PDA

View Full Version : A Hypothetical Paladin Dilemma



JNAProductions
2017-03-27, 11:11 PM
There are two great menaces. The first is insidious-a man who, despite being perfectly mortal, rots people from the inside. He preys on the weak, driving people to horrendous deeds with nothing more than simple guile. Think Gentleman Johnny Marcone, for Dresden Files fans. He will, if not stopped, eventually rule over much of the land, even if legitimately, certainly not benevolently.

The other is some sort of monster-an elder evil, of sorts, that will rampage and destroy village after village, city after city, with countless innocent lives lost.

In order to stop one, you have to help the other. Stopping the man will let the monster roam free. Stopping the monster will let the man take credit for it, making it ever easier for him to gain power.

You are a Paladin-a Lawful Good person of honor. What do you do? And why?

The man does not hurt people-he drives them and lures them to poor, immoral decisions, but he does not directly harm people. Those people, were they stronger, would not fall prey to him. Whereas the monster will kill many innocents. That being said! After stopping the monster, it will be my sworn duty to stop the man and save those he has tempted to sin.

This would be acceptable to me, as a DM, and would not result in a fall.

The monster does not tempt people, it simply kills them. They will rest easy in their afterlife, whereas those the man tempts stain their souls, and will suffer eternally because of it. That being said! After stopping the man, or at least putting him at bay for now, I will stop the monster, so innocent lives are not lost unnecessarily.

This would be acceptable to me, as a DM, and would not result in a fall.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-03-27, 11:35 PM
Monster is a more pressing threat. Man can be dealt with after the immediate massacring is over.

Crisis21
2017-03-27, 11:51 PM
Agreeing with above post. What we have here is what I personally call a 'Short Term' vs 'Long Term' dillemma.

The monster is the short term problem, and the man is the long term problem.

By working to solve the short term problem first (help the man, fight the monster), you leave the way open for bad consequences in the long term. The threat today is stopped, but tomorrow seems rather bleak.

By prioritizing the long term problem (leave the monster, fight the man), you permit devastation to be wreaked right now, meaning there will be a lot of people who won't live to see the long term in the first place.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that problems need to be dealt with appropriately. The monster is a short term problem, an immediate threat, and so short term solutions are needed (i.e. slaying it). The man on the other hand is a long term problem, a disease that infects and rots and spreads, and needs to be approached in a similar manner. In other words, for the man you're in for the long haul. Killing him may not be enough, you're likely going to need to discredit him, reveal what he's doing, and figure out how to heal those he's infected lest someone simply picks up where he left off.


If you ignore the festering creeping problems to focus on the crisis of today, then those problems you ignore may well become the crises of tomorrow.

If you ignore the crisis of today to focus on solving tomorrow's problems, there may not be a tomorrow to save.

LokiRagnarok
2017-03-28, 02:08 AM
From a meta point: Cooperating with the corruptor likely provides more interesting roleplaying opportunities.

ShaneMRoth
2017-03-29, 01:31 PM
Like most hypothetical paladin dilemmas, the notion of even the possibility of Take A Third Option is always pre-emptively dismissed.

Without some serious railroading on the part of the GM, this dilemma is prone to collapse.

Is it possible to offer a paladin an interesting role-playing opportunity that doesn't provoke a fall from grace?

GPS
2017-03-29, 02:47 PM
Paladin's aren't paid to think or renowned for their high int, so these moral connundrums are a little weird, but ok. Obviously stop monster, the monster is destroying cities. Though that's just me. You can uncorrupt more people than can be resurrected, especially since it's a 1 dude to 10,000 people ratio. Just uncorrupt the morally compromised victims later. Corruption takes time, and uncorruption is something paladin's are made for.

Geddy2112
2017-03-29, 03:15 PM
You pit them against each other, and hope they destroy each other in the process.

If you have to choose, the choice is obvious. The man is mortal, the elder evil is not. The elder evil threatens both the paladin and the man; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. War makes very strange bedfellows; good guys and bad guys alike may squabble over things, but when world ending cosmic forces come rolling into town they know if they don't stop them they will both be good as dead. Help the man, kill the monster, deal with each other later.

No choice should result in falling unless it was to join one side in their evil acts.

Honest Tiefling
2017-03-29, 03:24 PM
Monster is a more pressing threat. Man can be dealt with after the immediate massacring is over.

Yeah, because the mortal man is probably going to still be rather susceptible to getting killed after multiple applications of sword. If the paladin does not hide the fact that such a truce was temporary, I do not think that they should fall just because this mortal man is an idiot. If he didn't want paladins murdering him after the fact, don't ally with them moron!

The mortal man CAN possibly be redeemed...Or more likely, those he has corrupted. I think aiding him only just enough to defeat the evil and not participate in any evil acts during said truce or alliance is a reasonable course of action. Particularly since it might bring the paladin close to those he has swayed with his guile, perhaps undoing his network of lies and corruption from within via contacts during the battle with the elder evil is not a bad idea. It might need to wait until after the battle, but well, that's valid.

Frozen_Feet
2017-03-29, 04:24 PM
This dilemma doesn't really have anything special pertaining to paladins. A paladin is obliged to try to stop/redeem/destroy both, but the order doesn't matter. So they can try to tackle the monster first, or the man first, regardless of it requiring short term co-operation of the other.

If this co-operation directly makes the Paladin unwilling or unable to do anything about whichever's left, then the paladin will fall, but usually this is just a side-effect of the paladin getting screwed over in other ways. (F.ex. he co-operates with the man and is corrupted by his ideals. Or he co-operates with the monster and gets eaten.) In such lose-lose scenarios, the choice has to be informed by something else than personal fate of the paladin. (F.ex. even if paladin becomes the man's villainous underling, the man and the corrupted paladin might still be easier for others to stop than the monster. Or maybe even if the paladin gets eaten, there are more heroes capable of defeating it who would otherwise side with the man.)

FocusWolf413
2017-03-29, 06:52 PM
This is exactly why Lawful Evil is better. Cooperate with number 1 to defeat number 2 while actively working on number 1's downfall.

JNAProductions
2017-03-29, 09:31 PM
No choice should result in falling unless it was to join one side in their evil acts.

I agree entirely with that statement. And, I'm glad to see, so does most of the forum.

The general idea seems to be it's better to go after the monster, which, given the sparse details, makes a lot of sense.

Thanks all!

Lord Raziere
2017-03-29, 09:49 PM
This is exactly why Lawful Evil is better. Cooperate with number 1 to defeat number 2 while actively working on number 1's downfall.

Nah, thats Chaotic Good. you have no obligation to allow jerks to have their way, and you can be just as deceptive as lawful evil.

veti
2017-03-29, 10:43 PM
I'd prioritise disposing of the man. A threat to people's souls is far more insidious and destructive than a mere threat to their lives. By prioritising them oppositely, you would increase the amount of evil in the world.

But both decisions are defensible, and hence neither is fall-worthy.

GPS
2017-03-29, 11:25 PM
I'd prioritise disposing of the man. A threat to people's souls is far more insidious and destructive than a mere threat to their lives. By prioritising them oppositely, you would increase the amount of evil in the world.

But both decisions are defensible, and hence neither is fall-worthy.

You can uncorrupt the dudes afterwards though. It's a lot harder to unkill 10,000 dudes than to uncorruption 1 dude. I can see your line of reasoning in normal scenario, but in this scenario the monster gets away with it if you help the dude.

Zelphas
2017-03-29, 11:52 PM
Unless the man is irredeemable, prioritize the monster. Unless this "corruption" is a literal magical effect, what you have is a mortal man who has chosen, due to reasons of his own, to use his extraordinary gift of reading and motivating people for selfish, evil ends. Therefore, collaborating with him serves a twofold purpose. You eliminate the monster, which is a direct threat to the safety of those you as a Paladin are sworn to protect; and you spend a long time in close proximity with a man capable of great good, whose soul is in need of redemption.

Like Rehtorb and Crisis21 mentioned above, the man is a long-term problem, and as such needs to be handled carefully. If you simply Detect Evil and stab when it pings, then you have all but sentenced the man to an eternity of torture and/or the destruction of his humanity, to rise as a new demon or devil (if I'm remembering DND afterlife rules right). You may not be able to redeem him at all; you definitely won't redeem him in one day. It is a Paladin's duty to give him every chance, to show him the path as best you can and encourage him with all you do and say to turn from his own dark path.

Even if the man is irredeemable, the monster is the more pressing threat; it is killing people, and who knows if they have been saved or not? A corrupted individual can be brought back to the light, though it may be a very difficult and thankless process; a dead person has already gone to his or her reward (provided you don't have a decently high-level cleric on hand for every single person.)

Bohandas
2017-04-02, 02:09 AM
Paladin's aren't paid to think or renowned for their high int

Except for Murlynd

Bohandas
2017-04-02, 02:23 AM
Even if the man is irredeemable, the monster is the more pressing threat; it is killing people, and who knows if they have been saved or not? A corrupted individual can be brought back to the light, though it may be a very difficult and thankless process; a dead person has already gone to his or her reward (provided you don't have a decently high-level cleric on hand for every single person.)

Actually, you could use a lv 5 spell for either purpose.

Kelb_Panthera
2017-04-02, 05:20 AM
I don't see a dilemma here.

A) If you know the man is an evil corruptor of men, smite his head from his shoulders and go deal with monster.

B) If you don't know, you certainly can't be punished for working with him.

It only becomes an issue if you suspect but aren't certain. In that case, cooperate with him. If he gives you proof of your suspicion, see A. If he doesn't, you've got nothing but suspicion and you're just politicing.

The only other concern is whether he's personally powerful enough that attempting to kill him will jeopardize your ability to deal with the monster or if he has some unique power or macguffin necessary for killing the monster (bad DM'ing). In this case, you gotta pick "kill the monster." Those who've been corrupted can be redeemed. The dead usually stay that way and removing corruption from power is much more of a long-term goal, anyway.

From a DM's perspective; the paladin doesn't fall unless he actviely takes part in some sort of corruption or evil. Just working with the guy is a non-issue.

hymer
2017-04-02, 05:51 AM
Taking a third option or modifying one of the existing choices really seems to be more appropriate. But let's suppose there's enough railroading going on that the poor player must choose A or B and can't even try to be clever about it.

Who can smite the monster? And who can stand up to the tempter? I'll assume that only the paladin is capable of dealing with the monster, while anyone can take up the psychological, social struggle against someone who fights with words. So the paladin should start with the thing only he can try to deal with, and then go deal with the other thing afterwards. Sounds like it could be a very short encounter if the paladin ever gets near enough, anyway.
But if he does it the other way around, it could be defended. He can only be one place at a time.

Edit: Now here's a really tough dilemma. Should I clean the dust first or hoover first? If I clean the dust first, I can hoover what falls on the floor and carpet. But when I hoover, lots of dust gets thrown up in the air, and my newly cleaned window sills and lamp shades get dusty again. But if I hoover first, then everything that gets pushed off any surface winds up on the newly hoovered floor! :smallfrown:

TheTeaMustFlow
2017-04-03, 06:09 AM
Paladin's aren't paid to think
Paladins are paid at all?

Seriously though, assuming they're paid for anything, yes they are paid to think. Their job is not merely to defeat evil, but to uphold and promote righteousness. This requires the knowledge and consideration to know what righteousness is, what evil is, and how to tell them apart. It requires the ability to judge the most moral course of action in difficult circumstances. A 'paladin' who cannot or will not think about the consequences of his actions is not a paladin, he's just another thug with a sword who happens to work for the side of good.

Thaneus
2017-04-03, 07:33 AM
Isn't the solution very simple?
A Paladin is just but a Man/Woman so what he needs is not the alliance of some despotian soul-grinding ruler or a CE abomination but more paladins and smite both with an holy army of light and steel.

edit:
if no other paladins in sight -> Soul preservation and redemption > mass murder; so he wold use the monster

Delta
2017-04-03, 07:41 AM
Monster is a more pressing threat. Man can be dealt with after the immediate massacring is over.

I wouldn't say it's quite that simple. If a Paladin is bound by a code forbidding him from allying with evil, he must not do that. Even if it is to fight a bigger evil, the end does not necessarily justify the means here. Such a paladin would technically be forced to either remove the evil mortal and hope the guy following him is less evil or he has to face the monster without help and if need be die trying.

Segev
2017-04-03, 09:42 AM
I have oft wanted to play the "corruptor paladin." Why is it always evil temping the good? An evil man can be lured to good through enlightened self-interest. Why not befriend him, become one whom he respects and eventually likes. Even evil people have those for whom they would "go to bat" out of personal loyalty and friendship. Become one of those.

You need not ever do evil, yourself. Just be a good friend to him in the thousand neutral and good ways that all beings need. And show him how you can help him achieve his goals without the evil shortcuts...and with better long-term results. Let this mastermind have the credit. Help him claim it, while making it clear through action and deed that he isn't duping you; you're doing him a favor, as a friend. Done right, he'll respect you for it.

Show him how the non evil option helps. Before you're done, he should be ruling in a manner nigh indistinguishable from a Good ruler.

Heck, base some of this on his own tactics: he corrupts people to make them malleable. Use that to cause him to reject corruption and vice, and tyrannical tendencies that could be used against him. Cause him to have more respect for those who share your (and his) choices in those personal ways, so he surrounds himself with better people. Help him earn their respect and loyalty and encourage aspirations to be worthy of it out of mutual respect.

Done right, he won't see them as holding him back; they will trust him when he makes hard choices...but he will also less and less make the hard, cruel choices because the pain it causes his trusted friends will encourage him to find better ways where possible.

hymer
2017-04-03, 12:11 PM
I have oft wanted to play the "corruptor paladin."

There's an Oath for exactly that in last week's UA (http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAThreeSubclasses.pdf).

Amphetryon
2017-04-03, 06:09 PM
Those who've been corrupted can be redeemed. The dead usually stay that way and removing corruption from power is much more of a long-term goal, anyway.

I'm confused. In which version of D&D is death more than a status condition for those above the very lowest levels possessing a modicum of forethought or, at a minimum, some funds and reliable friends/hirelings?

icefractal
2017-04-03, 08:48 PM
I'm confused. In which version of D&D is death more than a status condition for those above the very lowest levels possessing a modicum of forethought or, at a minimum, some funds and reliable friends/hirelings?A version where raising the dead is expensive beyond the means of most people. A version where the resources for raising thousands of people that way aren't easily acquired, and even finding enough high-level clerics to do so is far from a given. A version where, even if you did all that, people might choose not to come back. So 3.x, for instance. :P

I think it's cheaper in 4e, but not THAT cheaper. No idea about 5e.

hymer
2017-04-04, 04:14 AM
A version where raising the dead is expensive beyond the means of most people. A version where the resources for raising thousands of people that way aren't easily acquired, and even finding enough high-level clerics to do so is far from a given. A version where, even if you did all that, people might choose not to come back. So 3.x, for instance. :P

I think it's cheaper in 4e, but not THAT cheaper. No idea about 5e.

5e doesn't have Wealth by Level, or clear guidelines on how many clerics of what level you should expect. So the game itself doesn't give an answer on that (other than the ubiquitous 'Ask your DM'). Individual campaigns would have to do that.

TheTeaMustFlow
2017-04-04, 05:19 AM
I'm confused. In which version of D&D is death more than a status condition for those above the very lowest levels possessing a modicum of forethought or, at a minimum, some funds and reliable friends/hirelings?

Given the mass casualties we're dealing with? That would be 5e, 4e, 3.5, 3.0, and probably all the other ones. Even assuming that there are available and willing casters, Raise Dead has an extremely high price tag, which means using it to raise people en masse is simply not feasible.

For example, in 3.5 Raise Dead has a material component of 5000gp worth of diamonds, while the daily wage of a common labourer is 1sp (or 0.1gp). Assuming that there is a cleric who is willing to cast the spell for free* (and is not busy spending all his spell slots on other more important dead people**), and that the diamonds can be acquired at the normal price (and that the huge demand for Raise Dead has not exhausted available stocks or raised the price***), a single casting is the equivalent of 50000 days of work from the labourer, or just under 137 years of constant work days without a single day off.

In other words, a single raise dead is worth more - far more - than the combined product of the average man's life. He is not going to be able to afford a raise dead, he is never going to be able to afford a raise dead. The same will apply even to the vast majority of the skilled craftsmen, merchants, soldiery, and probably the lowest rungs of nobility (i.e. 99%, if not 99.9%, of the population), for whom raise dead will be ruinous at best. Going by WBL, a PC will break 5000 at 4th and an NPC at 6th - and that's not the level at which raise dead is actually a reasonable cost, that's the level at which they may be able to get one if they reduce themselves to virtual penury. This situation will be even more severe in a situation such as that described by the OP, where there are a lot of casualties and both the attention of high-level clerics and material component stocks are at a premium.

So no, death has not, and has never been cheap in D&D. In fact, it's extremely expensive. It's just that high level PCs are very, very rich.

*Which he probably won't be.
**Which he almost certainly will be.
***Which it absolutely will have.

darkrose50
2017-04-04, 09:53 AM
[1] If a member of an order, if possible, then the Paladin should ask a superior for advice. These types will likely disagree with each other.

[2] If a member of a religion, if possible, then the Paladin should ask a priest high in the religion for advice. These types will also likely disagree with each other.

[3] If a holy book is available, if guidance is in the book, then looking for guidance in the book would be a good step. More than one book? Even better! Saint X disagrees with Saint Y on what type of evil is the most evil.

[4] If a spell to hint at what choice would be most favored by the deity or the religion, then that spell should be cast for advice. Are these spells sometimes answered by different servitors? I bet they also disagree with each other. Better yet have one Paladin fight X and another Paladin fight Y. This would be a good way to later recover some holy magical stuff off of the dead body of the failed Paladin NPC.

[5] Praying on the problem seems like a go-to option for religious minded folks. The correct answer will be different from person to person. Things will be interpenetrated differently. The results of meditation will have different effects on the decisions made that will very from person to person. Perhaps the god shows you an ink blot that means one thing to you and would mean another thing to someone else.

[6] I would hope that the being who is granting the Paladin her powers would trust her judgement. But some deities are jerks or otherwise not useful in the logic department.

Mostly the information would likely be contradictory and would cause great debate.

-----

A Paladins job is to fight and defeat evil. Getting in trouble for fighting evil seems like a paradox.

A Paladins job could also be to fight evil that is at the power level of the Paladin, when given a choice. Getting in trouble for fighting evil at the appropriate power level seems like a paradox.

An animal control officer hunting mice in town when a lion is on the loose would get into trouble. If she was hunting an equally dangerous bear in town, while the lion was wandering around town, then she would not get into trouble.

As mentioned above some deities are jerks, and some higher ups in the religion or order could also be jerks. Basically anyone could be a jerk. Everyone should be debating the correct action to take, and hardly ever 100% agree on anything. I mean we have Christians, who follow Christ, disagree with each-other over whether or not Christ would want us helping poor people in certain ways.

ArcanaGuy
2017-04-04, 02:29 PM
Interesting question.

My CORRECT answer to this question is "Mu," which is a philosophical term meaning "to unask the question." It is used when a certain assumption is made which is inaccurate.

In this case, the assumption is with regards to what the Paladin's job is. He is meant to protect the world from Great Supernatural Evils. And from your basic description, the mortal man is not a Great Supernatural Evil. He is a mundane evil, who is insufficiently evil to show up on "Detect Evil." Stopping the monster is the Paladin's job. Stopping the man is the Paladin's hobby.

However, the more important incorrect assumption is also that the only way to stop either of them is through the sword.

Because you brought up Gentleman Johnny Marcone, I'd point out that I don't see him as evil. More Lawful Neutral or pure neutral. However, this also allows me to bring up something else from the same universe as an example: Our good friend Michael Carpenter. And to phrase it in such a way that only people who have read the scene would understand: I didn't fully understand the three Knights until Michael was given the keys to his friend's 747 and demonstrated impossibly powerful moral character against one of the greatest evils (in both senses and sides of your original question) in the Dresden universe. Old Nicodemus. An ancient supernatural evil of immense power who has killed countless innocents... and also an ordinary man of incredible guile who makes it his purpose to guile people into falling. It also helped me understand Paladins better.

Now, with regards to your scenario, here is the correct answer:

The Paladin needs to stop the monster and the man. His method for doing this will be to team up with the man and guide the man to a better and more effective use of his guile and charisma, by demonstrating the effectiveness of the right and proper. They will, together, work on arranging the circumstances for facing up against the elder supernatural evil, with the Paladin at his proper place of being front and center in the creature's path of destruction.

At which point the Paladin will offer the Ancient Evil another chance to redeem itself and surrender. In full sincerity that there is always a chance for anything, no matter how evil, to be saved. To change.

Unfortunately, the Ancient Evil will probably refuse, at which point the Paladin must protect the innocents in its path by doing battle - which is Plan B after trying to redeem the creature.

During this entire process of working together, the Paladin will *talk* to the man he is working with. Philosophy, a clash of guile, a sincerity of purpose. It does not have to be a choice between the ends and the means, both the ends and the means can be a success. Because once again, the redemption and change of evil is the preferred goal to the death of evil.

And most importantly: The Paladin will never once worry about falling by 'working with' either of them. Intent is vital here. The Paladin would never just 'work with' evil to defeat other evil. He allows the evil to work with him. He is always, and I mean always, on the lookout for how his actions can benefit those around him, good or evil. A Paladin is not just some lawful good fighter/cleric multiclass. Nor a lawful stupid sword-happy champion out to kill stuff. The Powers That Be, those beyond the gods themselves, do not choose such people to be Paladins. A Paladin is a man of impossible moral character, who never fails to try to remove evil in the best possible way: by turning them into allies. And by trusting beyond reason in order to get results beyond belief.

khadgar567
2017-04-05, 10:22 AM
its more like kemmler(elder evil) vs marcone(corrupter guy) and you are the infamous harry dressden in this stiation so answer is kinda simple you chooses the lesser of two evils and handle the kemmy first then when you get that sweet exp bonus you nuke the marcones ass like harry always kinda does

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-04-05, 10:43 AM
I'd just like to say that "hypothetical paladin dilemmas" are one of the biggest problems with the way many gamers approach the alignment system.

Not the system itself that's at fault, but the way people try to come up with deliberately difficult moral choices and then try to impose absolute decisions. These are some of the most complex and difficult questions in philosophy. It's not appropriate to have to seriously deal with them in a game that's meant to be fun.

What is appropriate, is that we create a difficult moral choice, and then let the paladin player role-play the moral struggle - and then reward them for good role playing.

Of course, if your paladin player starts going out of their way to kill puppies, then *ping* they fall.

JNAProductions
2017-04-05, 12:41 PM
I'd just like to say that "hypothetical paladin dilemmas" are one of the biggest problems with the way many gamers approach the alignment system.

Not the system itself that's at fault, but the way people try to come up with deliberately difficult moral choices and then try to impose absolute decisions. These are some of the most complex and difficult questions in philosophy. It's not appropriate to have to seriously deal with them in a game that's meant to be fun.

What is appropriate, is that we create a difficult moral choice, and then let the paladin player role-play the moral struggle - and then reward them for good role playing.

Of course, if your paladin player starts going out of their way to kill puppies, then *ping* they fall.

I agree 100%. So long as the player roleplays it well and has good reasons for their actions, their paladin would never be at risk of falling.

halfeye
2017-04-05, 01:25 PM
the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is false.

Reading on in the thread now.

<edit>

Hm, nothing to add.

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-04-05, 02:04 PM
I agree 100%. So long as the player roleplays it well and has good reasons for their actions, their paladin would never be at risk of falling.
Phew! I'm so glad you said that.
It seems to me that you might even want to raise this sort of thing up front - I know I did with a player of a Jedi in a SW game: "Do you want to actually go Dark Side, or just play with being tempted?" He was up for treading the line for a while, being tempted, then heroically rejecting it - and it played out awesomely and was fun for everyone.

JNAProductions
2017-04-05, 09:17 PM
This is hypothetical, as said in the title. But yeah, I'm not a fan of people being forced to fall unless they're REALLY BAD about it.

So no, your paladin cannot slaughter 10,000 people, round up all the orphans, and then burn them all alive while retaining their powers. But you can do morally iffy things, so long as you have REASONS for it.

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-04-06, 05:28 AM
...
So no, your paladin cannot slaughter 10,000 people, round up all the orphans, and then burn them all alive while retaining their powers. But you can do morally iffy things, so long as you have REASONS for it.
.. but too many "reasons", especially if they're getting flimsy, can amount to a fall - but with discussion between the player and the GM. "Is it you intention to be moving towards falling for your paladin character? Because you've been explaining away quite a stream of dark and nasty acts. Or do you have something else in mind?"

The other thing that I've found tricky about alignment is when players have no clue about morality. For example, I was genuinely asked by a player if it was actually Evil to spring on a village during a holy day, lock the church-goers into their place of worship, and then burn the church down with everyone inside - in order to try to flush out a bad guy who he thought was hiding among the villagers (the bad guy had family in the village, you see).
"Is that really evil, or is just being ruthless and practical?"
:smalleek:

JNAProductions
2017-04-06, 08:20 AM
Yeah, discussion is key. If it's too far for the DM, the DM can let the player know "That's too far-no matter the reason, that's fall worthy" and the player can then make a CHOICE to fall, rather than having it be a surprise.

Delta
2017-04-06, 09:02 AM
But you can do morally iffy things, so long as you have REASONS for it.

I don't think I can really agree on that. There's always a reason to do whatever you do, and people have always been really good at coming up with reasons to justify doing even the most horrible things. A religious principle should in general be non-negotiable. If your code forbids you from allying with evil, allying with the lesser of two evils to fight the bigger one shouldn't be in the books for a paladin in my opinion, whatever the reason.

JNAProductions
2017-04-06, 09:07 AM
I don't think I can really agree on that. There's always a reason to do whatever you do, and people have always been really good at coming up with reasons to justify doing even the most horrible things. A religious principle should in general be non-negotiable. If your code forbids you from allying with evil, allying with the lesser of two evils to fight the bigger one shouldn't be in the books for a paladin in my opinion, whatever the reason.

Then I would not want to play a Paladin at your table. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's something to bring up if a player is considering Paladin, so they can make an informed decision.

Delta
2017-04-06, 09:40 AM
Then I would not want to play a Paladin at your table. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's something to bring up if a player is considering Paladin, so they can make an informed decision.

That's fine. To your other point: I would always warn a player in advance if I noticed his character was in danger of violating such a principle. But yeah, if a player wants to play a character living by religious principles, then you live (and die, if need be) by those principles. Of course what those principles are can vary massively depending on your deity and other factors, I could imagine a paladin for whom allying with an evil man to fight a supernatural evil would be totally acceptable, but if "fight all evil" is your ruling principle, then that's not an option. But in my opinion, it's important that a religious principle is more than "Yeah, well you live by it if possible, but if there's a reason to break it, that's okay too". That's a way too modern and secular point of view for me, personally.

Segev
2017-04-06, 10:11 AM
The trouble I have with "fight all evil means you can't ever ally with a lesser evil against a greater one" is that it leads to paradoxes that shouldn't be problematic at all, but become such with this code.

Let's say our Johnny Marcone-alike has arranged it such that, if The Big Evil thing is thwarted, he WILL become more powerful and WILL get what he wants. It doesn't matter HOW the thing is stopped. Stopping it helps Johnny.

Is the paladin now unable to stop the Thing without falling for "allying" with Johnny?

What if Johnny insists on fighting the Thing with all his resources, and the paladin has the option to either fight along side him or sabotage him or stay out of it, but can't fight the Thing to his fullest without allying with Johnny simply because Johnny's forces will be fighting along side him if he doesn't prevent it? Remember: preventing it is actively helping the Thing.

This is a silly situation to get into, brought about by an overly pedantic reading of "fight all evil."

It doesn't require condoning or supporting Johnny's evil to accept his help in stopping the Thing, even if Johnny comes out ahead because of it. Especially if that help is coming whether the paladin wants it or not.

Delta
2017-04-06, 10:25 AM
The trouble I have with "fight all evil means you can't ever ally with a lesser evil against a greater one" is that it leads to paradoxes that shouldn't be problematic at all, but become such with this code.

Let's say our Johnny Marcone-alike has arranged it such that, if The Big Evil thing is thwarted, he WILL become more powerful and WILL get what he wants. It doesn't matter HOW the thing is stopped. Stopping it helps Johnny.

Is the paladin now unable to stop the Thing without falling for "allying" with Johnny?

What if Johnny insists on fighting the Thing with all his resources, and the paladin has the option to either fight along side him or sabotage him or stay out of it, but can't fight the Thing to his fullest without allying with Johnny simply because Johnny's forces will be fighting along side him if he doesn't prevent it? Remember: preventing it is actively helping the Thing.

This is a silly situation to get into, brought about by an overly pedantic reading of "fight all evil."

It doesn't require condoning or supporting Johnny's evil to accept his help in stopping the Thing, even if Johnny comes out ahead because of it. Especially if that help is coming whether the paladin wants it or not.

I don't see the paradox here, to be honest, and I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions from what I said. In that situation, the paladin would face the Big Evil thing because he has no choice about it if he wants to follow his principle, if it is the clear and present evil danger he has to fight it. Not fighting Johnny right now, even allowing him to profit from your actions, if unintentionally, is not the same as allying with him. Now I would consider this a moral dilemma and would expect the paladin to chew on that, but in my book, there's a big difference between saying "Yes, you may profit from me slaying the dragon, but I'll be back to make sure you don't profit for long simply because I cannot fight you both at the same time" and saying "Well, the dragon's more dangerous, so I'll help you fight against it" in the second example, the paladin makes a conscious choice to help evil, in the first one, it's simply unavoidable.

Segev
2017-04-06, 10:32 AM
<Johnny Marcone> Micheal, I'm going to send my best men to help you slay the dragon.
<Micheal> I won't work with you or your men, you scoundrel.
<Johnny Marcone> You don't have a choice. They're going to travel at your pace, and they'll coordinate their attacks with yours. Even if you don't tell them a thing. Also, one of them is a misguided youth who isn't actually evil and idolizes you, but thinks the world of me for the opportunities I'm giving him. Just so you don't go and try to kill all my men out of spite, I won't tell you which one.


Micheal can try to slip away from these guys, but he's not exactly stealthy. And if he succeeds, both he and they have a lower chance of beating the dragon. And, if Johnny's telling the truth, at least one of the men he's sending is somebody Micheal COULD ally with.


Heck, if Johnny sent just that idealistic youth to go help Micheal, would Micheal be able to ally with that youth, when that would also be tacitly allying with Johnny? Or does Micheal have to dash the youth's image of Micheal as a swell guy by being a jerk who refuses to work with him to avoid "allying with evil?"


Or, if the youth is just a distraction, we can look at Johnny's men, scoundrels all. Micheal can refuse to work with them, but he's lessening his chances - and theirs - of beating the dragon. Especially since his efforts to avoid allowing them to work with him would make things worse than if he were genuinely facing it alone.




Now, perhaps you don't view that as "allying with evil." But there's no functional difference. Unless you think the paladin should fall if his compassion gets the better of him and he chooses to try to formulate a plan WITH the goons so that they don't get themselves killed while helping him with the dragon.

JNAProductions
2017-04-06, 11:02 AM
I think that that specific example of a code is a bit poorly thought it. It's good for incredibly righteous, holier than thou types, but not more practical, good people. Because good people WILL ally with evil people, to try to show them that it's better in the light, and that there's a chance for redemption.

Segev
2017-04-06, 11:06 AM
Personally, I read the "will not associate with evil" clause as not being a proscription against trying to reform people or working with them for mutual, non-evil goals, but as a statement that paladins won't tacitly condone evil behavior by hanging out with those perpetrating it and doing little more than the occasional finger-wag and wink to dissuade them. Roy, if he were a paladin, wouldn't fall for keeping Belkar around, nor even for being friends with him, because Roy is actively corralling and containing Belkar's evil tendencies and protecting the world from them. The few times he's let Belkar "off his leash" have been time where Belkar's sadistic tendencies are not really condoning evil, because the violence is justified and Belkar's sadistic enjoyment of it is not leading to evil being perpetrated against the innocent.

It's a fuzzy area, but it's pretty close to the clearly-acceptable side of the fuzziness, and would be a perfectly fine thing for a paladin to do as long as he was careful not to slip and let more of the camel into the proverbial tent.

The_Jette
2017-04-06, 11:49 AM
So, question: at what point does stopping the monster become something that the man can take credit for? And, if that's the only way in which the Paladin is "helping" the man, what deity would even consider that as a Paladin actually working with the guy? I mean, if the Paladin has to work in a fashion in which no evil person could ever lie and take credit for his actions then he'll fall as soon as his first adventure ends, because any evil person could do that.
Personally, I think it should take some pretty straight forward act on behalf of the Paladin to be in danger of falling. It's more than just "Can I justify my actions in some obscure way." It's "what is the good thing to do here?" In this situation, there is a monster attacking the land which needs to be dealt with. The Paladin who thinks "yeah, people are dying, but there's a guy here who is trying to sway good people to do bad things" is definitely not looking at the big picture. Big picture: it's not a Paladin's job to go around making everyone else conform to his vision of the world.
Personally, I've only had one character fall from grace in my history of gaming, and it was well deserved. He was the Cleric of a god of War, with the war domain, and rather than standing by his comrades against an undead foe he fled into the church and tried to hide from it. He lost his powers at that point, and never got them back.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-04-06, 02:05 PM
Personally, I read the "will not associate with evil" clause as not being a proscription against trying to reform people or working with them for mutual, non-evil goals, but as a statement that paladins won't tacitly condone evil behavior by hanging out with those perpetrating it and doing little more than the occasional finger-wag and wink to dissuade them. Roy, if he were a paladin, wouldn't fall for keeping Belkar around, nor even for being friends with him, because Roy is actively corralling and containing Belkar's evil tendencies and protecting the world from them. The few times he's let Belkar "off his leash" have been time where Belkar's sadistic tendencies are not really condoning evil, because the violence is justified and Belkar's sadistic enjoyment of it is not leading to evil being perpetrated against the innocent.

I think a paladin who kept Belkar around for long enough would absolutely fall. Not immediately, because it's not an evil act, it's just a code violation. And you can get away with minor code violations for a while before you shift over to NG, especially in situations of dire need.

Roy should have executed or captured and turned Belkar over to the authorities long ago.

Segev
2017-04-06, 02:07 PM
Roy should have executed or captured and turned Belkar over to the authorities long ago.

He kind-of did, what with the whole mark of justice thing. And then he became the warden of Belkar's unusual prison.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-04-06, 02:52 PM
He kind-of did, what with the whole mark of justice thing. And then he became the warden of Belkar's unusual prison.

And we all know how that turned out. Which just goes to show the folly of dealing with unrepentant murderers with a wink, a slap on the wrist, and an "okay you're a PC, get back to questing with the party".

Segev
2017-04-06, 03:04 PM
And we all know how that turned out. Which just goes to show the folly of dealing with unrepentant murderers with a wink, a slap on the wrist, and an "okay you're a PC, get back to questing with the party".

Seems to be working out so far...


Admittedly, old Soon was a remarkably good influence on Belkar.

Delta
2017-04-06, 03:13 PM
But there's no functional difference.

There's no "functional" difference, right, but that's not what matters here. This is not about the results, the why and how matters just as much as the what you do when it's a matter of principle. That's the whole point.

To put it like that: If the evil guy kidnaps the paladin, puts an innocent child in front of him and tells him "Either you kill the child or we kill you both" I expect that paladin to go down trying to protect that child even if it means certain death. It makes no functional difference for the child either whether he kills the child himself or lets the evil guy do it, the child will be dead all the same.

Segev
2017-04-06, 03:26 PM
There's no "functional" difference, right, but that's not what matters here. This is not about the results, the why and how matters just as much as the what you do when it's a matter of principle. That's the whole point.

To put it like that: If the evil guy kidnaps the paladin, puts an innocent child in front of him and tells him "Either you kill the child or we kill you both" I expect that paladin to go down trying to protect that child even if it means certain death. It makes no functional difference for the child either whether he kills the child himself or lets the evil guy do it, the child will be dead all the same.

You misunderstand the phrase "functional difference."

There absolutely is a functional difference between the paladin fighting to save both the child and himself, and the paladin killing the child. The paladin is behaving quite differently.

There is no functional difference between the paladin not stopping the bad guy's goons from helping him, and accepting the bad guy's help in the form of goons. Either way, the goons are helping and the paladin isn't stopping it.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-04-06, 03:46 PM
Seems to be working out so far...

Tell that to this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) guy.

I mean, yes, Order of the Stick is a comic about a game, and in the game the typical way of dealing with things is to show token disapproval of gratuitous murder of NPCs and then move on because it's a game and you're playing with real people. But that doesn't mean that's how the morality system should work in the setting itself if you ignore the game aspect.

TheTeaMustFlow
2017-04-06, 04:24 PM
Tell that to this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) guy.

I mean, yes, Order of the Stick is a comic about a game, and in the game the typical way of dealing with things is to show token disapproval of gratuitous murder of NPCs and then move on because it's a game and you're playing with real people. But that doesn't mean that's how the morality system should work in the setting itself if you ignore the game aspect.

Yeah, I definitely think that if Roy was a Paladin (assuming a vaguely 3.5-ish or 5e Devotion-ish code) he'd have fallen for willful negligence and favouritism (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0420.html) if nothing else. Though really the stuff that happened while he was dead probably doesn't count.

iceman10058
2017-04-08, 11:23 AM
Men can be redemed. This chalenge against the elder evil may be the tipping point to bring him back to the light.

Elder gods on the otjer hand do not change and will always be what they are and should be stopped or destroyed if possible.