie to save them, choosing Compassion over Honesty. I agree he shouldn't fall, I was objecting to the idea that awareness of which he would choose if push comes to shove means he can't hold is Oath important enough to be divinely empowered by it. After all, the sidebar on breaking oaths points out that sometimes choosing the lesser of two evils is all you can do.

Regarding the Vengeance Paladin scenario, I could see it falling out a couple of ways, depending on the Paladin in question and some of the other details. For instance, if I were a Vengeance Paladin I'd likely side with Restitution, assuming the evil wizard had genuinely repented and was working to undo the harm he had caused, or least make his own restitution for his deeds. If he wasn't and still possessed his magics, I would encourage him to do so, and if I couldn't, I would try to find some way of stripping him of his powers, similar to how Aang acts at the end of Avatar: The Last Airbender. However, a Paladin that values No Mercy for the Wicked might do otherwise. They could attempt to strip of their powers in a similar fashion, as No Mercy doesn't necessarily mean killing; a Paladin could always round up the thieves and send hem to prison, to draw a comparison. If they do judge that the Wizard should die, at that point part of Restitution is ensuring the girl is taken care of. If possible, they could find some way of resurrecting her dead parents, or taking her to other family if not. If none still lives, they have a responsibility to get them to a good foster home. If they are part of an Order or Church, that's always an option. After all, 'raised by an order of Paladins after they killed her Evil Wizard Uncle who was raising her after the Evil Wizard killed her father' is a classic Paladin origin story. :smallwink:

Also, though my wording was poor, I meant to make clear that I was framing my question outside of the Virtue/Deontological/Consequentialist ethics discussion running in parallel to the Paladin discussion.

pwykersotz

2016-02-15, 04:41 PM

I agree, it's always possible for there to be situations where the tenets are in conflict with each other. That's why I disagree with the idea that repentance means you must genuinely believe that violating the Oath was the wrong thing to do to properly repent.

I see willing violation of a tenet and inability within your power (as restricted by the oaths) to fulfill your tenet as two separate things.

If the Paladin used a scroll of demon summoning (an extreme example) that he had taken from the BBEG to purify and sold the soul of 10 of the captives to save the other 990, that would likewise be bad, even though he technically maximized the life saving.

As I understand it, repentance of willful violation requires the understanding that the violation was wrong.

MaxWilson

2016-02-15, 05:07 PM

I see willing violation of a tenet and inability within your power (as restricted by the oaths) to fulfill your tenet as two separate things.

If the Paladin used a scroll of demon summoning (an extreme example) that he had taken from the BBEG to purify and sold the soul of 10 of the captives to save the other 990, that would likewise be bad, even though he technically maximized the life saving.

As I understand it, repentance of willful violation requires the understanding that the violation was wrong.

I believe I share this perspective.

JoeJ

2016-02-15, 10:26 PM

We'll try this again - a lawful good devotion paladin is in a situation where he knows thousands of innocent people will die.

There's the problem right there, in bold. Your dichotomy is a false one because it is impossible for this situation to occur. Nobody has infallible knowledge of the future. No matter what, the paladin does not know that thousands will die if they don't lie.

He has tried to find other solutions because he does not want to break his oath, but to the best of his knowledge can prevent this situation coming to pass only by telling a direct lie. This situation is not 'tell a lie or I kill all these people' - the situation is different than that, maybe the case is that the gods are not going to be watching for the next week or so and if the paladin doesn't lie and say yes they are watching, many people will commit all manner of crimes because they know their place in the afterlife won't be affected. Who knows, the specifics are not important and will not be discussed because that will inevitably lead to people trying for a third solution, one that and I want to make this very clear does not exist in this situation. There is no third option, there are no specifics regarding how they die, why they die or what the mechanism is, he either directly lies or thousands of innocent people die.

If Superman saves that school bus full of children, then Lois will die. Except that the dilemma is a false one, and he always, somehow, finds a way to save them both.

Regardless of what the DM has secretly decided about reality, the paladin does not know that they have to lie to save those people. If told, she would refuse to believe it. The paladin does not lie because she believes with every fiber of her being that there is another way.

Lines

2016-02-16, 01:58 AM

There's the problem right there, in bold. Your dichotomy is a false one because it is impossible for this situation to occur. Nobody has infallible knowledge of the future. No matter what, the paladin does not know that thousands will die if they don't lie.

If Superman saves that school bus full of children, then Lois will die. Except that the dilemma is a false one, and he always, somehow, finds a way to save them both.

Regardless of what the DM has secretly decided about reality, the paladin does not know that they have to lie to save those people. If told, she would refuse to believe it. The paladin does not lie because she believes with every fiber of her being that there is another way.
That's just another way of saying the paladin is finding more excuses to let innocent people die rather than break their own code. 100% certainty isn't necessary - he doesn't have to know thousands will die if he doesn't lie, he just has to be pretty certain. And there are plenty of situations in which he could be very sure that thousands would die unless he lied.

And Superman doesn't always find a way to save them both - in the first movie he saves a bunch of people and leaves Lois to die, being unable to reach them both. He regrets this and goes back in time, saving Lois instead - but, logically, leaving the people he chose to save the last time around to die.

And as a side note, paladins aren't Superman. Superman's basically a god, while there will be plenty of times a paladin just isn't able to solve everything.

I see willing violation of a tenet and inability within your power (as restricted by the oaths) to fulfill your tenet as two separate things.

If the Paladin used a scroll of demon summoning (an extreme example) that he had taken from the BBEG to purify and sold the soul of 10 of the captives to save the other 990, that would likewise be bad, even though he technically maximized the life saving.

As I understand it, repentance of willful violation requires the understanding that the violation was wrong.
That's different. That's selling 10 souls to save the lives of 990 people - lives are important, but in a D&D universe in which the afterlife exists, souls are infinitely more so. Condemning 10 people to eternal torture is far worse than letting 990 people go to their afterlives.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like killing people isn't bad. There's pain and suffering inflicted and if you kill a thousand people, it is very probable some of them are evil and will therefore go to a horrible afterlife but if allowed to live would would have redeemed themselves at some point - but they made their own choices, and it is more moral to let them die and (metaphorically) live with those choices than to condemn innocents to eternal suffering.

JoeJ

2016-02-16, 02:16 AM

That's just another way of saying the paladin is finding more excuses to let innocent people die rather than break their own code. 100% certainty isn't necessary - he doesn't have to know thousands will die if he doesn't lie, he just has to be pretty certain.

Excuses to let innocent people die? Are you saying now that the paladin wants them dead, and is just looking for excuses?

And there are plenty of situations in which he could be very sure that thousands would die unless he lied.

Really? Given that miracles are real and direct divine intervention is not all that uncommon, I can't think of even one situation where a paladin could be very sure of that.

Marcelinari

2016-02-16, 02:49 AM

Malifice

2016-02-16, 02:56 AM

I'm behind Lines almost 100% here. I find the absolute refusal to violate an oath even in the face of clear, immense, and (importantly) preventable evil to be alien to the concept of the Paladin. The claim that breaking the oath isn't an option - that somehow 'be honest' is a more immutable tenet than 'save lives' - is very strange indeed, in my view. The answers to Lines' variously phrased ethical dilemmas have been 'ERROR', 'Third Option', and 'Does Not Apply' - of which only 'error' is any sort of reasonable response, and then one which reveals to me just how far removed my concept of ethics is from some others in this world.

For the superman example, we must remember that Superman is always 'able to save both Lois and the bus' only due to fiat of the author, and not due to any inherent strength of his moral philosophy. That doesn't make the dilemma a false one, any more than DM Fiat is a valid option for players in the context of a game. It's something that happens, sure - but you cannot rely on it, or even expect it at any point.

I have always considered Paladin Oaths and Codes to be only viable if taken as a ranked order of priorities. If each tenet is taken as an unbreakable law of the universe, then contradictions can (and often do) arise in which the only applicable response is 'ERROR', and the Paladin is caught in a situation where he is paralyzed by his inability to choose an option which is not verboten. The ranked order of priorities are, as befits the serious nature of the oath, the priorities for the Paladin's life, without any other priorities surpassing them in any circumstance. However, in a case analogous to Asimov's Laws of Robotics*, the less important tenets must necessarily be subordinate to the Imperative Priority (The first law), and if that subordination is not allowed, then somebody's positron brain either explodes or goes extremely homicidal (Although I only have exemplars from the Robot sign of this analogy, so...).

Ultimately, the problem I see with MaxWilson's code is that it fails to imagine people and characters complexly, mandating that certain modes of behaviour be followed without regard to circumstance, individual preference, or changing social mores - it is a one-size-fits-all-situations philosophy, which I cannot imagine as being of practical use. Perhaps that is consequence of my lack of imagination, rather than a failing of the philosophy. It will be difficult to discover in truth.

1. A Robot shall not harm a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
2. A Robot shall obey orders given to it by a human, except where those orders would conflict with the first law.
3. A Robot shall protect its own existence, except where such protection would conflict with the first or second laws.

P.S. I am aware that my own 'ranked priorities' of ethics is not perfect or even wildly different from MaxWilson's, but the unwillingness to see them as unbreakable laws of the multiverse is an important and adequately differentiating topic.

To be honest man I think youre looking into it too much.

The Paladin swears an oath, and lives up to those ideals subject to his interpretation of them.

My LE Bane Paladin defines the 'greater evil' he is sworn to defeat as Paladins, Cleric and lay worshippers of Torm (LG). He feels that the best way to achieve this is via the establishment of a theocratic fascist state, followed by a pogrom against the followers of the God of chivalry to weaken him, then a trip to the outer planes to slay Torm personally.

Not all paladins of the same oath share the same interpretations of the oath. Theyre not mindless automata. Heck paladins of the same oath may share radically different gods and alignments and worldviews, and have consequently very different interpretations of what the tenents of their oath entail.

Lines

2016-02-16, 03:03 AM

Excuses to let innocent people die? Are you saying now that the paladin wants them dead, and is just looking for excuses?
No. According to you he cares more about the wording of his oath than the lives of thousands of innocents and is looking for an excuse not to have to break it so he won't feel bad about committing an incredibly evil act.

Really? Given that miracles are real and direct divine intervention is not all that uncommon, I can't think of even one situation where a paladin could be very sure of that.
I already named one. The gods will not be watching for a few weeks and if people find out they will, aware that it effectively doesn't count a la The Purge except regarding their status in the afterlife, commit all sorts of atrocities knowing that they will not affect their chances of getting into heaven. The paladin knows this will cause huge amounts of death and people are aware he is the one with the information regarding if the gods are watching or not - if he does anything but directly lie, people will take it to mean they can get away with anything, the word will swiftly spread and a bloodbath will ensue.

In any case, the specifics really are unimportant - there are hundreds of individual situations where such a dilemma might exist. That's why specifics are unnecessary, you can just directly ask this: 'if a devotion paladin is aware that if he does not tell an outright lie thousands of innocent people will die, does he lie or not?'.

Lines

2016-02-16, 03:08 AM

The Paladin swears an oath, and lives up to those ideals subject to his interpretation of them.

We know. The primary point of debate has been whether a paladin could value his honest more than thousands of lives without being evil, which I'm still genuinely surprised that we've had to discuss it even slightly - it's evil. It's obviously evil. Letting thousands of people die for the sake of your own honour is pretty much the most lawful evil act I can think of.

georgie_leech

2016-02-16, 03:16 AM

We know. The primary point of debate has been whether a paladin could value his honest more than thousands of lives without being evil, which I'm still genuinely surprised that we've had to discuss it even slightly - it's evil. It's obviously evil. Letting thousands of people die for the sake of your own honour is pretty much the most lawful evil act I can think of.

Quibble, evil and Evil as 5e defines it are different things, although they frequently overlap. Under my ethics it's evil to value honour and honesty over human life, but under other systems that isn't necessarily true. After all, for all the loss of human lives is a tragedy, would it not be just as much of a tragedy for the human spirit and what we stand for to be made something foul and dishonest? Might just be a case of a dropped capital letter, but let's not accuse other people of being evil for hypotheticals which hopefully no one will ever have to face in real life, yeah?

JoeJ

2016-02-16, 03:17 AM

For the superman example, we must remember that Superman is always 'able to save both Lois and the bus' only due to fiat of the author, and not due to any inherent strength of his moral philosophy. That doesn't make the dilemma a false one, any more than DM Fiat is a valid option for players in the context of a game. It's something that happens, sure - but you cannot rely on it, or even expect it at any point.

Superman isn't aware of author fiat; it plays no part in his decisions. He believes that he lives in the kind of a universe where no-win situations don't happen, and so far he's mostly been right.

The devotion paladin I'm talking about also believes that. It's up to the DM whether or not the universe really does work that way, but the moral decision is based on the paladin's belief, not the DM's. No matter what you, the omniscient outside observer, understands of the situation, as far as the paladin is concerned, the claim that lying is the only way to save the lives of thousands of innocent people is false. Either there's another way to save them, or they're already doomed and lying won't change that, or when they die they'll go directly to Heaven and be much better off than they are now, or something else that the paladin didn't even think of will happen and make it all turn out okay. Being a paladin means having faith that staying true to your oath is always the right thing to do, even if you don't understand how. Especially if you don't understand how.

pwykersotz

2016-02-16, 03:25 AM

I'm behind Lines almost 100% here. I find the absolute refusal to violate an oath even in the face of clear, immense, and (importantly) preventable evil to be alien to the concept of the Paladin. The claim that breaking the oath isn't an option - that somehow 'be honest' is a more immutable tenet than 'save lives' - is very strange indeed, in my view. The answers to Lines' variously phrased ethical dilemmas have been 'ERROR', 'Third Option', and 'Does Not Apply' - of which only 'error' is any sort of reasonable response, and then one which reveals to me just how far removed my concept of ethics is from some others in this world.

For the superman example, we must remember that Superman is always 'able to save both Lois and the bus' only due to fiat of the author, and not due to any inherent strength of his moral philosophy. That doesn't make the dilemma a false one, any more than DM Fiat is a valid option for players in the context of a game. It's something that happens, sure - but you cannot rely on it, or even expect it at any point.

I have always considered Paladin Oaths and Codes to be only viable if taken as a ranked order of priorities. If each tenet is taken as an unbreakable law of the universe, then contradictions can (and often do) arise in which the only applicable response is 'ERROR', and the Paladin is caught in a situation where he is paralyzed by his inability to choose an option which is not verboten. The ranked order of priorities are, as befits the serious nature of the oath, the priorities for the Paladin's life, without any other priorities surpassing them in any circumstance. However, in a case analogous to Asimov's Laws of Robotics*, the less important tenets must necessarily be subordinate to the Imperative Priority (The first law), and if that subordination is not allowed, then somebody's positron brain either explodes or goes extremely homicidal (Although I only have exemplars from the Robot sign of this analogy, so...).

Ultimately, the problem I see with MaxWilson's code is that it fails to imagine people and characters complexly, mandating that certain modes of behaviour be followed without regard to circumstance, individual preference, or changing social mores - it is a one-size-fits-all-situations philosophy, which I cannot imagine as being of practical use. Perhaps that is consequence of my lack of imagination, rather than a failing of the philosophy. It will be difficult to discover in truth.

1. A Robot shall not harm a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
2. A Robot shall obey orders given to it by a human, except where those orders would conflict with the first law.
3. A Robot shall protect its own existence, except where such protection would conflict with the first or second laws.

P.S. I am aware that my own 'ranked priorities' of ethics is not perfect or even wildly different from MaxWilson's, but the unwillingness to see them as unbreakable laws of the multiverse is an important and adequately differentiating topic.

Shifting gears to the D&D only perspective:

Perhaps it depends on your endgame. The point for which you are striving. Are you doing this because you value mortal life above all else? Or is it the immortal soul and its destination that matters? Or is it how much 'objective' good/evil you generated over the course of your life? Or currying the favor of some deity?

My endgame in D&D as I approach it (I won't get into real life for fear of broaching forum protocol), is that the forces of Good and Evil are objective things that feed on certain values and actions, and that these values and actions will always lead to the empowerment of the forces that support them. In the D&D world, souls eventually merge with the gods or the planes, becoming one with their power (source, Afroakuma's Planar questions threads in the 3.5 forums). Powerful faith and powerful values make objectively more powerful souls, which provide orders of magnitude more power to the forces that you are supporting. A creature who compromises their values provides a tainted and only marginally powerful soul. A creature with ultimate convictions provides an incredible soul that alters the cosmic balance.

In this way, a paladin who compromises is doing a disservice both as an example to others (that they might take up the mantle of conviction) and to himself and his end-game of maximizing Good in the universe. A paladin who refuses to lie or cheat or compromise but who fights and strives to maximize Good within those limits inspires others, increases the value of his own soul, and cuts off avenues for true evil to breed. A paladin who only saves lives at any cost is really contributing very little to the greater Good, as happy as it makes some people in the meanwhile.

In short, a single soul can alter the cosmic balance. Heck, seven of them became the Hebdomad and rule over Mount Celestia, and are key players in the war of Good versus Evil. But that is not the fate of those who take the expedient path, not the fate of those who put transient lives over more enduring qualities.

Yes, I realize this might be a rather unique point of view on D&D cosmology, but I rather like it.

georgie_leech

2016-02-16, 03:25 AM

Superman isn't aware of author fiat; it plays no part in his decisions. He believes that he lives in the kind of a universe where no-win situations don't happen, and so far he's mostly been right.

The devotion paladin I'm talking about also believes that. It's up to the DM whether or not the universe really does work that way, but the moral decision is based on the paladin's belief, not the DM's. No matter what you, the omniscient outside observer, understands of the situation, as far as the paladin is concerned, the claim that lying is the only way to save the lives of thousands of innocent people is false. Either there's another way to save them, or they're already doomed and lying won't change that, or when they die they'll go directly to Heaven and be much better off than they are now, or something else that the paladin didn't even think of will happen and make it all turn out okay. Being a paladin means having faith that staying true to your oath is always the right thing to do, even if you don't understand how. Especially if you don't understand how.

You are aware that while Honesty is one of the tenets of the Oath of Devotion, so is Compassion, which involves protecting the innocent? What several of us are discussing is not whether a Paladin should break their oath when convenient, but what to do when the elements of the oath are at cross purposes. It's hard to argue that 'I'm sure everything will be okay' is doing much to uphold Compassion. What you are saying is that Honesty is more important than Compassion, and others are saying that Compassion is more important than Honesty. No one disagrees that Paladin's should remain true to their oaths.

Well, I guess Oathbreaker Paladins would, but I don't think we're talking about them.

Lines

2016-02-16, 03:31 AM

Superman isn't aware of author fiat; it plays no part in his decisions. He believes that he lives in the kind of a universe where no-win situations don't happen, and so far he's mostly been right.

The devotion paladin I'm talking about also believes that. It's up to the DM whether or not the universe really does work that way, but the moral decision is based on the paladin's belief, not the DM's. No matter what you, the omniscient outside observer, understands of the situation, as far as the paladin is concerned, the claim that lying is the only way to save the lives of thousands of innocent people is false. Either there's another way to save them, or they're already doomed and lying won't change that, or when they die they'll go directly to Heaven and be much better off than they are now, or something else that the paladin didn't even think of will happen and make it all turn out okay. Being a paladin means having faith that staying true to your oath is always the right thing to do, even if you don't understand how. Especially if you don't understand how.

Evil by deliberate ignorance is still evil. If I convince myself that somebody won't die if I throw them off a cliff and I do and they die, I have committed just as evil an act as I would have if I'd thrown them off the cliff because I wanted them dead. A paladin can believe whatever he wants, but the second he allows thousands of people to die who he could have saved with a cost only to himself, he's evil.

JoeJ

2016-02-16, 03:37 AM

JoeJ

2016-02-16, 03:43 AM

Evil by deliberate ignorance is still evil. If I convince myself that somebody won't die if I throw them off a cliff and I do and they die, I have committed just as evil an act as I would have if I'd thrown them off the cliff because I wanted them dead. A paladin can believe whatever he wants, but the second he allows thousands of people to die who he could have saved with a cost only to himself, he's evil.

Attributing different beliefs about the way the universe works to deliberate ignorance or evil is pretty offensive. Please stop.

georgie_leech

2016-02-16, 03:53 AM

If you think that the tenets of your oath are at cross purposes, then you have misunderstood the situation. Losing faith in the ability of Good to overcome is not exercising compassion, it's giving up and letting Evil win by default.

You know that Paladins don't have to be Good, right? The only Alignment restriction anywhere in the game is that Oathbreaker Paladins, who have made a conscious decision to completely abandon their oath rather than uphold any part of it, must be Evil. I can definitely conceive of a Lawful Neutral Paladin of Devotion, who doesn't care much about people themselves but believes that he must set an example to prevent Evil from destabilizing society, for instance. Aside from that, the book itself calls out that sometimes the choice isn't whether to uphold the Oath or not, but to choose the lesser of two evils. Believing that the Oath is always consistent and will never result in dilemmas is in direct contradiction with the book.

JoeJ

2016-02-16, 04:20 AM

You know that Paladins don't have to be Good, right? The only Alignment restriction anywhere in the game is that Oathbreaker Paladins, who have made a conscious decision to completely abandon their oath rather than uphold any part of it, must be Evil. I can definitely conceive of a Lawful Neutral Paladin of Devotion, who doesn't care much about people themselves but believes that he must set an example to prevent Evil from destabilizing society, for instance. Aside from that, the book itself calls out that sometimes the choice isn't whether to uphold the Oath or not, but to choose the lesser of two evils. Believing that the Oath is always consistent and will never result in dilemmas is in direct contradiction with the book.

You're right, they don't. So I'll modify my claim, and say that what I described is one way for a devotion paladin to look at things, not the only possible way. I note, however, that choosing the lesser evil is called out as a violation; a sign (according to the first sentence in that sidebar) that the paladin is fallible, not that the oath was inconsistent.

georgie_leech

2016-02-16, 04:30 AM

You're right, they don't. So I'll modify my claim, and say that what I described is one way for a devotion paladin to look at things, not the only possible way. I note, however, that choosing the lesser evil is called out as a violation; a sign (according to the first sentence in that sidebar) that the paladin is fallible, not that the oath was inconsistent.

In that case, I agree that is a valid way for a Paladin to view their Oath. To the second point though, if the Paladin is fallible, is not any Oath they devise also fallible by extension? Or any Oath devised by any fallible being, for that matter? D&D has a distinct lack of infallible beings, for the most part.

MeeposFire

2016-02-16, 04:33 AM

Looking at the is oath and the situation given

Lying is breaking your oath

If you don't do something that attempts to protect the people involved then you certainly break your oath of compassion and possibly of courage and duty. Even Honor is at stake as while being honest is certainly honorable so is protecting ones under your care (and those hiding in your house are certainly under your care).

You certainly have to do something. If you do not lie and do nothing else then certainly you are going to have to repent (which thus also implies you did something wrong by the code) because you will violate several tenets. Duty says you must take responsibility for your actions and protect those under your care. Giving those people up would certainly not protect them and claiming that you did not kill them and that somebody else did is abdicating your responsibility. In this case you chose to follow your oath of honesty but you are also responsible for that action and in this case it leads you to failing to protect those under your care.

Also note that honor says to do the most good with the least harm. Oddly this is more of a statement of consequence rather than a statement of an action is good or not. Sadly D&D is not very good about giving us values to put towards honesty versus human life but I think in most cases it would be far more common to find people that think the life of one or more people was weighed as being "more good" than honesty in this hypothetical situation. However even if this is not the case if we say that being honest is "good" (I think we can agree to that) and protecting those in our care and aiding the weak (both of which we should agree as good as it is part of our oath) then we have at least two tenets being broken if I tell the truth and do nothing whereas I only break one by lying. By the tenet of honor telling the truth would not be doing the most good while preventing the most harm (if we take it by number of tenets broken which also assumes that all tenets are equal).

Honestly the only way I think you can keep your oath without having to repent later is if you tell the truth (or not answer) but then attack the evil so as to give the innocents time to escape. This is not full proof either as you can make a case depending on how you value things that by doing this you certainly put the innocents in direct danger (they are effectively no longer hidden) and thus may not be be doing the most good for the least harm or possibly doing your best to protect those under your care. Of course you will likely not live long enough for it to matter at that point but I digress.

Certainly if I was a devotion paladin I would have a much easier time repenting afterwords for lying than for allowing people to die in my care even if I am not doing the killing and I do think that this is supported by the oath itself not by an abstract outside ethical system (which frankly do not work in real life very well and they work even less well in the odd world of D&D with all of its strangeness with alignment).

Lines

2016-02-16, 04:39 AM

Attributing different beliefs about the way the universe works to deliberate ignorance or evil is pretty offensive. Please stop.

I don't care if you're offended by my assertion that deliberately letting thousands of people you could have saved die is an evil act, for the same reason that I wouldn't care if you were offended by me saying that child molestation is evil or that using souls as a fuel source is evil. It's self evident enough that it's weird we need to discuss it at all.

georgie_leech

2016-02-16, 04:44 AM

I don't care if you're offended by my assertion that deliberately letting thousands of people you could have saved die is an evil act, for the same reason that I wouldn't care if you were offended by me saying that child molestation is evil or that using souls as a fuel source is evil. It's self evident enough that it's weird we need to discuss it at all.

To pose a bit of an extreme situation, what if the only way to save them was for you and everyone involved to permanently sacrifice who they were, becoming an entirely different person with, for the sake of the example, strong leanings toward Evil. Is it still evil to fight against that instead of saving them?

MeeposFire

2016-02-16, 04:46 AM

In that case, I agree that is a valid way for a Paladin to view their Oath. To the second point though, if the Paladin is fallible, is not any Oath they devise also fallible by extension? Or any Oath devised by any fallible being, for that matter? D&D has a distinct lack of infallible beings, for the most part.

Indeed especially since we know that these oaths were written by very fallible people. People that write D&D are not known for being scholars at this sort of thing and over the years some have enjoyed the conflict of having one trying to decide if it is possible to keep their oath and/or what is the best thing to do if they can't find a way to keep it.

However even if the oath can be at odds with itself in a specific situation does not invalidate that you made an oath and so you would have to (in game terms) repent failing to keep it even if everybody agrees it was the right thing to do. Thankfully this is not a huge issue in the current iteration of D&D.

georgie_leech

2016-02-16, 04:53 AM

Indeed especially since we know that these oaths were written by very fallible people. People that write D&D are not known for being scholars at this sort of thing and over the years some have enjoyed the conflict of having one trying to decide if it is possible to keep their oath and/or what is the best thing to do if they can't find a way to keep it.

However even if the oath can be at odds with itself in a specific situation does not invalidate that you made an oath and so you would have to (in game terms) repent failing to keep it even if everybody agrees it was the right thing to do. Thankfully this is not a huge issue in the current iteration of D&D.

Oh no question there. Even if it was the lesser of two evils, it was still lesser, and most non-Oathbreaker Paladins will seek atonement for failing to live up to their ideals, even if that was impossible. I compare it to Roy. Sure, he's not always Lawful Good, but he strives to live that way, rather than giving up on it the first time he failed to live up to those ideals. In contrast with Eugene, who gave up his Oath the second he found something else to do with his life.

JoeJ

2016-02-16, 05:00 AM

Lines

2016-02-16, 05:01 AM

To pose a bit of an extreme situation, what if the only way to save them was for you and everyone involved to permanently sacrifice who they were, becoming an entirely different person with, for the sake of the example, strong leanings toward Evil. Is it still evil to fight against that instead of saving them?

No, because the context has changed. If a statement has no context, then it's at it's simplest form. Watch: Killing people is bad. That statement is true, but if we add more to it, for instance in this instance we're wondering whether killing an elven barbarian who is murdering, raping and pillaging his way through a helpless village, it changes to no, killing is not bad in this instance. Doesn't mean our original statement was incorrect, it just means if you add more weighting to the other side it changes. Now let's apply it to the original:

Letting thousands of innocent people die is evil.

Letting thousands of innocent people die so you don't have to break a promise you made in which you said you'd tell the truth is evil.

Letting thousands of innocent people die rather than have their souls twisted into creatures of evil with no trace of their former selves left is good.

MeeposFire

2016-02-16, 05:04 AM

MeeposFire

2016-02-16, 05:12 AM

Very possibly. It's unclear where the oaths actually come from, though. I think it's entirely possible to believe that the tenets of the oath are infallible and still have the humility to accept that you might have misunderstood them on any given occasion.

They come from Mearls and or Crawford more than likely. Yes in game we would say they come from somewhere else but since we are outside the game discussing them we actually know where they come from and it is NOT infallible. To me either we can accept the fact that they were written by fallible people and thus things can arise from that and then deal with it in some fashion or I can use the oaths listed as being the general gist of what they say and the ACTUAL oaths found in the game world (that I assume for the sake of conversation are written by infallible beings to be infallible) are written differently but in such a way that thy are actually infallible even if the ones in the PHB are not. That means that I may have to explain to the paladin player how the actual oath will allow or not allow certain actions that kep it from being fallible.

Lines

2016-02-16, 05:13 AM

georgie_leech

2016-02-16, 05:26 AM

Honestly I think this will make us argue more about which is more evil rather than actually answering the questions already posed. Even if your new action was more evil all it does is change the example given rather than answering any of the proposed questions. Lines has already shown that he thinks some actions are more important than others (in this case saving lives versus telling the truth) so I odn't think we would be going anywhere new just using a different set of examples.

I thought the point of morality threads was to go increasingly far afield in ever more convoluted hypotheticals. :smallwink:

What I get from Lines' posts is that it's not so much the life itself that's valuable, but the people that have those lives. In my hypothetical, he said that survival via twisting who they were wasn't more moral than death. You could call it a commitment to the human endeavour; actions are good if they lead to people being able to be true to who they are, and have as much time as possible to live their lives. What I'm trying to show is that people can have different values without being evil. For instance, one of the common elements for Oath of Devotion supporters is a commitment to higher ideals that exemplify the best qualities in humanity.

I find that arguing over which participants are more evil than each other the least interesting bit of ethics debates, as good insight rarely comes of it. For example, if I had dismissed MaxWilson as being inexplicably beholden to lofty ideals over life, I wouldn't have bothered keeping up with his hypothetical. That led me to realise that when I envision Oath of Vengeance Paladins, I view the destruction of Evil as more important than metting out punishment for Evil. You don't have to change your mind about what is important to yourself to gain greater insight into it. You do need to honestly make an effort to understand opposing viewpoints though and not just dismiss them as evil offhand.

Cybren

2016-02-16, 05:52 AM

The paladin doesn't need to know a third option is possible or viable to try it. They will try it before they will violate their oath

Lines

2016-02-16, 06:02 AM

The paladin doesn't need to know a third option is possible or viable to try it. They will try it before they will violate their oath
Nobody is arguing that they can't try it, and in fact it's not really a factor - the devotion paladin is free to try whatever he wants to avoid the thousands of people dying. This debate has been concerning what he does when nothing else has worked, he's out of time and he knows he needs to lie now or the thousands will die and he has no reason to believe that any third option has any chance of working.

At which point some people in this thread seem honestly to be saying that he should tell the truth and let thousands die, which I'm still trying to wrap my head around. For one, it's an incredibly evil act, for two it violates like three parts of the oath of devotion in order to avoid violating one part.

OldTrees1

2016-02-16, 07:59 AM

At which point some people in this thread seem honestly to be saying that he should tell the truth and let thousands die, which I'm still trying to wrap my head around. For one, it's an incredibly evil act, for two it violates like three parts of the oath of devotion in order to avoid violating one part.

If you want to wrap your head around it (something becoming increasingly doubtful) then you need to stop privileging your own opinions. I am not saying you need to change your positions, merely have the intellectual capacity to conceive of concepts like "letting die =/= immoral killing" or "greater good is not an excuse for an evil action".

Even people that disagree with MaxWilson (myself for example) are able to understand his position well enough to wrap my head around it (otherwise how could I point out the things you would need to be capable of understanding).

When viewed from a Deontological Paladin that holds "letting die =/= immoral killing" (a common reaction to the trolly problem) then there is no conflict in the "Lie or let die" case.

When viewed from a Consequentialist Paladin that holds "letting die = immoral killing" (another common reaction to the trolly problem) then there is no conflict in the "Lie or let die" case since such a paladin expects to have to make minor violations in the course of preforming their duties(greater goods).

If you are still having problems wrapping your head around such foreign concepts like the other common reaction to the trolly problem or a very common ethical saying, then the honest response would be to go look them up rather than what you have been doing. You merely need to be capable of having your conceptualization step outside of your ethical system (well, and the willingness to try).

Lines

2016-02-16, 08:41 AM

If you want to wrap your head around it (something becoming increasingly doubtful) then you need to stop privileging your own opinions. I am not saying you need to change your positions, merely have the intellectual capacity to conceive of concepts like "letting die =/= immoral killing" or "greater good is not an excuse for an evil action".

Even people that disagree with MaxWilson (myself for example) are able to understand his position well enough to wrap my head around it (otherwise how could I point out the things you would need to be capable of understanding).

When viewed from a Deontological Paladin that holds "letting die =/= immoral killing" (a common reaction to the trolly problem) then there is no conflict in the "Lie or let die" case.

When viewed from a Consequentialist Paladin that holds "letting die = immoral killing" (another common reaction to the trolly problem) then there is no conflict in the "Lie or let die" case since such a paladin expects to have to make minor violations in the course of preforming their duties(greater goods).

If you are still having problems wrapping your head around such foreign concepts like the other common reaction to the trolly problem or a very common ethical saying, then the honest response would be to go look them up rather than what you have been doing. You merely need to be capable of having your conceptualization step outside of your ethical system (well, and the willingness to try).

I can conceive of it. I understand the use of such things as a philosophical concept, I'm just confused as to why anyone would apply it to real life - lives have value, any system which justifies letting thousands of them end for the sake of your own honour is one I would think everybody would be aware can't actually be held in real life. I understand why you might think people might hold such views, it's really easy to be cynical about goodness, but most people aren't complete monsters.

I understand the the concept of difference between active and passive, acting and letting happen etc and I'm happy to debate such things, it's just a little weird that people keep pretending that that could mean thousands of people dying is ok - only a child justifies something like that with 'I'm not to blame!'.

mgshamster

2016-02-16, 08:50 AM

Lines

2016-02-16, 08:52 AM

So... Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a child. Very mature of you.

God no. People can disagree with me all they want, preferably with reasoned viewpoints so if their view is the correct one the evidence will prompt me to adopt it.

Anyone who thinks letting thousands of innocent people die because they can justify it by saying they're not to blame is acceptable has a child's mentality. Again with the whole this shouldn't really need to be discussed thing, 'thousands of innocent people dying is very bad' is not really a sentence many people argue with.

CantigThimble

2016-02-16, 08:54 AM

Lines

2016-02-16, 09:12 AM

I was trying to tell you this earlier. You view humans being alive as the gold standard of your morality, that's great, I do too. But there are actual, living, otherwise reasonable people who do not. This is not something I think can or should be debated here and you really ought to find a better way to inform yourself.

The keyword being otherwise reasonable. And people are allowed to have differing values on overall happiness vs duration of life, safety vs economic impact etc etc - I obviously think my own viewpoint on morality is the correct one (everyone does, if they didn't they'd adopt the one that is correct) but of course understand that others have differing viewpoints on the relative value of a given thing. Humans being alive doesn't have to be the gold standard of your morality to recognise that several thousand of them dying is not worth less than breaking your oath.

choryukami

2016-02-16, 09:47 AM

This is my interpretation, take it with a grain of salt.
To a Vengeance Paladin, only the mission matters. While a devotion paladin is concerned about goodness and righteousness and doing the right thing, acting with honor and charity... a vengeance paladin strikes me as the medieval batman kind of paladin (but darker), or punisher. He will literally do anything to defeat evil or exact justice. You decide where his limits are, or if he has none. A Vengeance paladin would use an evil intelligent weapon to destroy evil if he thought he could control it. A vengeance paladin would become a warlock if he knew it would make him win.

The only way a vengeance paladin can fall and become an oathbreaker is if he gets so entrenched in evil and vengeance he starts to think the bad guys actually have it right. He just needs to take over everything and make slaves of the world so nobody can serve the cause of evil. When in actuality, he becomes the monster he is fighting. It is a delicate line.

Baston (see signature) uses Hazirawn (evil intelligent greatsword) because that was the only way he felt he could stand up to a green dragon. His sworn enemies are the servant of Tiamat foremost. He promised the blade as much blood and death as it wanted, as long as he got to direct the blade towards the opponents he wanted. And for now, it has worked. He worries for the day he cannot control it though.

Mith

2016-02-16, 09:52 AM

I guess another way to understand "people dying is OK" is that while you can try and change the actions of those who are out to kill those people, they are the ones responsible for there actions. The final consequence of those actions (in most D&D worlds I am aware of, the eternal afterlife), is in the hands of those that will kill the innocent people, and the innocent people themselves. Your goal is to strive to guide as many people to Good as possible so that most people will spend their existence in a Good afterlife (when the afterlife is presumed to be eternal, then the mortal life is inconsequential in how long it is), but their choices and final actions are their own. So if you fail to persuade the killers from their path, then they will likely damn themselves to the Nine Hells or the Abyss. The innocent people that will perish will likely end up in at very least a Neutral afterlife, that while not perfect, is better then life in a world of persecution.

That's just one outlook to consider though, among many.

Lines

2016-02-16, 09:54 AM

Cybren

2016-02-16, 10:02 AM

Seems legit, though I'm not sure a vengeance paladin necessarily has to be that dark - they're definitely ends over means, though that's a good thing since a lot of paladins get so tied up in the means that they don't achieve anywhere near the good that they could - but that doesn't necessarily have to come with coming near crossing the line or walking close to the dark side. To me the point of a vengeance paladin is responsibility - the understanding that if he doesn't do it, nobody will.

"For the warrior of light there are no ends, only means. Life carries him from unknown to unknown. Each moment is filled with this thrilling mystery: the warrior does not know where he came from or where he is going."

OldTrees1

2016-02-16, 10:11 AM

I can conceive of it. I understand the use of such things as a philosophical concept, I'm just confused as to why anyone would apply it to real life - lives have value, any system which justifies letting thousands of them end for the sake of your own honour is one I would think everybody would be aware can't actually be held in real life. I understand why you might think people might hold such views, it's really easy to be cynical about goodness, but most people aren't complete monsters.

I understand the the concept of difference between active and passive, acting and letting happen etc and I'm happy to debate such things, it's just a little weird that people keep pretending that that could mean thousands of people dying is ok - only a child justifies something like that with 'I'm not to blame!'.

Ah. Well let's see if I can help bring your understanding of the theoretical into an understanding of the actual/practical.

The 1st thing I want you to do is to consider a deontological approach rather than a consequentialist approach. While a consequentialist looks at the outcomes a deontologist looks at the choice.

Practical reason time: The deontologist method has the advantage of not needing to know the future or to calculate infinitely complex evaluations of the outcomes. The consequentialist method has the advantage of relying on human fallibility to estimate outcomes rather than the human fallibility to create guidelines/rules.

Ok, so now you should be able to hypothetically conceive of the application of the deontologist method in real life. Now onto the rules. Is killing wrong prima facie? Let's say yes. Now let's say there is a 1let die:1kill trolley problem in real life. Killing is immoral in this case so it is not a valid option. If the only other option is to let someone die, then obviously letting someone die must be morally permissible in at least this case.

Now I expect you are going back to your "only a child justifies something like that with 'I'm not to blame!'.". This is where I want to reveal that Consequentialists and Deontologists have different concepts on the relationship of moral and immoral. Remember Deontologists are looking at the choice in the question "what ought one do?". That question implies at least 1 valid answer. Deontologists define good and evil in these valid/invalid answer terms. This is in contrast to Consequentialists that see good-evil as a measurement (even if not quantifiable) of an outcome.

Another way to look at it is the question of "Is it more important to do good or abstain from evil?". Consequentialists answer the former since they seen good as capable of offsetting evil (due to looking at the many parts of consequence). Deontologists answer Error since they are looking at the single part of the available choices (which can only be in one state or the other, or various other subcategories not worth getting into here).

Practical explanation time:
Today you have the option to kill to reduce the energy consumption of those alive now, so that even more would not die in the future. Deontologists can answer that question easily. Consequentialists also have an answer but tends to take a bit more evasive/epicycles nature.

CantigThimble

2016-02-16, 10:16 AM

The keyword being otherwise reasonable. And people are allowed to have differing values on overall happiness vs duration of life, safety vs economic impact etc etc - I obviously think my own viewpoint on morality is the correct one (everyone does, if they didn't they'd adopt the one that is correct) but of course understand that others have differing viewpoints on the relative value of a given thing. Humans being alive doesn't have to be the gold standard of your morality to recognize that several thousand of them dying is not worth less than breaking your oath.

My using 'otherwise reasonable' there was me trying to explain that these aren't deranged hermits or dictators I'm talking about. There are normal everyday people who think it is better to allow other people to kill than to compromise their moral standards themselves. You have repeatedly made the assertion that no person who takes their morality seriously would value anything over a thousand human lives. I am telling you outright that your assertion is false. There are people who take their morality seriously and have thought about this who would allow a thousand people to die in certain circumstances. I'm not here to explain or justify their reasons to you though, just letting you know that those people do exist and they aren't just lunatics.

Marcelinari

2016-02-16, 11:41 AM

I think part of the disconnect here - not a large part, certainly, but one worth examining - is our imperfect use of terminology.

MaxWilson has used the term 'soul' before to mean the core of one's being, rather than the ephemeral afterlife thing which is so important to angels and demons. Lines has used 'lives' as his standard unit of value, but has declared that the creation of lives is not equivalent to the continuation of lives. Both of these definitions are useful, and to declare them inaccurate would be a gross misrepresentation of their positions. But I think we might benefit from combining the two concepts, and perhaps we could stop comparing apples to oranges, as it were.

I believe 'personhood' it what both sides value here. From MaxWilson's perspective, any action which contravenes the Oath will inevitably change the Paladin's fundamental identity, and that this internal integrity is to be valued more highly than any physical continuance of the body (or anybody), due to the view that death is a natural consequence of life, and thus not to be considered unduly taxing. If the personhood's integrity is changed, then it cannot be functionally said to be the same identity, and the previous identity has effectively ended. Thus, a Paladin who lies will in practice be destroying his own identity. From this perspective, any personhoods which end 'prematurely', but still maintain their integrity, should not be considered an insurmountable loss, as the stain on integrity will only be applied to the person who ends the identities of others, rather than the Paladin or on the victims. Ultimately, those people were going to die anyway, right? And the alternative was to knowingly compromise the integrity of the Paladin's own identity. Thus from MaxWilson's point of view, the exchange is a one-for-nothing deal - the Paladin gives up his integrity for nothing in return.

From Lines' perspective, what is important about lives is that the identity of an individual is allowed to persist, without regard for the integrity of that personhood. For Lines, the personhood does not continue past the death of the body, and so the preservation of those bodies becomes paramount. Because the value of those personhoods is unknown and unquantifiable, it is impossible to prioritize any one identity over another, including the Paladin's own. Therefore the Paladin is expected to try their hardest to maximize the possibility of those personhoods being 'good' (having integrity) by maximizing the number of identities preserved, even at the expense of the Paladin's own. Thus from Lines' point of view, the exchange is a one-for-many deal - the Paladin gives up his integrity for the personhoods of many others.

Wrapped up in all this is the concept that change to a person's identity either ends the previous identity or modifies it into something new but with a continuous history of existence. I can't claim to understand the positions of these two on this issue, but I know I fall on the side of Lines.

I've tried to be generous in my interpretation of the two perspectives. If you notice any glaring misconceptions or errors, I would love to hear about them (kindly).

MaxWilson

2016-02-16, 11:53 AM

You are aware that while Honesty is one of the tenets of the Oath of Devotion, so is Compassion, which involves protecting the innocent? What several of us are discussing is not whether a Paladin should break their oath when convenient, but what to do when the elements of the oath are at cross purposes. It's hard to argue that 'I'm sure everything will be okay' is doing much to uphold Compassion. What you are saying is that Honesty is more important than Compassion, and others are saying that Compassion is more important than Honesty. No one disagrees that Paladin's should remain true to their oaths.

Well, I guess Oathbreaker Paladins would, but I don't think we're talking about them.

Well, Honesty is listed first among the tenets, so such a viewpoint might not be unjustified.

=======================================

At which point some people in this thread seem honestly to be saying that he should tell the truth and let thousands die, which I'm still trying to wrap my head around. For one, it's an incredibly evil act, for two it violates like three parts of the oath of devotion in order to avoid violating one part.

This comes dangerously close to accusing other GITPers of holding evil views in real life. You should consider D&D-izing your statement: "at my table, it's an incredibly Evil act."

=======================================

I believe 'personhood' it what both sides value here. From MaxWilson's perspective, any action which contravenes the Oath will inevitably change the Paladin's fundamental identity, and that this internal integrity is to be valued more highly than any physical continuance of the body (or anybody), due to the view that death is a natural consequence of life, and thus not to be considered unduly taxing. If the personhood's integrity is changed, then it cannot be functionally said to be the same identity, and the previous identity has effectively ended. Thus, a Paladin who lies will in practice be destroying his own identity. From this perspective, any personhoods which end 'prematurely', but still maintain their integrity, should not be considered an insurmountable loss, as the stain on integrity will only be applied to the person who ends the identities of others, rather than the Paladin or on the victims. Ultimately, those people were going to die anyway, right? And the alternative was to knowingly compromise the integrity of the Paladin's own identity. Thus from MaxWilson's point of view, the exchange is a one-for-nothing deal - the Paladin gives up his integrity for nothing in return.

*snip*

I've tried to be generous in my interpretation of the two perspectives. If you notice any glaring misconceptions or errors, I would love to hear about them (kindly).

While I could quibble with "personhood" as the base unit of measure here--since the endgame is not just remaining who you are but becoming something greater and more divine--I think you have the gist of the dilemma from my perspective here: it's no dilemma at all, since one-for-nothing is an obviously bad deal.

Once you've decided what lines you're not going to cross, you can invest your energy into something more important, like determining how best to do good within your stewardship.

I understand that not everybody shares my opinion, which by the way does not make them evil, either in game or in real life. I believe very strongly in letting other people have freedom to chart their own course, so the fact that others feel differently does not disturb me. Either one of us will eventually be proven wrong, and will have to change their minds; or neither of us will ever be proven wrong, and both positions are ultimately valid*. Hard to say which when it comes to abstract dilemmas.

* This is especially true for dilemmas over impossible hypotheticals that will never come to pass. If, for example, you live in a universe where God or the DM is planning on resurrecting all the people who are killed by evildoers and also correcting all lies ever told, as soon as his scheduled timetable indicates: in that universe, perhaps neither course of action will ultimately cause any consequential harm to anyone, so which one you choose may just be a matter of taste, as long as your motives are pure. The only thing I am definitely claiming for sure in this thread is that I have a very definite taste which is not going to change; and this taste makes Paladins of Devotion a lot more relatable to me than Paladins of Vengeance.

OldTrees1

2016-02-16, 12:09 PM

I think part of the disconnect here - not a large part, certainly, but one worth examining - is our imperfect use of terminology.

MaxWilson has used the term 'soul' before to mean the core of one's being, rather than the ephemeral afterlife thing which is so important to angels and demons. Lines has used 'lives' as his standard unit of value, but has declared that the creation of lives is not equivalent to the continuation of lives. Both of these definitions are useful, and to declare them inaccurate would be a gross misrepresentation of their positions. But I think we might benefit from combining the two concepts, and perhaps we could stop comparing apples to oranges, as it were.

I believe 'personhood' it what both sides value here. From MaxWilson's perspective, any action which contravenes the Oath will inevitably change the Paladin's fundamental identity, and that this internal integrity is to be valued more highly than any physical continuance of the body (or anybody), due to the view that death is a natural consequence of life, and thus not to be considered unduly taxing. If the personhood's integrity is changed, then it cannot be functionally said to be the same identity, and the previous identity has effectively ended.

From Lines' perspective, what is important about lives is that the identity of an individual is allowed to persist, without regard for the integrity of that personhood.

I've tried to be generous in my interpretation of the two perspectives. If you notice any glaring misconceptions or errors, I would love to hear about them (kindly).

*snipped to highlight*
I think in your effort to use a single term you oversimplified. I assume you used "personhood" as shorthand for the ethical concept of "moral personhood" aka "beings which deserves moral consideration". While Lines almost certainly is talking about the valuing of moral personhood and MaxWilson certainly does value moral personhood, I think it does not do MaxWilson justice to talk about it in terms of that term. MaxWilson is focused more with moral character (which Lines also values). Both are important concepts and I suspect a fair description of the two perspectives would address both of these and the other relevant factors (moral choices, immoral vs moral, moral agent, ...).

That is why I have been oversimplifying MaxWilson's position as Deontological. While not a perfect shorthand, it does stress the greater emphasis that MaxWilson puts on the moral character of the moral agent and how that affects what they consider moral/immoral. (To perfectly describe the position we would have to go in depth into vitue ethics which I am neither qualified for nor trust the internet to handle)

@MaxWilson
I just recognized how casually I have been using your personal views as an example. Please let me know if/when I should stop.

Lines

2016-02-16, 12:19 PM

This comes dangerously close to accusing other GITPers of holding evil views in real life. You should consider D&D-izing your statement: "at my table, it's an incredibly Evil act."

Oh horror, I certainly wouldn't want to insinuate that valuing your own honour over the lives of thousands of innocent people is an evil view!

No, wait. It is.

MaxWilson

2016-02-16, 12:19 PM

*snipped to highlight*
I think in your effort to use a single term you oversimplified. I assume you used "personhood" as shorthand for the ethical concept of "moral personhood" aka "beings which deserves moral consideration". While Lines almost certainly is talking about the valuing of moral personhood and MaxWilson certainly does value moral personhood, I think it does not do MaxWilson justice to talk about it in terms of that term. MaxWilson is focused more with moral character (which Lines also values). Both are important concepts and I suspect a fair description of the two perspectives would address both of these and the other relevant factors (moral choices, immoral vs moral, moral agent, ...).

That is why I have been oversimplifying MaxWilson's position as Deontological. While not a perfect shorthand, it does stress the greater emphasis that MaxWilson puts on the moral character of the moral agent and how that affects what they consider moral/immoral. (To perfectly describe the position we would have to go in depth into vitue ethics which I am neither qualified for nor trust the internet to handle)

@MaxWilson
I just recognized how casually I have been using your personal views as an example. Please let me know if/when I should stop.

I think the views you have ascribed to me here are accurate.

BTW, you can call me "Max" if you prefer.

Malifice

2016-02-16, 12:28 PM

Oh horror, I certainly wouldn't want to insinuate that valuing your own honour over the lives of thousands of innocent people is an evil view!

No, wait. It is.

In your games it is. Would be in mine too.

But thats our opinion.

Lines

2016-02-16, 12:32 PM

In your games it is. Would be in mine too.

But thats our opinion.

Yes, but 'killing thousands of people is bad' is up there with 'child molestation is bad' and 'don't join the ISIS' in terms of how controversial the view should be. I know this forum is stupidly PC at times (I've seen at least two people get directly banned for sarcasm) but I'm pretty sure that even here advocating that killing thousands of people is bad won't offend anyone.

CantigThimble

2016-02-16, 12:35 PM

Oh horror, I certainly wouldn't want to insinuate that valuing your own honour over the lives of thousands of innocent people is an evil view!

No, wait. It is.

It isn't about 'Honor' it's more complicated than you are making it out to be. But anyway, I've tried to make my point enough times. It clearly isn't getting across.

Cybren

2016-02-16, 12:38 PM

Yes, but 'killing thousands of people is bad' is up there with 'child molestation is bad' and 'don't join the ISIS' in terms of how controversial the view should be. I know this forum is stupidly PC at times (I've seen at least two people get directly banned for sarcasm) but I'm pretty sure that even here advocating that killing thousands of people is bad won't offend anyone.

Except
1) "allowing people to die" in a vague hypothetical which you directly stated you kept vague so as to prevent people from contradicting it isn't "killing people". That should be fairly
2) people aren't arguing about what is moral. people are arguing what is a paladin's expected action given their oath

Lines

2016-02-16, 12:47 PM

It isn't about 'Honor' it's more complicated than you are making it out to be. But anyway, I've tried to make my point enough times. It clearly isn't getting across.

It's about not wanting to break the vow of honesty that they made, instead breaking the vow of righteousness and compassion by letting thousands die. Pretty much the same thing.

Except
1) "allowing people to die" in a vague hypothetical which you directly stated you kept vague so as to prevent people from contradicting it isn't "killing people". That should be fairly
2) people aren't arguing about what is moral. people are arguing what is a paladin's expected action given their oath

1) allowing people to die when you can ensure they live by paying a (compared to the death of thousands) minimal cost is killing people.
2) isn't a paladin's code pretty directly linked to morality?

Cybren

2016-02-16, 12:51 PM

It's about not wanting to break the vow of honesty that they made, instead breaking the vow of righteousness and compassion by letting thousands die. Pretty much the same thing.

Except we don't know the specifics of the situation so we can't say if compassion is being violated, and devotion paladins do not have a tenet of righteousness. You could say that Honors "do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm" would lead them to be compelled to act, but the entire point of the discussion revolves around whether that particular paladin believes they hold any moral or ethical responsibility in a situation (a situation, again, we don't know the details of, because you yourself admit giving details would create a scenario more complex involving more nuanced solutions).

Lines

2016-02-16, 01:13 PM

Except we don't know the specifics of the situation so we can't say if compassion is being violated, and devotion paladins do not have a tenet of righteousness. You could say that Honors "do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm" would lead them to be compelled to act, but the entire point of the discussion revolves around whether that particular paladin believes they hold any moral or ethical responsibility in a situation (a situation, again, we don't know the details of, because you yourself admit giving details would create a scenario more complex involving more nuanced solutions).

All paladins have a tenet of righteousness. 'Becoming a paladin involves taking vows that commit the paladin to the cause of righteousness...'. And yes, we don't know the details because the details get in the way of a very simple question of would a devotion paladin tell a direct lie to save thousands of lives.

Arial Black

2016-02-16, 01:16 PM

Is there anyone in this whole thread except Lines who has been in any doubt at all as to my position on whether I or a Paladin of Devotion played by me would tell a lie to save a life or a thousand lives? Seeing as how I opened the thread with that position in the OP and have reiterated it ten or more times over the course of the last hundred and fifty posts... [shake my head]

I don't doubt your position. I find your position morally repugnant.

You can always construct an artificial situation which brings tenets into conflict with each other.

YES!!! That's the point! In these thought exercises (which are currently focussing on the Devotion Oath but also apply to the others) we are not asking whether you would 'break your oath' or 'NOT break your oath'; we are asking 'if you cannot avoid breaking your oath (and we have set the question specifically so you cannot avoid it because to do nothing would break part of your oath), which way do you break it?

You have said that you cannot lie. This cannot be a literal claim (you are not a programmed robot; if you are report to your service station instantly!) so it must be an assertion of your own moral priorities; fair enough.

But the problem with this is that you claim that your oath is the most important thing, and you would not break your oath to save a (mere) life, while blithely breaking the rest of your oath as if the other parts aren't even part of your oath!

Why do paladins exist? What is their very purpose? Is the purpose of a paladin to 'not lie'? No, because you didn't need to create something that just doesn't tell lies; a rock or a chair or...a person, can literally 'not lie'. No, the reason for paladins to exist is to uphold good and punish evil. They are killers for their god (or philosophy, or whatever), given holy powers to KILL, not holy powers to 'make people Good'.

So, given the moral choice of breaking the 'not lie' part of their oath and the 'protect innocents from harm' part of their oath, you must break your oath either way you choose, but at least choosing to protect the innocents has the virtue of being what paladins are for. Any paladin who values their own ego above the lives of innocents is literally not fit for purpose.

Also, there is a difference between 'not lying' and 'being honest'. Real people understand this very well, and this is why the two most reviled professions are 'politician' and 'lawyer'.

What have these two professions got in common? They both have an imperative to 'avoid being caught in a lie'. Why? If a politician is caught in a lie they probably have to resign and lose their career, and if a lawyer gets caught in a lie then they probably lose their ability to function as a lawyer.

So why does the general public view politicians and lawyers of being the most dishonest professions? Because 'not lying' is different than 'being honest'. Both professions have developed techniques to deceive effectively and gleefully, without actually 'telling a lie'. That's why we hate them.

Asmodeus would fully support your valuing of 'not lying' above 'saving innocents'. I'm sure he has a path marked out for you. :)

In a world where an afterlife is a provable thing, why is there a 'life' at all? If living people have opportunities to sin, then surely killing them before they have a chance to stain their souls is the objectively Good thing to do? The best solution to this morally risky world is surely to drink the poison, and make sure our wives and children drink it too, to protect their innocent souls from the possibility of committing a sin?

It's not just real world cults that espouse this philosophy (short lived though each such cult must be); Judge Death had this very philosophy and it caused him to end all human life on his plane of existence and then to travel to Judge Dredd's plane to start it all over again. Astonishingly, Dredd was not swayed by this obviously 'Good' philosophy, but Dredd's paladin credentials are spotty to say the least.

Looking at your oath in a tricky situation and saying 'ERROR!' and fainting to the ground in a fit of disbelief is not the way forward for a paladin, even if it may be for some philosophies.

The way forward has been addressed by a previous poster; the different parts of your oath are prioritised. Like Asimov's laws, the various clauses must be ranked in order to avoid the 'error' message.

But what is the correct order when it comes to 'not lying' and 'saving innocents'? In theory, you could set them in either order, but crucially your choice here is very revealing. If you believe that 'not lying' has priority, then you are not fit to be a paladin (or a Good paladin, at least)! Because 'not lying' is not the purpose of a paladin, while 'saving innocents' is.

It is also the height of moral cowardice to take refuge in the defence of 'it was not my fault; I didn't do the actual killing', when you know you could have sacrificed a bit of your own self-image to save them. Paladins must make hard choices, not avoid making hard choices by simply doing nothing and blaming Evil.

georgie_leech

2016-02-16, 01:44 PM

I think there is some doubt as to Max's position there actually, as there is a crucial distinction between 'not lying' and 'choosing not to lie. Unless I misunderstood their position, Max views the point of a Paladin as to be an exemplar of the virtues within their Oath. In other words, the key virtue is Honor, not Honesty, and he views that as meaning he should never take active steps to break any of the other tenets. The Paladin demonstrates Courage when he seeks to try and stop the villain, demonstrates Compassion when he does his best to save the victims without compromising his other ideals, and when the final situation matches the hypothetical, demonstrates Honesty by refusing to lie. Presumably if the villain follows through with his threat of killing thousands, he would then demonstrate Duty by attempting to aid the families affected by such senseless slaughter.

I find it funny how often I'm trying to get people to not dismiss this perspective as morally repugnant and be done with it, given that it's not one I subscribe to personally.

Cybren

2016-02-16, 01:55 PM

YES!!! That's the point! In these thought exercises (which are currently focussing on the Devotion Oath but also apply to the others) we are not asking whether you would 'break your oath' or 'NOT break your oath'; we are asking 'if you cannot avoid breaking your oath (and we have set the question specifically so you cannot avoid it because to do nothing would break part of your oath), which way do you break it?

This isn't a thought exercise. It's a meaningless question "would you do this in a situation i've contrived where I think you have to do this, except i won't tell you the situation?" is the "thought exercise" that is being explored.

Temperjoke

2016-02-16, 01:56 PM

I haven't read the entire thread. But if it were me, I'd probably lie, go through a course of self-hatred for betraying my beliefs despite the justifiable circumstances, then seek a full course of penance from the exasperated senior members of my order (or deity if I swore to a god) who are tired of given me a penance every time I show Compassion by lying to the stylist that I like my hair when she's done.

Lines

2016-02-16, 01:57 PM

I find it funny how often I'm trying to get people to not dismiss this perspective as morally repugnant and be done with it, given that it's not one I subscribe to personally.

You're trying to get people to not dismiss letting thousands of people die as morally repugnant, you're gonna have about the same success rate as convincing people that being a literal Nazi is ok.

OldTrees1

2016-02-16, 02:00 PM

I don't doubt your position. I find your position morally repugnant.

-snip-

Also, there is a difference between 'not lying' and 'being honest'. Real people understand this very well, and this is why the two most reviled professions are 'politician' and 'lawyer'.

A decent if not perfect start.

Looking at your oath in a tricky situation and saying 'ERROR!' and fainting to the ground in a fit of disbelief is not the way forward for a paladin, even if it may be for some philosophies.

The way forward has been addressed by a previous poster; the different parts of your oath are prioritised. Like Asimov's laws, the various clauses must be ranked in order to avoid the 'error' message.

But what is the correct order when it comes to 'not lying' and 'saving innocents'? In theory, you could set them in either order, but crucially your choice here is very revealing. If you believe that 'not lying' has priority, then you are not fit to be a paladin (or a Good paladin, at least)! Because 'not lying' is not the purpose of a paladin, while 'saving innocents' is.

1) "fainting to the ground in a fit of disbelief" is not a common response even in the case of saying "Error". Both Oaths and Moral Agents are fallible. When someone using Deontological ethics encounters a situation that appears to them to have no valid option, they conclude either they do not see the valid option or that their code is incomplete/incorrect. Rather than fainting to the ground this would spur them into action and reflection as the improve their performance as a moral agent.

2) Good mention of ranking. That is merely one of the various things overlooked/glossed over so far in examining of an oath.

3) However you don't have enough support for the conclusion you reach. The purpose of a paladin, as with all moral agents, is to do what one ought. Differing beliefs about what one ought can create drastically different behavior even in followers of deontological ethics. For example, despite seeing "let die" as a morally permissible action, I see no reason "lie" would be morally impermissible in this case.

It is also the height of moral cowardice to take refuge in the defence of 'it was not my fault; I didn't do the actual killing', when you know you could have sacrificed a bit of your own self-image to save them. Paladins must make hard choices, not avoid making hard choices by simply doing nothing and blaming Evil.

I suggest you look into Deontological ethics, specifically using the Trolly problem as a case study. Recognizing the difference between killing and letting die is important for ethical discussion even if you do not consider the difference to be morally significant (because some people do with good reason consider it morally significant).

That said, I do agree that in this case the right thing would have been to prevent the deaths.

That said, different ethical systems have different instructions on how to treat the hard choices. Consequentialist ethics claims choices are hard when the outcomes are of similar value. Deontological ethics claims choices are hard when the right choice(s) that exist are hard to see. As such cutting through a hard choice to select the perfect answer is the expected behavior of the Deontological Paladin rather than choosing invalid choices.

pwykersotz

2016-02-16, 02:01 PM

You're trying to get people to not dismiss letting thousands of people die as morally repugnant, you're gonna have about the same success rate as convincing people that being a literal Nazi is ok.

No one is asking you to alter your beliefs, just set them aside for the purpose of trying to understand and think out the mindset of someone who holds different values. Putting yourself in the mindset of another person isn't a betrayal of what you believe, it's a tool for understanding.

Lines

2016-02-16, 02:02 PM

This isn't a thought exercise. It's a meaningless question "would you do this in a situation i've contrived where I think you have to do this, except i won't tell you the situation?" is the "thought exercise" that is being explored.

It is not a meaningless question - there are many instances in which the choice between a direct lie and the deaths of the innocent could come up, not just in the game but in real life as demonstrated by the whole 'hiding a jew in your house in Nazi Germany thing'. What we've been doing is avoiding picking a specific situation because people will inevitably pick at the details and try to find a third solutions, while the entire point of this is it's 1) lie or 2) thousands of innocents die, 3) there is no third solution. You don't need additional details, because there are no possible additional details that can be relevant to 'these are the only two choices: does the devotion paladin tell a lie or does he let thousands of innocent people die?'.

No one is asking you to alter your beliefs, just set them aside for the purpose of trying to understand and think out the mindset of someone who holds different values. Putting yourself in the mindset of another person isn't a betrayal of what you believe, it's a tool for understanding.

Never said it was. Understanding the point of view of someone who thinks letting thousands of people die is ok doesn't mean I can't dismiss such a viewpoint as morally repugnant - same thing applies with all the other examples I gave, no amount of understanding regarding a child molester's motives will make me think of them as anything less than abhorrent.

Cybren

2016-02-16, 02:04 PM

If you want to have a valid thought exercise, you need to establish the parameters of the thought exercise. There is no situation where "lie or thousands will die" is going to occur, because in the real world we do not have giant labeled buttons on events or their outcomes.

"Picking at the details" is paramount to determining ethics in a situation. Ethics are about details. You repeatedly admit as much- because you do not want to construct a specific situation. You agree that your point doesn't exist in real scenarios, because you admit if a real scenario were given people would suggest alternate options.

I'm not even arguing that a devotion paladin may not lie, just that if the devotion paladin does so willfully they will suffer the consequences of breaking their oath. A devotion paladin that goes "yeah if i had to i would lie" does not value Honesty, and thus does not value their oath. The devotion paladin that says "I cannot lie" but when confronted with a situation where, from their limited vantage point, decides is his only option is to lie and does so may suffer the consequences of breaking their oath. The key words in the "breaking your oath" sidebar are willfully violating the oath, and "shows no sign of repentance". Intentionally violating your oath with the plan of doing some self flagellation later would certainly indicate you don't truly wish to repent, you just want loopholes for your oath.

Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be
your promise.
Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and
punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your
foes, but temper it with wisdom .
Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your
honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as
much good as possible while causing the least
amount of harm.
Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their
consequences, protect those entrusted to your care,
and obey those who have just authority over you.

These are the tenets of the devotion paladins oath. There may be a situation where "protect thousands of lives" involves one of them, but until a specific scenario is created, "Lie or thousands die" isn't pitting two tenets of the oaths against each other. It's pitting one tenet against a vague threat.