D&D trolley problems

[Conradine]

Hypotetical situation.

There's a woman who has been convicted for murder on the basis of solid although not 100% certain evidence. People saw and heard the woman arguing bitterly with the victim just an hour before the murder, blood has been found on her dress and her fingerprints on the murder's weapon.

The explanation given by the woman is she bumped into a junkie fleeing the murder scene ( so he got smeared with a bit of blood who she didn't notice ) , picked up the murder weapon because it blocked her car ( and didn't notice the blood because the murder weapon is a red fire estinguisher ) and drove away without noticing the body.

The husband of the convicted woman is personally certain his wife is not a murderer although he has not evidence to prove it. And with all the appeals exausted his wife is deeply depressed and suicidal. So he comes up with an elaborate plan to make his wife escape in a foreign country, with him and their son ( a child ).


( by the way yes, she's innocent )


1- Is it an Evil action to make a person you can't prove innocent evade just because your instinct tells you she's innocent?

2- Would the action be less justified if there was a chance of parole / semi-liberty after several years of prison ( in a lenient system )?

3- Would the action be more justified if the woman was sentenced to death penalty?

4- Would the action be more or less justified if the prison system was hellish ( Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil prisons ) or dignified and sustainable ( Lawful Good prisons ) ?


----


And by the way, did you recognize the film that inspired this question? ;)

[Saintheart]

Hypotetical situation.

There's a woman who has been convicted for murder on the basis of solid although not 100% certain evidence. People saw and heard the woman arguing bitterly with the victim just an hour before the murder, blood has been found on her dress and her fingerprints on the murder's weapon.

The explanation given by the woman is she bumped into a junkie fleeing the murder scene ( so he got smeared with a bit of blood who she didn't notice ) , picked up the murder weapon because it blocked her car ( and didn't notice the blood because the murder weapon is a red fire estinguisher ) and drove away without noticing the body.

The husband of the convicted woman is personally certain his wife is not a murderer although he has not evidence to prove it. And with all the appeals exausted his wife is deeply depressed and suicidal. So he comes up with an elaborate plan to make his wife escape in a foreign country, with him and their son ( a child ).

If the husband was a Paladin, could he make that plan without falling? Is it an Evil action to make a person you can't prove innocent evade just because your instinct tells you she's innocent?


( by the way yes, she's innocent )

It might be a Chaotic action, but it's not Evil. A Lawful character might feel compelled to turn her in to the authorities or let justice take its course, but it's not an evil act to act on your convictions in defence of others.

And no: unless your DM is a terrible person generally, just because the paladin loves his wife doesn't mean he's therefore selfish to want her to stay alive and therfore becomes Neutral Evil. Love is at worst a neutral motivation for our behaviours. Rarely if ever is it going to be deemed as evil of itself.

EDIT: Additions...


1- Is it an Evil action to make a person you can't prove innocent evade just because your instinct tells you she's innocent?

2- Would the action be less justified if there was a chance of parole / semi-liberty after several years of prison ( in a lenient system )?

3- Would the action be more justified if the woman was sentenced to death penalty?

4- Would the action be more or less justified if the prison system was hellish ( Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil prisons ) or dignified and sustainable ( Lawful Good prisons ) ?

1 - No, as said.
2 - This assumes it's an Evil act. It isn't. Unjust imprisonment is something Good strives against, a gilded cage is still a cage.
3 - Arguably yes, but what makes it good is the conviction she's innocent, and a paladin doesn't fall if he acts in a Chaotic manner once in a while.
4 - If the prison system is Evil, then trying to keep someone out of it would be a Chaotic Good but still Good act. Keeping someone out of a Lawful Good prison is Chaotic and non Evil, which for a paladin is all that matters.


Indeed helping her may well be required on the 3.5 DM-Screwjob Paladin Code. The paladin code =/= Lawful Good alignment as such. A paladin falls in one of three circumstances: he ceases to be Lawful Good, he commits a gross violation of the paladin's code, or he commits an Evil act. None of those apply here.

A paladin is required to help those in need and punish those who threaten or harm innocents. She's innocent or he has a deep conviction that she is innocent, so he arguably has to help her escape. He's required to respect legitimate authority, but in this case the authority is not legitimate because the only reason the system has authority over her is because she is believed to have committed a crime. If she hasn't committed a crime, then the system has no authority to hold her, and it is therefore not a legitimate authority in this instance. But when it comes to paladins generally, it's usually better to just buy a damn Phylactery of Faithfulness, or as I call it, "The RAW Solution To Ensuring You Stay On The DM's Railroad."

[Altair_the_Vexed]

...

If the husband was a Paladin, could he make that plan without falling? Is it an Evil action to make a person you can't prove innocent evade just because your instinct tells you she's innocent?


( by the way yes, she's innocent )

I wouldn't say it's Evil, but it's not really very Lawful.

That's not lawful in the sense of following the law of the land, which most editions of D&D alignment don't include as the be-all and end-all of Lawfulness - no, I mean that the Paladin isn't following the honourable path of proving the accused's innocence to the world.

It's also fairly strange that this situation would come up at all in a D&D world.
(I'm assuming by your use of the terms "Paladin" and "fall" that we're dealing with a D&D game, or Pathfinder, or maybe some retro-clone - in any case, something where other people in the setting have access to spells).
A normal D&D setting should allow the truth to be determined magically. Zone of Truth is a 2nd level spell, available to Clerics of relatively low level.
Is there a reason why that can't be done in this case?

EDIT: struck out my queries about what game it is, as I didn't notice we were in the d20 sub-forum!

[MisterKaws]

First of all, it is Chaotic, but neither Good nor Evil.

Second, as per the DMG, any settlement large enough to have law enforcement has at least enough Clerics available to cast a couple Zones of Truth daily.

[Mr Adventurer]

Probably Speak with Dead, too.

[Cygnia]

Providing the authorities in question aren't corrupt/self-righteous enough to refuse to cast such spells (or prevent the casting of such magic from others).

[MisterKaws]

Providing the authorities in question aren't corrupt/self-righteous enough to refuse to cast such spells (or prevent the casting of such magic from others).

And in such case the authorities are being Lawful Evil, while the husband is being Chaotic Good. Denying investigation to arrest an innocent is indeed an Evil act.

[Karl Aegis]

...Which setting has cars and fire extinguishers? How did they not find the junkie before the trial was over? Bardic Knowledge from a mid-level Bard would have prevented this situation from happening. This doesn't make any kind of sense in D&D.

[Conradine]

Basically is The Next Three Days from a d&d perspective.

[MisterKaws]

...Which setting has cars and fire extinguishers? How did they not find the junkie before the trial was over? Bardic Knowledge from a mid-level Bard would have prevented this situation from happening. This doesn't make any kind of sense in D&D.

Didn't notice that. Is this d20 modern? You should say d20 modern in the title, not D&D. The default system for these boards is 3.X.

[Doctor Awkward]

1- Is it an Evil action to make a person you can't prove innocent evade just because your instinct tells you she's innocent?
No.
It is a chaotic action.

This is not a moral question but an ethical one. If she has been duly convicted by a court of law, and you help her evade justice then you are breaking the law.


2- Would the action be less justified if there was a chance of parole / semi-liberty after several years of prison ( in a lenient system )?

3- Would the action be more justified if the woman was sentenced to death penalty?

4- Would the action be more or less justified if the prison system was hellish ( Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil prisons ) or dignified and sustainable ( Lawful Good prisons ) ?

Second verse. Same as the first.

None of these are moral questions. They are ethical ones.

[Venger]

This isn't what a trolley problem is. A trolley problem is a moral arithmetic problem explaining what utilitarianism is. The traditional example is switching rails on a trolley so it runs over 1 person or >1 person.

in any instance:

alignment in dnd is dumb. it actually doesn't care about your reasoning or rationale behind actions, it is entirely dependent on ends and objective reality, regardless of your character's knowledge



1- Is it an Evil action to make a person you can't prove innocent evade just because your instinct tells you she's innocent?
If she is factually innocent (as she is in your example) then helping her flee unjust punishment is a Good action


2- Would the action be less justified if there was a chance of parole / semi-liberty after several years of prison ( in a lenient system )?
See above



3- Would the action be more justified if the woman was sentenced to death penalty?
This also doesn't change anything. Helping someone avoid punishment, regardless of its severity, is Good if they are innocent.


4- Would the action be more or less justified if the prison system was hellish ( Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil prisons ) or dignified and sustainable ( Lawful Good prisons ) ?
This also does not change anything.


If the husband was a Paladin, could he make that plan without falling? Is it an Evil action to make a person you can't prove innocent evade just because your instinct tells you she's innocent?

of course he could. no, because she is innocent.


And by the way, did you recognize the film that inspired this question? ;)
the fugitive, I'm assuming.

Setting these things aside, are you playing in a no magic setting? Even assuming you're using a primitive legal system where all suspects are guilty until proven innocent, and the woman's innocence must be proved, not just her guilt cast under the shadow of a doubt, it's trivial for law enforcement to check what she's saying is true with even first or second level spells.

Is there a reason they're not doing this? Throw up a quick zone of truth, for example, and see that she is being truthful about not killing the victim and that a junkie did do it and run off. Assuming the legal system in the game is interested in apprehending the actual murderer and isn't solely focused on getting convictions, this is information they'll want to have and be interested in pursuing, so why are they not acting this way?

Is the chief of police interested in framing this woman for personal reasons or similar as part of the plot? if so, that's ok, but if the characters are going to act stupidly, there ought to be a reason

[AvatarVecna]

If a Miko falls in a forest and noone notices, was she still justified in killing that old dude with the cat?

[Elkad]

I'm in with the apparent majority. (I didn't actually count votes)

It's definitely Chaotic. It's not Evil, not even a little bit.

[SangoProduction]

I mean, chaotic/lawful doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with laws.
If he believes innocence, and that he'd do this with other innocents, it could well be a lawful behavior (D&D alignment wise). If he'd normally would be on the fence, but it was someone close to him, and so he compromises his code to assist her, then it's a neutral action. If, in every other circumstance, his code would dictate that she face judgement based on the evidence present, then this is a chaotic action.

[Saintheart]

Basically is The Next Three Days from a d&d perspective.

Not a good movie to rip off with a paladin protagonist. And I say that as one who is proudly guilty of ripping off plotlines from movies for campaigns. Virtually any other class would work better for this.

There's two versions of the film, the French original and the American one. The French original makes it clear right from the start that the woman is innocent and it's all about the husband's devotion to his wife.

The American one, as usual, can't let things lie. The director specifically says the question he wanted to ask in the movie was: Would you save the woman you loved if you knew that by doing so you'd become someone she'd no longer love?

Leaving aside my view that this is the sort of question only a narcissist seriously asks himself, this is a really bad dramatic question to ask in D&D 3.5. The question is arguably interesting, no doubt. It has multiple possible answers and shadings depending on whether you hold someone's intentions or their actions paramount, how dearly you hold your beliefs about your own identity, and to what extent you think of other people as mere extensions of yourself. As said, it's a bit of a narcissistic question, but at least you can have debates on everything between reason and emotion and maybe even see it as a cautionary tale to not get too wrapped up in your own self-descriptors. It's an interesting question mainly because it has no single, authoritative, deciding answer.

On RAW in D&D the question has only one answer: "No, if you value your class abilities." Paladin status is a hard on/off switch over which the player has zero actual control, because the DM ultimately is the only guy who can say whether or not you are becoming something other than a paladin, i.e. whether you are falling out of Lawful Good, grossly violating the paladin code, or committing an Evil act. If you have no control over these adjudications, if there is nothing you can gain for something ventured in this space, then there really is no interest in the question. Either you're not falling, which means you're not changing as a character and all the breast-beating over your actions is meaningless, or you fall, in which case there's no nuance or subtlety to the change, you're now unequivocally an ex-paladin and you'll be deciding to play another class rather shortly. Unless the NPC wife has been built up as an interesting character, someone for whom you -- the player -- would allow your character to turn into a slightly more interesting fighter, there is nothing to be played for here.

The player's lack of control over his paladin status commonly manifests at gaming tables as an alignment debate.

[Doctor Awkward]

I mean, chaotic/lawful doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with laws.

It has everything to do with laws.

Lawful characters follow the rules. Chaotic characters follow their conscience.

This is clearly and explicitly spelled out in black and white plain text in the Player's Handbook chapter that discusses alignments.

I will never understand this obsession over the alignment system that leads people to try and bend and twist the rules text into something that they find more palatable. The Dungeons and Dragons ruleset operates on a specific set of standards. It spells out which actions are good, which ones are evil, which are lawful, and which are chaotic.

If you happen to disagree with the standards laid out in the game that is not an indictment on you. Nor is it an indictment on the game. At no point did the designers ever say, "In this book you will find the answers to questions that have stymied philosophers since the dawn of human thought." They set out to create a set of rules by which one could play a game. You are not required to agree with or understand the rules in order to play the game. You merely have to agree, as a group, to abide by them.

And if you dislike the standards that are set within the rules, you don't have to play by them either. You can change them to your liking, or (as is apparently rather common), toss alignments altogether. But at that point you are house-ruling and that is beyond the purview of advice on how to interpret the text of the rules.

[SangoProduction]

It has everything to do with laws.

Lawful characters follow the rules. Chaotic characters follow their conscience.

This is clearly and explicitly spelled out in black and white plain text in the Player's Handbook chapter that discusses alignments.

I will never understand this obsession over the alignment system that leads people to try and bend and twist the rules text into something that they find more palatable. The Dungeons and Dragons ruleset operates on a specific set of standards. It spells out which actions are good, which ones are evil, which are lawful, and which are chaotic.

If you happen to disagree with the standards laid out in the game that is not an indictment on you. Nor is it an indictment on the game. At no point did the designers ever say, "In this book you will find the answers to questions that have stymied philosophers since the dawn of human thought." They set out to create a set of rules by which one could play a game. You are not required to agree with or understand the rules in order to play the game. You merely have to agree, as a group, to abide by them.

And if you dislike the standards that are set within the rules, you don't have to play by them either. You can change them to your liking, or (as is apparently rather common), toss alignments altogether. But at that point you are house-ruling and that is beyond the purview of advice on how to interpret the text of the rules.

OK. You can preach all you want, but I have read what the alignment is from the SRD, and multiple other sources. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Only one attribute referenced there that fits your definition of "follow the rules" is "obedience to authority." You are very clearly taking a small part of the alignment and saying that entirely defines the alignment.

Even for Chaos, resentment toward legitimate authority could be a consequence of chaotic tendencies, not a measure for chaos.

I mean imagine the stereotypical rebel Chaotic Good. The authorities tell him not to kill, and he doesn't kill. Is he suddenly lawful for his obedience to authority?

[Buufreak]

I'm not really getting why so many are saying the courts are acting chaotically. They did due process of law, they are arresting, trying, and following procedure. If they cut her down in the streets, as long as it is within the rules of the law, then it's entirely lawful. Also:


None of these are moral questions. They are ethical ones.

Pretty much this. Nothing you have listed in this situation is swayed towards good or evil. The entire argument is "did they follow the law?" That entirely depends on where they are. As above, she can be executed on the spot, after a trial, during a trial, surve life in prison, or any number of other things as long as it is part of that region's law.

[Asmotherion]

Hypotetical situation.

There's a woman who has been convicted for murder on the basis of solid although not 100% certain evidence. People saw and heard the woman arguing bitterly with the victim just an hour before the murder, blood has been found on her dress and her fingerprints on the murder's weapon.

The explanation given by the woman is she bumped into a junkie fleeing the murder scene ( so he got smeared with a bit of blood who she didn't notice ) , picked up the murder weapon because it blocked her car ( and didn't notice the blood because the murder weapon is a red fire estinguisher ) and drove away without noticing the body.

The husband of the convicted woman is personally certain his wife is not a murderer although he has not evidence to prove it. And with all the appeals exausted his wife is deeply depressed and suicidal. So he comes up with an elaborate plan to make his wife escape in a foreign country, with him and their son ( a child ).


( by the way yes, she's innocent )


1- Is it an Evil action to make a person you can't prove innocent evade just because your instinct tells you she's innocent?

2- Would the action be less justified if there was a chance of parole / semi-liberty after several years of prison ( in a lenient system )?

3- Would the action be more justified if the woman was sentenced to death penalty?

4- Would the action be more or less justified if the prison system was hellish ( Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil prisons ) or dignified and sustainable ( Lawful Good prisons ) ?


----


And by the way, did you recognize the film that inspired this question? ;)

1) Action is Chaotic Good. You disreguard the law to save a life you believe is innocent; Goes Chaotic Neutral if you just don't care about innocent or not you just want to save that person. Chaotic Evilish (betwin neutral and evil) if you're sure they did it and don't care and Chaotic Evil if you have reason to believe they will do it again.

2) Partially irelevant though the motivation to act on your desire to save them in a non lawful way would be less impactful and you may seccond guess it.

3) Partially irelevant though the motivation to act on your desire to save them would be more impactful as it is a life or death situation.

4) See above; Also if you have reason to suspect the legal system may directly or indirectly interfere with framing of an innocent or that the punishment would not fit the crime and you generally don't trust in their authority you'd have more reason to question their decision.

[Venger]

It has everything to do with laws.

Wrong.

The classic example given numerous times in D&D rulebooks is an LG paladin who is visiting the nine hells or similar LE society. He's not obligated to follow evil laws. being lawful has nothing to do with law.

[Doctor Awkward]

Wrong.

The classic example given numerous times in D&D rulebooks is an LG paladin who is visiting the nine hells or similar LE society. He's not obligated to follow evil laws. being lawful has nothing to do with law.

That is a total contradiction of terms. There is no such thing as an "evil" law in D&D. There are only laws that are used for good or evil ends. Laws do not inherit the moral outlook of the person who writes them. They simply are.

Furthermore, the paladin's code is required to respect "legitimate authority". This is not subject to the paladin's opinion. There is a very strict sociological definition for what constitutes legitimate authority. If the authority in the land in which he currently is in says that slavery is legal, a paladin that goes around freeing slaves is breaking the law. Is he doing good? Yes. Is he doing it lawfully? No. He is acting in a chaotic manner to satisfy his immediate goal of doing good. If he wants to satisfy his code, then he needs to challenge the existing authority and in so doing persuade society to change for the better.

[Liquor Box]

Like most, I don't think it is evil, but I do think it is chaotic in terms of 3.5's alignment system. Even if it had been evil I don't think altering the harshness of the prison or sentence would make much difference.

I do think the Paladin would be at risk of falling though, because a paladin does not only have to stay good, he also has to stay lawful. This would put him at risk of no longer being lawful. The lawful option (which is also consistent with being good) would be to work through the legal system.

[SangoProduction]

That is a total contradiction of terms. There is no such thing as an "evil" law in D&D. There are only laws that are used for good or evil ends. Laws do not inherit the moral outlook of the person who writes them. They simply are.

Furthermore, the paladin's code is required to respect "legitimate authority". This is not subject to the paladin's opinion. There is a very strict sociological definition for what constitutes legitimate authority. If the authority in the land in which he currently is in says that slavery is legal, a paladin that goes around freeing slaves is breaking the law. Is he doing good? Yes. Is he doing it lawfully? No. He is acting in a chaotic manner to satisfy his immediate goal of doing good. If he wants to satisfy his code, then he needs to challenge the existing authority and in so doing persuade society to change for the better.

Of course, many, particularly in the US see the authority's legitimacy come not from its existence, but from the people. For the people, by the people, and what not.

Weber defined domination (authority) as the chance of commands being obeyed by a specifiable group of people. Legitimate authority is that which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the ruler and the ruled.

Considering we are talking about "the ruled" being slaves here, I doubt many of them would see it as being legitimate, and thus, by this definition means it is not. (I am talking about the stereotypical, truly unjustifiable slavery. There could be some nuance, but that's not the point.)

[Doctor Awkward]

Of course, many, particularly in the US see the authority's legitimacy come not from its existence, but from the people. For the people, by the people, and what not.

Weber defined domination (authority) as the chance of commands being obeyed by a specifiable group of people. Legitimate authority is that which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the ruler and the ruled.

Considering we are talking about "the ruled" being slaves here, I doubt many of them would see it as being legitimate, and thus, by this definition means it is not. (I am talking about the stereotypical, truly unjustifiable slavery. There could be some nuance, but that's not the point.)

And what about the members of the society who are not slaves? The ones who are perfectly happy allowing others to suffer so that they do not. Do they see the current system as legitimate? You are boiling down extremely complex concepts to their most vague.


Weber also defined three different specific instances in which any authority is considered "legitimate":

-Legal authority, in which a system of rules are objectively applied through a codified system of administrative procedures where the rulers of that system are also subject to its limits.

-Traditional authority, where the system is subject to the whims of the rulers and power is often inherited because, "that's the way it has always been."

-Charismatic authority, in which a leader demonstrates that he has the right to rule based on whatever personal qualities he demonstrates that are respected by his followers.


The paladin's code requires that he acknowledge and respect whichever of these authorities he encounters in any given society. None of these three types have any inherent moral qualities attached to them. And there is additionally nothing in the paladin's code that prohibits him from trying to improve the society he encounters, provided he stays within the defined legal boundaries when he does it.

Deposing a tyrant through murder and then turning around to the populace and saying, "You're free!", is not automatically heroic liberation. It's a coup. Whether or not the lives of those in that society are subsequently improved through those actions makes a big difference in whether or not that coup was actually a good thing.

[SangoProduction]

I think this conversation has hit a dead end, as we are just talking past each other, so I will just dip out.

[hamishspence]

Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a


To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law (that) is unfair or capricious.

Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.


That is a total contradiction of terms. There is no such thing as an "evil" law in D&D. There are only laws that are used for good or evil ends. Laws do not inherit the moral outlook of the person who writes them. They simply are.



A paladin has no obligation to obey "evil laws" And there is such a thing as "evil laws".


It has everything to do with laws.

Lawful characters follow the rules. Chaotic characters follow their conscience.

This is clearly and explicitly spelled out in black and white plain text in the Player's Handbook chapter that discusses alignments.

Wrong.

The classic example given numerous times in D&D rulebooks is an LG paladin who is visiting the nine hells or similar LE society. He's not obligated to follow evil laws. being lawful has nothing to do with law.





I believe The Giant summed it up best here:


the D&D definition of Lawful has little to nothing to do with law enforcement. To think that Lawful always means "obeying the written law" is a gross misunderstanding of the D&D definition of the term.

For example, think of formal duels—the "pistols at dawn" kind. Such events are undoubtedly Lawful affairs—they have strict codes, elaborate rules, and concern themselves mostly with symbolic honor. All hallmarks of Lawful behavior when contrasted with, say, a drunken brawl. However, at the time Aaron Burr shot Hamilton, they were illegal in the United States. People who participated in such duels were abiding by a formal code of ethics and behavior that was in opposition to democratically passed law. Lawful behavior can be made illegal in a given jurisdiction, but that doesn't spontaneously change the nature of the act in a cosmological sense.

I've used this example before, but if a paladin walks into the orc's swamp to do battle, he is not suddenly bound to obey the Orc King's laws or lose his paladinhood. It is entirely possible to have a code that you believe supersedes the written law wherever you are and still be considered Lawful.

I've often said that a lot of confusion would have been avoided if they had simply called it Ordered instead of Lawful. "Ordered Good" leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation.

[Liquor Box]

Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic ( "http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a")

To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law (that) is unfair or capricious.

Your link doesn't work for me, and I'm not sure where that definition derives from. But the definition from the Players Handbook (which I think can be regarded as the authority on what lawful means in the context of 3.5) omits the part about 'must not necessarily obey the law', and does explicitly refer to obedience to authority (following laws is a subset of obedience to authority). From the Players handbook (with my bold):

"“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and
reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closemindedness,
reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness,
and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness
say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people
can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full
confidence that others will act as they should."

So, in my opinion the rules do suggest that following societies rules (including its laws) is at least a part of lawfulness.


Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.
A paladin has no obligation to obey "evil laws" And there is such a thing as "evil laws".

I'm not sure if you are quoting theunderlined text from somewhere, but it is not what the Paladin's Code in the Players Handbook says (and actually contradicts it):

"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment
and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate
authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison,
and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help
for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
innocents."


I believe The Giant summed it up best here:
Dueling, in circumstances where dueling is against the law, is not a lawful act.

A Paladin who is an invader is not subject to the authority of whoever's real he or she is invading. However if he or she is living in the Orc King's jurisdiction instead of invading it, then yes the lawful course would be to respect the Orc King's authority.

[hamishspence]

Your link doesn't work for me, and I'm not sure where that definition derives from.

Fixed now. It was a WOTC article providing a guide to playing Lawful and Chaotic alignments.




Dueling, in circumstances where dueling is against the law, is not a lawful act.

As The Giant pointed out - Law is a misnomer - Order is a better term - and it may be "orderly" behaviour.


"Respect for authority" is one way in which "Lawful alignment" may manifest - but it's not the only way. And it's not compulsory. For paladins, it becomes "respect legitimate authority" - which can be fudged a great deal.

[Liquor Box]

"Respect for authority" is one way in which "Lawful alignment" may manifest - but it's not the only way. And it's not compulsory. For paladins, it becomes "respect legitimate authority" - which can be fudged a great deal.
That's true. Just like not killing innocents is one way 'goodness' may manifest. An individual who is truly lawful will respect authority, along with the other stuff the rules mention (honorable, trustworthy and reliable), and an individual who is truly good will refrain from killing as well as doing the other stuff goodness entails.

I think the fact that you see the need to fudge the rules suggest that you understand that the rules do require the lawful character to generally obey/respect the law.

I'm honestly not sure what you are arguing here. What I am saying is that following laws is generally a lawful action, and breaking the rules is generally an unlawful action.d I'm saying that because that is what the rules (not commentary or the giant's posts, but the actual rules of the game) say. I'm not saying that is the only thing a lawful character should do (of course he/she should also be honest and reliable), only that obeying the law is an important plank. I'm not saying that if a character broke the law they would be immediately not-lawful (or, if a paladin, would fall) because there might be mitigating circumstances - this might often be a good roleplaying opportunity.

If your perspective is that obeying the law should not trump all other concerns for a lawful good character, then I agree that it need not always do so (there are two axis to alignment). If you envisage your paladin as someone who lives within a society but secretly seeks to undermine it an oppose it because he or she considers it unjust, then there are variant rules to create a Paladin of Freedom - "The paladin of freedom is chaotic good, dedicated to liberty and free thought". If you want a character who is otherwise lawful but who disdains society's laws then you have two options - play that as a source of conflict for the otherwise lawful character or homebrew the rules so that obedience to authority is not part of what makes one lawful (I guess your fudging is a way of doing this).

[hamishspence]

If your perspective is that obeying the law should not trump all other concerns for a lawful good character, then I agree that it need not always do so (there are two axis to alignment). If you envisage your paladin as someone who lives within a society but secretly seeks to undermine it an oppose it because he or she considers it unjust, then there are variant rules to create a Paladin of Freedom - "The paladin of freedom is chaotic good, dedicated to liberty and free thought". If you want a character who is otherwise lawful but who disdains society's laws then you have two options - play that as a source of conflict for the otherwise lawful character or homebrew the rules so that obedience to authority is not part of what makes one lawful (I guess your fudging is a way of doing this).

The point is that respecting legitimate authority doesn't mean respecting all authority.
Nor does it mean obeying all authority.

And that a character who seeks to undermine a truly unjust society can be Lawful Good - they don't have to be Chaotic.

[PhantasyPen]

Oh hey! I've seen this movie. And yeah, this is a Chaos/Law issue, not Good/Evil.

[Doctor Awkward]

Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a


To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law (that) is unfair or capricious.

Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.




A paladin has no obligation to obey "evil laws" And there is such a thing as "evil laws".


Well if a random freelance designer who used to write for Dungeon Magazine says something about the rules working a certain way...

...There's a good chance he is talking out of his ass.

Again, there is no such thing as an "evil" law. There are only laws that you may subjectively judge as being unjust. So already he is arguing from a false premise.

Nelson's sophistry in that article is an obvious effort to describe a lawful character in the least offensive way possible. There are downsides to being a lawful person. In addition to possibly being dependable, honest, and trustworthy, a lawful character can also inflexible, close-minded, and possibly judgmental. In writing, these are known as "character flaws", and they are things that should be embraced when creating a character.

The biggest problem is right here:


Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment.


A paladin's code is much more complicated than acting "lawful good." A paladin's code is 1) respect legitimate authority, 2) act with honor, 3) help those in need, 4) punish those who harm innocents. In addition, a paladin is forbidden from ever willingly committing an evil act.

This code is loosely based on the medieval code of chivalry, which was an informal code of conduct loosely associated with the medieval {scrubbed} institution of knighthood. It was a vaguely defined set of social and moral principles that combined a warrior ethos, knightly piety, and courtly manners to establish a notion of honor and nobility.

Maintaining this level of discipline while still striving to do the most good possible is a very difficult thing to do. A paladin who devotes himself to helping other and ignores the orders from authority not to engage in that behavior is not being lawful good. He is being neutral good. He is in violation of his oaths, and yes, does risk falling if he continues to engage in that behavior. In order to uphold his ideals, he must find a way to help those people legally. That is the whole point of being a paladin. They are examples to follow. To show other people that you can do what is both good and just without having to compromise your principles.







I believe The Giant summed it up best here:

And as a human being the Giant is allowed to make mistakes.

Like this one:

I've used this example before, but if a paladin walks into the orc's swamp to do battle, he is not suddenly bound to obey the Orc King's laws or lose his paladinhood. It is entirely possible to have a code that you believe supersedes the written law wherever you are and still be considered Lawful.

No it's not.

If your character is someone who says that their personal belief systems on how they should be allowed to act trumps the laws of any land they walk into, then they are not lawful. They are chaotic. The reason for this is that they are acting solely in accordance to their own conscience, and anyone else be damned. This is explicitly spelled out in the rules as chaotic behavior. Even if you want to argue that they still never violate their personal code, fine... then at best they are neutral with respect to law and chaos. You cannot have a character whose ethics consistently and repeatedly chafe at the idea of following any rules besides their own and be considered lawful because alignments don't work like that.

In the Giant's own example, if the Orc King charges the paladin as trespassing on his tribe's land, then the paladin's first duty is to find out if the Orc King is telling the truth. If it turns out the Orc King is telling the truth, then he has a decision to make. Is he going to slay them all anyway because they are evil? Is he quite certain they are all evil? What if the baron that sent him their in the first place is also evil? Did he even bother to find out before he agreed to come here and slay all the orcs?

The Giant is also boiling down some extremely complex philosophical problems to a very generic situation that the paladin probably should not find himself in the first place:

Baron: "I wish you to go slay these orcs."
Paladin: "Because they are attacking your land and threatening your people?"
Baron: "No, because they are there."
Paladin: "That's not what I do. I am not a murderer. If you have thus far coexisted peacefully, then continue to do so."
Baron: "But they are evil! One day they might attack!"
Paladin: "And on that day I will be there to defend your people against them."

"Punish those who harm innocents" is not the same thing as killing NPC's for just being evil. Nowhere in the paladin code does it require you to "seek out and vanquish evil" in order to retain your class features. Miko used to do this and look how that turned out for her.

In fact, consider the last five panels of this comic here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html); "Miko, you're scaring me. The laws say--", "The laws have no meaning! They were rewritten by the enemy himself over his 47 years on the throne!"

That was the moment one of those two characters stopped being a paladin. The lightning bolt from the sky in the subsequent comic was a formality.

[Saintheart]

If your character is someone who says that their personal belief systems on how they should be allowed to act trumps the laws of any land they walk into, then they are not lawful. They are chaotic. The reason for this is that they are acting solely in accordance to their own conscience, and anyone else be damned. This is explicitly spelled out in the rules as chaotic behavior. Even if you want to argue that they still never violate their personal code, fine... then at best they are neutral with respect to law and chaos. You cannot have a character whose ethics consistently and repeatedly chafe at the idea of following any rules besides their own and be considered lawful because alignments don't work like that.

Well...


A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

That's from the SRD itself on what constitutes a lawful neutral character. The 'neutral' is with respect to good and evil. Someone who never violates their personal code - even when that code falls into conflict with a local law - surely is Lawful on WOTC's own definitions, are they not?

Is it possible you might be mistaking the character who acts according to their whims for the character who acts according to a personal code, i.e. a set of amoral ethics or principles? I had understood the former to be Chaotic, mainly because a Chaotic character is acting on their feelings, but the latter would be Lawful. In particular would prefer the word 'feelings' rather than 'conscience', mainly because conscience on the dictionary definition is a person's moral sense of right and wrong, i.e. the concept of conscience is more aligned with the Good/Evil axis than the Lawful/Chaotic one. Chaotic Good characters don't free people because of an ethical principle, they do it because they feel bad about imprisonment, and they act on those feelings regardless of what the law says about said imprisonment.

Notice how WOTC give the alternative of a person who believes in personal order as opposed to a person who believes in order for all. Both are Lawful characters, the difference being that the former believes only in imposing rules on his own behaviours, while the latter believes in imposing rules on the behaviour of others. The Lawful character might have mixed or even resentful feelings about the personal code he lives by, but he lives by that code nonetheless. By contrast the Chaotic character is less likely to or flat-out doesn't live by that personal code, because of his feelings about that code.

[Liquor Box]

The point is that respecting legitimate authority doesn't mean respecting all authority.
Nor does it mean obeying all authority.

And that a character who seeks to undermine a truly unjust society can be Lawful Good - they don't have to be Chaotic.

I note that the definition of lawful in the PHB does not include the word legitimate, it says "obedience to authority".

But where we disagree may only be a matter of degree. I think you are right that a lawful character could seek to undermine a truly unjust leader who has no legitimate authority (like an occupying force, where there has been no surrender). But, where an authority is properly in place according to the law (whether a monarchy or an elected authority) I don't think the lawful character would seek to undermine it just because there were particular laws that the character felt were unjust.

[Meditation]

This isn't what a trolley problem is. A trolley problem is a moral arithmetic problem explaining what utilitarianism is. The traditional example is switching rails on a trolley so it runs over 1 person or >1 person.

in any instance:

alignment in dnd is dumb. it actually doesn't care about your reasoning or rationale behind actions, it is entirely dependent on ends and objective reality, regardless of your character's knowledge


If she is factually innocent (as she is in your example) then helping her flee unjust punishment is a Good action

Venger is right. This isn’t the trolley problem; if the title of this thread can be changed, it should be. Venger is further correct in stating that the actions are good if injustice is avoided. Venger is slightly less correct in stating that alignment in D&D is dumb due to magnitude: alignment in D&D is gibberish-absurd-nightmare-hellscape-inane-stupidity because the alignments are actually ancient cosmic forces (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=57103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0#512010) that have the names of moral and philosophical concepts in English (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=57103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25#512122) but are demonstrably not those things.

And, of course, if you actually take the setting seriously, paranatural abilities would make the moral outcome here trivial to determine. You can literally talk to corpses in D&D-land.

[Venger]

Venger is right. This isn’t the trolley problem; if the title of this thread can be changed, it should be. Venger is further correct in stating that the actions are good if injustice is avoided. Venger is slightly less correct in stating that alignment in D&D is dumb due to magnitude: alignment in D&D is gibberish-absurd-nightmare-hellscape-inane-stupidity because the alignments are actually ancient cosmic forces (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=57103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0#512010) that have the names of moral and philosophical concepts in English (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=57103&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25#512122) but are demonstrably not those things.

And, of course, if you actually take the setting seriously, paranatural abilities would make the moral outcome here trivial to determine. You can literally talk to corpses in D&D-land.
I'm glad you seem to mostly agree with me.

I'm not sure where you're getting magnitude from. That wasn't really what I was talking about. What I'm referring to is that if two people undertake identical courses of action, the alignment of this act changes based on objective factors they have no knowledge of and have no way of taking into account when they make their decision.

Russel frees his wife who, unknown to him, is innocent. He has committed a Good act.
Vincent frees his wife who, unknown to him, is guilty. He has committed an Evil act.

both of them are acting out of loyalty and because they like their wives. For the purpose of the exercise they don't have divination magic or whatever to learn objective truth of her culpability, so it's not a question of negligence.

that's a neat post on alignment threads there. I more or less agree, which is why when I post in alignment threads I capitalize Good and Evil when talking about game terms like casting summon spells and don't capitalize it when speaking non dnd rulebook english.

[hamishspence]

there is no such thing as an "evil" law.
Says you. D&D may disagree.


A law that makes certain Evil acts compulsory, or a law that punishes people for committing certain Good acts - is an Evil Law.

That is, presumably, what was meant by the term "Evil law" in that article.


Nowhere in the paladin code does it require you to "seek out and vanquish evil" in order to retain your class features. Miko used to do this and look how that turned out for her.


The Giant did say that Personal Code Lawful characters need to be held to extremely high standards, and that there can be a slippery slope:





In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis. Certainly none of the characters in OOTS have such a code except perhaps for Miko. And we all saw what a slippery slope that turned out to be.



What I'm referring to is that if two people undertake identical courses of action, the alignment of this act changes based on objective factors they have no knowledge of and have no way of taking into account when they make their decision.

Russel frees his wife who, unknown to him, is innocent. He has committed a Good act.
Vincent frees his wife who, unknown to him, is guilty. He has committed an Evil act.

From the above Save My Game article:

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

So, there's an element of "if you could not be expected to know, then the act is Not Evil, and does not cause Paladin Falling"

So, "freeing a guilty person" might not actually qualify as an Evil act - not if the paladin (or other alignment-restricted character) had every reason to believe that they were innocent.

[Meditation]

I'm glad you seem to mostly agree with me.

I'm not sure where you're getting magnitude from. That wasn't really what I was talking about.

For clarity's sake, I was referring to the fact that alignment is literally not what it says it is, such that saying alignment is "dumb" is too gentle. Alignment in the D&D universe is a literal cosmic monster what can kill you dead and torture you for eternity and you can't even easily talk about it directly because each part of it has a benevolent-sounding fake name. The "good" alignment is "good" in the same way a dictatorship is a "people's republic."


that's a neat post on alignment threads there. I more or less agree, which is why when I post in alignment threads I capitalize Good and Evil when talking about game terms like casting summon spells and don't capitalize it when speaking non dnd rulebook english.

That's not a bad habit -- decades ago I did the same -- but alignments are so far afield from their actual, physical reality that even conceding that much ground to their names is terribly misleading (not that that's your fault, or any non-designer's). It would be best if we could come up with codenames for them; I like Bifrocated Tapioca for Lawful Good, but I am notoriously bad at naming things. So even though calling evil "Eeeevil!!!" still is a bit deceptive, it can't be denied that it's faster communication.

[Doctor Awkward]

That's from the SRD itself on what constitutes a lawful neutral character. The 'neutral' is with respect to good and evil. Someone who never violates their personal code - even when that code falls into conflict with a local law - surely is Lawful on WOTC's own definitions, are they not?

The problem is that you are taking a specific description of a specific combination of the nine alignments and attempting to apply it in reverse to the broad concept of what constitutes being lawful.

What you are actually arguing is that a character who adheres to a rigidly defined personal code is a candidate for being lawful. It's what that personal code actually entails that dictates whether or not they are lawful. Lawful is an objective absolute in D&D standards. It's not about having rules. It's about what you consider those rules to be. If the rules as you see them do not line up with the defined rules of the book says is lawful, then you are not lawful.

Consider Bankotsu (https://inuyasha.fandom.com/wiki/Bankotsu) of the Band of Seven from the anime InuYasha. He is the poster child for Chaotic Evil. He is bloodthirsty, exalts violence, and loves fighting. His self-stated life goal is to "kill as many people as humanly possible." He flits through life acting on his whims, and will readily drop his current plans if he thinks going in another direction will lead him to a strong opponent. He can be quoted as once stating, "In a match to the death, there's no such thing as fair or foul." He is the leader of his group for no reason other than he is nice to them and is the most physically powerful among them. At the same time he has one rule: "I would never betray a comrade." He explains this rule as he kills a member of the group as punishment for betraying them.

Now ask yourself when considering everything else about the character if having "a rule that he never breaks" is enough to qualify him as lawful by D&D standards.



The Giant did say that Personal Code Lawful characters need to be held to extremely high standards, and that there can be a slippery slope:

Alright, let's spot the mistake this time:


Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good.

No, he didn't.

Historically, the character of Robin Hood did not have a personal code, and neither does the one from popular culture. The popular presentation of the character had one specifically defined goal: "rob from the rich and give to the poor." This was not a code but a method by which he achieves his larger goal which was to get revenge on the Sheriff of Nottingham, and ultimately bring about change in society for the better. The reason why he is the poster child for Chaotic Good today is because he is a revolutionary; fighting the "good fight" and striving to help the downtrodden rise up against the oppressive authority of the land.

If you examine the oldest known ballad of the character, "A Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode" (https://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/gest-of-robyn-hode) (c. 1470), there are several lines where he responds to Little John with a specific set of rules that his band are expected to follow: chiefly that they are never to harm any company where women are present and protect those that work the land as well as yeoman, knights, and squires. It also states that their two main enemies are the church and the Sheriff of Nottingham, and that his men have free reign to "beat and bind them." You'll also note that the bit about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is entirely absent from this ballad.

This is not a personal code, but a structured set of conduct under which his fellows were to operate if they wanted to be considered members of his gang. It is essentially the same as the codes of conduct that the Italian mafia, yakuza, and other organized crime groups hold themselves to, such as when they have a list of crimes that their members are forbidden from committing. You could make a compelling argument that this ballad is glorifying organized crime in the same way as movies like "Goodfellas" do today.

In proper historical context, Robin Hood probably should not be chaotic good by D&D standards, depending on how strictly he enforces these rules on his gang. Perhaps even neutral evil since he is encouraging his gang to specifically commit unprovoked violence against certain individuals. Diluting the definition of lawful to the extent the Giant wants to with his Personal Code argument opens the door to labeling obvious criminal organizations and tyrannical regimes as "lawful good" simply because "they have rules" and "sometimes don't do all of the evil". This essentially renders the alignments devoid of meaning. You might as well not use them at that point.

Considering whether or not to follow a society's established laws is part and parcel of being considered "lawful". At a minimum they must be a factor, however small, in your character's decisions. A lawful character must always at least consider the existence of local laws before he acts. If there exists a set or category of laws that your character will, as a matter of course, never ever at least stop and think about then the character is not lawful. Period.

Paladins have a more difficult time because they have a strict personal code of conduct that requires them to consider these local laws. It is, in fact, the very first personal rule that they must obey. At all times.

[hamishspence]

Paladins have a more difficult time because they have a strict personal code of conduct that requires them to consider these local laws. It is, in fact, the very first personal rule that they must obey. At all times.

The most fundamental rule of being a paladin is don't commit evil acts.

"consider the local laws" is much less important.

That's why paladins have a strong Good aura but a weak, "regular person" Lawful aura. Because being Good is more important to them than being Lawful.



Even in past editions, when a Paladin fell for any Chaotic act, there was an element of this. Paladins could atone for Chaotic acts and become Paladins again back then, but they couldn't become a Paladin again after committing an Evil act.


It has everything to do with laws.

Lawful characters follow the rules.


If your character is someone who says that their personal belief systems on how they should be allowed to act trumps the laws of any land they walk into, then they are not lawful. They are chaotic.

A lawful character must always at least consider the existence of local laws before he acts.






As to "respect for local laws" - take Inevitables - the enforcers of cosmic law. A marut's job is to destroy people who exist "too long" (by magically extending their lives, or by becoming undead).

Now, is a Marut really going to care that their act is Murder under local laws? Of course they won't.


if the Orc King charges the paladin as trespassing on his tribe's land, then the paladin's first duty is to find out if the Orc King is telling the truth. If it turns out the Orc King is telling the truth, then he has a decision to make. Is he going to slay them all anyway because they are evil? Is he quite certain they are all evil? What if the baron that sent him their in the first place is also evil? Did he even bother to find out before he agreed to come here and slay all the orcs?

The previous time the Orc King topic came up with The Giant, it was:


Being Lawful in D&D means following a set of codes and rules—not obeying every law of every nation you ever find yourself in. As I've said before, when your paladin enters the evil Orc Warlord's swamp and starts killing orcs who are raiding a nearby human village, does he turn himself in to be tried by the Warlord for murder? No, because he doesn't recognize the Warlord's authority as a head of state. As far as he's concerned, that swamp belongs to the King whose nation it's in, regardless of what the orcs who live there think.

Likewise, if a paladin has a strict code of honor, they can easily view that as more important than secular laws. They might agree to obey laws when possible, just because it's a nice thing to do, but in the end, their calling to serve the Power of Good may cause them to break those laws in an emergency (an emergency like a pint-size psychopath on the loose). If they continue to follow their core belief of lawfulness—their honor code—then the single breaking of a secular law will not cause them to change alignment. It is a nonlawful act, yes, but one does NOT change alignment from one nonlawful act. Only a consistent pattern of behavior will shift alignment, and contrary to popular belief, only a true switch to a nonlawful alignment will cause a paladin to fall. One evil act, and you fall; one nonlawful act, and you don't.

The very first time the topic came up, appeared to be this one:


Remember, folks, being Lawful has NEVER meant you obey every law for every nation whose borders you cross. You can choose to have a character that acts like that, but it is NOT part of the alignment description. After all, such a character would be required to obey the mandates of an orc chieftain the moment she entered his swamp. They would be seen as wishy-washy and easily swayed, kowtowing to whatever person could assert themselves the strongest.

Most lawful characters, though, will pick a certain set of authorities that they respect and ignore all others as illegitimate. An LG cleric of Pelor doesn't obey the authority of the High Priest of Vecna, for example. That doesn't make the cleric not Lawful.

[Kyutaru]

Citing that duel is a terrible idea. The reason being that people had more trust in fairplay when there would be consequences for violating the legal terms. Once duels became illegal, your opponent is about as likely of honoring the terms as the dude at McDonalds who wants to fight out back will. The authorities aren't going to do nearly as much for you when you were participating in something they warned you was opposed to the law. That's the risk you take getting involved with the underground. You can't call the police to solve your problems so you have to solve them yourself. Even if the cops show up and shutdown the place you're still not going to get any justice for yourself. Heck, you might get charged for participating in something illegal and sent away with them.

In this case, even though she's innocent the woman has a lot going against her evidence wise. A truly Lawful Good paladin would have faith in the legal system to allow for it to work as it should. Even should she go to jail, that's not the end of the game. There's a process for appeals and continuing to work legally within the system to clear her name. Chaotics prefer the 80s action movie way of doing things where every bad guy ends up dead or arrested and somehow that makes it all okay because you proved yourself innocent in the process and got evidence. It's hard to do the right thing when no one believes your story but it's still the right thing to turn yourself in and trust the system. A paladin would know that. Harboring fugitives is not the right thing, there's no implication of guilt of the original crime in the term fugitive only of their current crime of running from possible conviction.

Innocent people get sent to court on false charges all the time. Some even end up in jail. It happens, the system is flawed but it's also fair to everyone in this way. The righteous people will still see their day in court and explain their side and the court will judge them literally on whether or not their testimony is believed over the facts. A person of moral standing placed into a likely situation with a more likely murderer junkie can as has been excused before. When the authorities are on your side they will even go the extra mile to prove your story, while if you fit their profile of a murderer then they aren't going to look very hard for evidence they don't believe exists. Sometimes if you don't have proof and the facts point to you then you're the scapegoat the system uses to seek out justice where there needs to be some. Someone's getting punished even if it's not the right person. But to say they should run makes a mockery of all the people sitting in prison pleading innocence with outside investigators digging up evidence to set them free.

A paladin would make the tough choice and not let her leave. With a saddened heart he would bar the door and insist on bringing her in to stand trial. His faith in seeking out justice the RIGHT WAY is that extreme because too often people forget that courts are not a place to punish the wicked but instead a place to determine whether the innocent are in fact guilty. All are innocent until proven guilty and merely being on trial does not mean you did it. It means there needs to be a formal hearing of the facts to determine whether or not you did.

[hamishspence]

If your perspective is that obeying the law should not trump all other concerns for a lawful good character, then I agree that it need not always do so (there are two axis to alignment).

Even a Lawful Neutral character might have reasons not to obey "local law". They might think "Cosmic Law trumps local law". Or the "local law" might in fact have been shaped by a CE tyrant's whims - and so, not very Lawful in nature.

Book of Exalted Deeds had an interesting discussion of paladin divided loyalties - on the subject of Guilty People Who Have Been Acquitted:


Divided Loyalties

For better of for worse, a paladin is not just good: she is lawful good, sworn not just to uphold the principles of good but also bound by a code of conduct, and subject to local law as well. Many paladins are also members of a specific deity's church, a knightly order of some sort, or both. At the best of times, these various loyalties - her code of conduct, her church's laws, her order's demands, the laws of her nation, and the abstraction of her alignment - are all in harmony, and her path is clear before her. When circumstances are not so ideal, she finds herself torn between conflicting demands: her superior in her knightly order commands her to kill a brutal murderer who has escaped punishment in court on a legal technicality, for example. Her personal code requires that she punish those that harm innocents, and this killer certainly falls in that category. However, her personal code also instructs her to respect legitimate authority, which includes both her knightly superior and the local law that has let the killer go free. The demands of her good alignment suggest she should punish the wrongdoer, but the demands of her lawful alignment insist that she obey the judgement of the court. It is entirely possible that either her superior or the magistrate in the case is corrupt or even possessed. Whom does she obey? How does she sort out the conflicting demands of her loyalties?

Paladins are by no means alone in this situation. Any character who tries consistently to do good eventually finds himself in a situation where different loyalties are in conflict. Chaotic Good characters might care far less about a potentially corrupt or at least ineffectual court system, but they might have other personal standards or obligations that cause conflict in similar or different situations. In the end, however, many such conflicts boil down to a question of priorities, and for a character who aspires to exalted deeds, good is the highest priority. In the example above, the murderer must at least be captured, if not killed, before he can kill again. If she has reason to suspect corruption, either in the court or in her own order, the paladin must attempt to uncover it, though it might mean being cast out of her order, punished under local law, or both. Her paladinhood and her exalted status remain intact, since she acted in the cause of good even when that required questioning the legitimacy of authority. Magistrates or knightly superiors who serve the cause of evil while posing as agents of good are not legitimate authority, and the paladin is right for exposing their corruption.


Similar logic may apply if someone the paladin knows is innocent, has been convicted, framed, etc.

[Liquor Box]

Even a Lawful Neutral character might have reasons not to obey "local law". They might think "Cosmic Law trumps local law". Or the "local law" might in fact have been shaped by a CE tyrant's whims - and so, not very Lawful in nature.

Book of Exalted Deeds had an interesting discussion of paladin divided loyalties - on the subject of Guilty People Who Have Been Acquitted:

Sure, I don't disagree with that. It is possible that some other aspect of the lawful good (or lawful or lawful neutral) character's personality/motivation might trump their lawful desire to follow the law. But that doesn't change the fact that part of being lawful is a propensity to follow the law for the law's sake. Just like a good character might do an evil thing (say steal) if her goodness is trumped by another motivation, but generally good characters don't do evil things (don't steal).

As your book of exalted deeds quote says - its not that it suddenly becomes lawful to break the law - it's just that another motivation trumps it. Of course lawfulness might trump goodness for some lawful good characters - it just depends whether, for the particular character, lawfulness or goodness is the stronger facet of their personality.


Similar logic may apply if someone the paladin knows is innocent, has been convicted, framed, etc.

A paladin might. Another motivation might overcome his lawful nature. It would still not be a lawful act though.

Whether he or she should fall though depends on the circumstances. In the OP example, there is no hint of corruption (even amongst the alternatives) and the husband does not 'know' his wife is innocent he just believes it. The scenario is clear that he has no evidence of her innocence, and the word 'personally' implies that he believes it based on a gut feel - you yourself say it makes no difference whether he is correct or not. Surely you can see the problem if every person who has a relative in prison who they think is innocent (a fair portion of the prison population I imagine) tried to break them out. There is also no inherent 'good' in breaking the wife out - the paladin should know that he is no better placed to determine his wife's innocence that the court. In this circumstance the Paladin should potentially fall if he breaks his wife out of prison (perhaps depending on how much he has adhered to the lawful part of his alignment to that point).

On the other hand, i agree in your example. If a Paladin believed that there was corruption in his order and sought to expose the corruption that would be a good action. Arguably it would not be unlawful because the corruption is presumably contrary to the order's values and rules. So in this case, I agree with the Book of Exalted Deeds, the paladin should not fall, and perhaps it should not be a black make against him or her at all.

[hamishspence]

In this circumstance the Paladin should potentially fall if he breaks his wife out of prison (perhaps depending on how much he has adhered to the lawful part of his alignment to that point).

I'd rule an automatic Fall if any prison guards are harmed during the breakout - but otherwise I'd be cautious about what constitutes a gross violation of the "respect legitimate authority" facet of the Code.



It is essentially the same as the codes of conduct that the Italian mafia, yakuza, and other organized crime groups hold themselves to, such as when they have a list of crimes that their members are forbidden from committing. You could make a compelling argument that this ballad is glorifying organized crime in the same way as movies like "Goodfellas" do today.

Diluting the definition of lawful to the extent the Giant wants to with his Personal Code argument opens the door to labeling obvious criminal organizations and tyrannical regimes as "lawful good" simply because "they have rules"

Being Lawful Evil is quite compatible with being a crimelord who "binds themselves with strict rules".

Dig around in D&D splatbooks and you will find plenty of Lawful-aligned criminals of this kind.

[Kyutaru]

I think you're grossly confusing corruption within the courts presenting an unfair trial that is by design meant to convict an innocent person with a legitimate trial that has all the evidence it needs to convict an innocent person.

The paladin has the moral authority to oppose unfair play. He does not have to right to overthrow the justice system without evidence.

[hamishspence]

It really depends where you set the bar for grossly violating the "respect legitimate authority" facet of the paladin's code.

[Saintheart]

The problem is that you are taking a specific description of a specific combination of the nine alignments and attempting to apply it in reverse to the broad concept of what constitutes being lawful.

We've already established the "neutral" in "Lawful Neutral" is neutral along the good/evil axis, not neutral on the lawful/chaotic axis. What is left is Lawful without being constrained by Good or Evil. If a Lawful Neutral character is not lawful - and as said, acting as a personal code directs a character qualifies that person as Lawful Neutral - then the concept of Law has no meaning and D&D's own examples contradict the system it's setting in place. Is that your argument?



What you are actually arguing is that a character who adheres to a rigidly defined personal code is a candidate for being lawful. It's what that personal code actually entails that dictates whether or not they are lawful. Lawful is an objective absolute in D&D standards. It's not about having rules. It's about what you consider those rules to be. If the rules as you see them do not line up with the defined rules of the book says is lawful, then you are not lawful.

And that is an arbitrary definition of the rules, because a character's personal code could certainly be in conflict with local laws and the character would still be Lawful. Period.


Consider Bankotsu (https://inuyasha.fandom.com/wiki/Bankotsu) of the Band of Seven from the anime InuYasha. He is the poster child for Chaotic Evil. He is bloodthirsty, exalts violence, and loves fighting. His self-stated life goal is to "kill as many people as humanly possible." He flits through life acting on his whims, and will readily drop his current plans if he thinks going in another direction will lead him to a strong opponent. He can be quoted as once stating, "In a match to the death, there's no such thing as fair or foul." He is the leader of his group for no reason other than he is nice to them and is the most physically powerful among them. At the same time he has one rule: "I would never betray a comrade." He explains this rule as he kills a member of the group as punishment for betraying them.

Now ask yourself when considering everything else about the character if having "a rule that he never breaks" is enough to qualify him as lawful by D&D standards.

Cherry-picking an arbitrary character from another culture and from a genre and franchise with zero connection to a Western roleplaying game and then arbitrarily tagging that person as the exemplar of Chaotic Evil in order to prove your point is an intellectually dishonest debating tactic. That said, based off that overlong Wiki page I've been directed to, it looks to me like Bankotsu is a hypocrite, exemplified by the fact he supposedly has unswerving loyalty and compassion towards his companions, but goes ahead and murders one of them. "I would never betray a comrade!" Well, your actions speak louder than words, you jackalope, you killed him, that's the biggest betrayal you can inflict on a person. Never mind the fact the Wiki indicates that's not a statement of his rule - in context, it's what he says is the difference between himself and the character who committed the murder. That is, the statement is the normal response to another character inflicting a narcissistic injury upon him - denial. It is not some statement of a personal code he follows.

So, no, he's not lawful, but neither is he citing a rule nor a personal code he lives by, so the example is invalid.

[Liquor Box]

I'd rule an automatic Fall if any prison guards are harmed during the breakout - but otherwise I'd be cautious about what constitutes a gross violation of the "respect legitimate authority" facet of the Code.



Deliberately subverting one of the most important laws of the land would qualify if anything does.

[SangoProduction]

There is a mass murderer who has been brought before a court of law. He has been positively identified through magical means as having committed no fewer than 5 murders without proper justification. However, due to some...over eager adventurers who wanted to see this man put to justice, the case was tampered with in such a way that it is not possible to prosecute.

If he is let go, he will undoubtedly kill someone again. But if he isn't let go, it breaks the tenets of the court system.

What is the paladin of the town supposed to do?

(Obviously, keeping watch over him, and try to intervene when it's attempted, but let's just say wasn't just the incompetence of the guards that caused it to take 5 murders to get this guy. And yes, the town's paladin sees the legal system as legitimate.)

EDIT: So there have been a couple complaints about the case not making sense, because the murderer is known to have murdered at least 5 people and what not. People have jumped to "It's corruption, and therefore not legitimate," which was not the intent.

But, there have been cases where a trail had to be thrown out because of various problems with either the investigation, or the court proceedings, and so on. The most famous one is OJ Simpson's trial, where evidence was collected illegally.

I kept the specifics of what went wrong in this case vague precisely because it doesn't matter what caused it, but simply that it's been caused.

[radthemad4]

Hire someone to cast Commune (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commune.htm) (it costs 950 GP, 450 GP for being a 5th level spell at CL 9, and 500 GP for the 100 XP cost). That should be admissible as strong evidence in a court of law (possibly paired with a Zone of Truth and/or Detect Thoughts on whoever is casting the commune). Just ask any deity you trust if he's guilty.

[lord_khaine]

That setup is kinda dumb.
If its identified with 100% certainty that this guy killed 5 others for the lulz, then i cant imagine any realistic court letting him go.

But on the other side, if the court lets confirmed murderes go, then its easy to decide its not legitimate.
I would either get the church of my god to intervene in this case with an obviously corrupt judge.
Or handle stuff myself if they wont. Depending on my power level.

[GrayDeath]

YOur setup once again (as is mostly the case with Make the Paladin fall" Setups^^) not really logicallly sound.

If he is THE Paladin of the Village/Town, and the Village/Town authority lets a guilty killer go for "methodology reasons like intervenin adventurers, the Paladin is supposed to supersede the obviously misused local Law with his own/his Gods/his Orders and keep the dangerous guy in prison.

If its the Law of the Country that let him go free, the Paladins Order and/or other Paladins should be consulted prosecute it themselves, and the end result should be the same.

Either the law has been corrupted/people have been payed to let him go, or they made a mistake in their decision (they believe in their own right that the tampering made it invalid) and a simple commune/Zone of truth is the solution.


But yeah, the setup is kinda....surreal.

After all, there is no known medieval inspired setting where our modern court of law methods" are implimented, so the tampering should not be a problem at all...

[Malphegor]

Release him, and risk people being killed.

Keep him, and the legal process is ignored.

Seems like a standard Lawful Vs Good situation, in which case, it's almost always best to contact the supervisor. Aka either a higher ranking member of the Lawful Good Religio-Legal System, or the God that empowers these people to act in its name, as it's outside the Paladin's jurisdiction at this point.

In the event that there is no answer, Paladins are usually Good first, Lawful second. So they're probably going to imprison the geezer without due process being fully observed, and seek guidance on this matter once the situation is over with.

They could of course make a deal with the killer. This is the super-lawful action. They get released, but due to the uncertainty of the case, have to do a task for the paladin whilst temporarily under the same oaths the paladin follows. The paladin can then judge for themselves the worthiness of the killer based on their actions on a small quest.

a Retrial by Adventure seems sensible. You can tell much about the character of a man when you send him into the catacombs to rout out giant rats.

[Cygnia]

Get ranks in Grey Guard.

[MisterKaws]

Paladins only immediately fall for committing Evil acts, not Chaotic ones. Letting him go would mean risking innocents, which is Evil by omission. Killing him would be unlawful, but wouldn't make you fall, because it was for the sake of innocents.

All of this is ironically described in the Book of Vile Darkness.

[zlefin]

Get out your phylactery of faithfulness and use it to see what actions are deemed acceptable.

btw it's "tenets" not "tenants"

[StevenC21]

Obviously, you whack him. It was never stated that the court ruled magical confirmation illegitimate - and why would they?

When the dude's emanating a Strong Aura of Evil and the Paladin's Detect Evil passes anyways... Then yeah. The Paladin should whack him.

[RedMage125]

Paladins only immediately fall for committing Evil acts, not Chaotic ones. Letting him go would mean risking innocents, which is Evil by omission. Killing him would be unlawful, but wouldn't make you fall, because it was for the sake of innocents.

All of this is ironically described in the Book of Vile Darkness.

The Book of Vile Darkness also defines "murder" as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes". If a paladin kills this guy because it's "easier" or "more convenient" than due process...that wanders into that territory, and a paladin is held to a high enough standard that once this guy is in custody (and therefore not armed or an immediate threat to anyone), killing him becomes less cut and dry.

I do agree, however, that the OP's premise is whacked. If there is evidence that 100% proives this guy murdered 5 people, how is the system going to let him go? That is immediately stupid, immersion-breaking, and a non-starter for most people. Is this like Cliffport in OotS? Are magical means not admissible in a court of law? That's about the only way I see this working.

Finally, this has nothing to do with Foot's Trolley Problem. How is that relevant to the topic?

[MisterKaws]

The Book of Vile Darkness also defines "murder" as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes". If a paladin kills this guy because it's "easier" or "more convenient" than due process...that wanders into that territory, and a paladin is held to a high enough standard that once this guy is in custody (and therefore not armed or an immediate threat to anyone), killing him becomes less cut and dry.

I do agree, however, that the OP's premise is whacked. If there is evidence that 100% proives this guy murdered 5 people, how is the system going to let him go? That is immediately stupid, immersion-breaking, and a non-starter for most people. Is this like Cliffport in OotS? Are magical means not admissible in a court of law? That's about the only way I see this working.

Finally, this has nothing to do with Foot's Trolley Problem. How is that relevant to the topic?

If this is indeed a case of the murderer getting a free pass out of jail because daddy's rich or whatever, then the Paladin wouldn't be killing him for selfish reasons, but to fix a flaw in the system. Paladins need not comply to corrupt systems.

[StevenC21]

Finally, this has nothing to do with Foot's Trolley Problem. How is that relevant to the topic?

It isn't relevant at all. Not in the slightest.

[Jay R]

As a proper legal authority himself, he executes the proven murderer under his own proper procedures.

Then he executes the over-eager adventurers who tampered with the case.

Then he executes the officials that would have released the murderer.

Then he executes all the people who established a legal system that would have released him.

Then he executes all the people who accepted living under such a system instead of working to change it.

It may seem a bit harsh, perhaps, but how else could he prevent a mass killing spree?

"But you can't make an omelette without ruthlessly crushing dozens of eggs beneath your steel boot and then publicly disemboweling the chickens that laid them as a warning to others. "
-- Tarquin

[Cygnia]

As a proper legal authority himself, he executes the proven murderer under his own proper procedures.

Then he executes the officials that would have released the murderer.

Then he executes all the people who established a legal system that would have released him.

Then he executes all the people who accepted living under such a system instead of working to change it.

It may seem a bit harsh, perhaps, but how else could he prevent a mass killing spree?

"But you can't make an omelette without ruthlessly crushing dozens of eggs beneath your steel boot and then publicly disemboweling the chickens that laid them as a warning to others. "
-- Tarquin

You forgot him executing himself afterwards for making the choice to kill everyone. :smalltongue:

[gkathellar]

Wait, so why isn't it possible to prosecute the guy? Because some unrelated third party actors were overzealous at some point in the process of capturing the perp? In that case, most legal systems would place the third party on the hook, and I can't think of any that would let the perpetrator off of it. Even if the adventurers were officers of the law or of the court, that would still have little bearing on a case where adequate evidence had been made available from another source.

[Godskook]

The Book of Vile Darkness also defines "murder" as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes". If a paladin kills this guy because it's "easier" or "more convenient" than due process...that wanders into that territory, and a paladin is held to a high enough standard that once this guy is in custody (and therefore not armed or an immediate threat to anyone), killing him becomes less cut and dry.

"purpose" is a pretty huge qualifier here, and that purpose is to save innocent lives, which is neither nefarious nor selfish. It wouldn't be murder under that definition.

Otoh, it -would- be a violation of the SRD's version of the Paladin code, and up to DM how much of a violation, as the SRD clearly states "a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority". There's really no way around that, although it's debatable on if this is a "gross" violation or not, and if the Paladin would fall because of that. A sympathetic patron deity might mitigate that condition, but that's campaign-specific.

[Venger]

grind him into hamburger meat. there's no real issue with capital punishment when he can always be resurrected later

[SangoProduction]

So there have been a couple complaints about the case not making sense, because the murderer is known to have murdered at least 5 people and what not. People have jumped to "It's corruption, and therefore not legitimate," which was not the intent.

But, there have been cases where a trail had to be thrown out because of various problems with either the investigation, or the court proceedings, and so on. The most famous one is OJ Simpson's trial, where evidence was collected illegally.

I kept the specifics of what went wrong in this case vague precisely because it doesn't matter what caused it, but simply that it's been caused.

[magic9mushroom]

grind him into hamburger meat. there's no real issue with capital punishment when he can always be resurrected later

Also, in most D&D settings the pantheon will, indeed, sort them out.


The real answer is that in a world where magic methods of knowing whether someone's guilty or innocent demonstrably exist and are widely deployed, court systems develop very differently and the whole idea of "case thrown out on procedural grounds" never gains any real traction.

[RedMage125]

So there have been a couple complaints about the case not making sense, because the murderer is known to have murdered at least 5 people and what not. People have jumped to "It's corruption, and therefore not legitimate," which was not the intent.

But, there have been cases where a trail had to be thrown out because of various problems with either the investigation, or the court proceedings, and so on. The most famous one is OJ Simpson's trial, where evidence was collected illegally.

I kept the specifics of what went wrong in this case vague precisely because it doesn't matter what caused it, but simply that it's been caused.

I get what you're saying, but this is a fantasy world where magical means of determining guilt absolutely can and do exist. If absolute truth can be forced from someone, if angelic beings of pure good can be summoned, if thoughts can be read, and these are known to be true, and legal to use...then things like "means of collecting evidence" would not even be a part of the legal system. By Real-World standards, those things would be inadmissable as evidence. If D&D magic suddenly came into existence in the Real World, things like Detect Thoughts would constitute illegal search and seizure. but in a world where the magic existed before the laws of that society...I don't think it would. i think a society would work them into criminal procedings.

So...I don't jump to "corruption". I just say "this situation sounds like nonsense".

Please make it make sense.

[Venger]

Also, in most D&D settings the pantheon will, indeed, sort them out.


The real answer is that in a world where magic methods of knowing whether someone's guilty or innocent demonstrably exist and are widely deployed, court systems develop very differently and the whole idea of "case thrown out on procedural grounds" never gains any real traction.

Yeah, that's the issue with stuff like this. When there's infallible magical proof of guilt, that kind of takes care of itself. The idea of an illegal or warrantless search probably wouldn't exist in dnd. If there was a suspect of doing the murders, they'd use divination magic to learn if he did the murders. If the answer is yes, then that's really the end of it. That would be the probable cause. From that point, you wouldn't need to collect fingerprints or analyze cigar ash or anything like that because these things are a means to an end of finding out who committed the crime. While mundane amateurs might practice investigative techniques like this, they probably wouldn't be the standard operating procedure of law enforcement in cities large enough for low level spellcasters because all they really do is waste time.


I get what you're saying, but this is a fantasy world where magical means of determining guilt absolutely can and do exist. If absolute truth can be forced from someone, if angelic beings of pure good can be summoned, if thoughts can be read, and these are known to be true, and legal to use...then things like "means of collecting evidence" would not even be a part of the legal system. By Real-World standards, those things would be inadmissable as evidence. If D&D magic suddenly came into existence in the Real World, things like Detect Thoughts would constitute illegal search and seizure. but in a world where the magic existed before the laws of that society...I don't think it would. i think a society would work them into criminal procedings.

So...I don't jump to "corruption". I just say "this situation sounds like nonsense".

Please make it make sense.
The reason things like polygraphs are inadmissible in court is because they're only 40% accurate. If they were provably 100% accurate, they would be a standard tool in solving crimes, like dna.

[GrayDeath]

So there have been a couple complaints about the case not making sense, because the murderer is known to have murdered at least 5 people and what not. People have jumped to "It's corruption, and therefore not legitimate," which was not the intent.

But, there have been cases where a trail had to be thrown out because of various problems with either the investigation, or the court proceedings, and so on. The most famous one is OJ Simpson's trial, where evidence was collected illegally.

I kept the specifics of what went wrong in this case vague precisely because it doesn't matter what caused it, but simply that it's been caused.

As the poster above me stated, this is not the real world. neither is there (logically, given levels of technology, magical abilities to force the truth, absolute Cosmic forces and whatnot) the same (or even a similar) Justice system to the modern western world, nor the problem of "Trail is cold/has gone because of.... in the setting, unless you twist it into a pretzel.

So yeah, your Post makes little sense. Either there is a huge Corruption rpoblem in the System/town/whatever, or it simply doesnt make sense, given the circumstances.

But since you already ignored the first post where I said the same thing, it does not seem youa re actually looking for "in setting coherent answers.

So let me rephrase: Assuming this was the real world, where Paladins and MAgic existed, then yes, doing that would be against the Law", and hence a problem for the paladin. But seeing that the existence of Magic as D&D knows it would very quickly change our justice systems massively, not for long. ;)

[SirNibbles]

How many ranks of Craft would you need to make a trolley, a rail, and a rail switch?

I think it'd be DC 15 for the rail, DC 20 for the switch, and at least DC 20 for the trolley.

Once the trolley is crafted:
A trolley is rolling towards a track with 5 evil creatures on it. The paladin can flip the switch to cause it to go to a track with 1 good creature on it. Should he flip the switch? What if the starting situation were reversed?

Could he Bull Rush the trolley to try to stop it or push it off the rails? If so, would the damage caused by derailing the trolley be worth the lives saved? How much financial hardship would need to be caused to be worth a single life? If the trolley's owner is wealthier, does that change how much monetary damage is acceptable in order to save a life?

[dancrilis]

Let us imagine that the paladin hunts down a villain to mete out justice, and the villain feels they cannot win and so surrenders, the Paladin takes them to where they have commited the alleged crimes for justice ... and after the legal defence manages to convince the jury of reasonable doubt (disguise self to frame the villain, high will saves to bypass zone of truth, commune returning different answers subject to which deity - or agent thereof - is called on etc) the villain is acquitted.

Than I would think the paladin should drop it - absolute knowledge is not really possible even in DnD (and less so at lower levels), and if they trust the legal system than even if they personally think the villain is guilty they should let them go because they should be aware that they might be wrong, striking the villain down would likely be pride acting and might well go before a fall.

[MisterKaws]

Bull Rush the trolley off the rails for sure. Afterwards, take a Vow of Poverty and pledge to the trolley owner to repay the loss of his trolley.

[Karl Aegis]

Your paladin can just ask the trolley to stop. D&D engines are weird like that.

[Malphegor]

You know, this train of threads is getting me thinking of making a halfing philosopher named Phillippa Proudfoot after the inventor of the modern Trolley Problem thought experiment.

[Venger]

It depends on the cr of the creatures on the tracks. use lords of madness's slavery rules to determine their gp value and compare it to the worth of the trolley. this will tell you what you ought to do.

[emulord]

Raise Dead is only 5k, redirect it towards the 1 Good NPC and rez

[zlefin]

technically, a certain amount of absolute knowledge is possible, though it is risky.

The paladin fall clause is explicit; so if a paladin judges someone guilty, executes them and does not fall, it was necessarily not an evil act.

though I guess if by "absolute knowledge" you're allowing for thing slike deific interference with people's minds, then that's another story.

[Segev]

I think the itallicized parenthetical bit in the OP is the correct approach for most paladins. I could see a paladin justifying putting him to death extra-legally and then atoning for the nonlawful act, but I couldn't really see a paladin illegally holding him (it's a waste of time and effort), and certainly couldn't see a paladin knowingly and willingly letting the murderer go unsupervised.

A clever paladin with a good grasp on the law might go looking for legal loopholes that would let him legally prosecute anyway, from capturing the guy in another jurisdiction to finding some more obscure law the villain has broken (perhaps even unknowingly, and which the paladin hypocritically doesn't hold against others who may also violate it) which would permit him to engage in at least some act of curtailment. I couldn't see the paladin engaging in entrapment (unless it were actually legal, in which case the paladin should be rather horrified since it can be so abused, but which serves his purpose for the moment), but I could definitely see him hanging the guy on the letter of a law if he had to. Especially if the murderer were getting off on a technicality, as well.

It's worth noting that as recently as 200 years ago, it was legal in most Western societies (on which we tend to base our pseudo-medieval, semi-european fantasy settings) to engage in duels, as well. This was in no small part because there was some belief in divine providence, and also as a way to close loopholes as long as you could find one justice-minded person to stand up to a villain. (This had obvious flaws.) If there are such legal allowances, however, the paladin could theoretically say, "I accuse you of being a dirty, rotten, no-good murderer, and challenge you to a duel to the death to prove it." And then fight the guy to the death in the public square.

That is a big "if," though.

[GloatingSwine]

Pre-modern justice systems are never as complex as people try and make them in RPGs.

Things like standards of evidence and investigation don't exist for them, and any small-to-medium size settlement the law is relatively directly in the hands of the people because there is no large scale bureaucracy to implement it.

What larger scale "law" exists is mostly actually interested in making sure the taxes get paid. What some peasants do to another peasant isn't massively relevant to it.

[Phhase]

Mark of Justice on the killer to stop him if he tries to kill again.

[Lord Torath]

Pre-modern justice systems are never as complex as people try and make them in RPGs.

Things like standards of evidence and investigation don't exist for them, and any small-to-medium size settlement the law is relatively directly in the hands of the people because there is no large scale bureaucracy to implement it.

What larger scale "law" exists is mostly actually interested in making sure the taxes get paid. What some peasants do to another peasant isn't massively relevant to it.At least there are no magic trains (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0344.html), but "modern-ish" legal systems are not unknown (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0363.html) in fantasy milieus.

[Venger]

trolleys are probably very expensive in dnd. they'd be worth more than 5k. melt it down and use the money for the diamonds. the trolley must make amends for the people it kills.

[GloatingSwine]

At least there are no magic trains (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0344.html), but "modern-ish" legal systems are not unknown (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0363.html) in fantasy milieus.

Yeah, though legal systems generally require a lot more specialists than the average fantasy economy would be capable of supporting.

Like if your small fantasy town has a Paladin, whether he retired there after a life of adventure or he was guided there by god or order, he probably is the law in that town. The whole of it, at that.

And he still has a real job because he needs food too.

Most of what we would regard as "criminal justice" was dealt with informally within communities.

[Segev]

Obviously, the trolley's real secret is that it's taking you to a make-believe neighborhood filled with fantastical creatures, like tigers that talk and don't eat people and mailmen who deliver mail on time (and aren't super-damage sorcerers)!

[Psyren]

There is a mass murderer who has been brought before a court of law. He has been positively identified through magical means as having committed no fewer than 5 murders without proper justification. However, due to some...over eager adventurers who wanted to see this man put to justice, the case was tampered with in such a way that it is not possible to prosecute.

Put me down in the "either the court is corrupt or this premise doesn't make sense" camp. Either the magic positively identified him, in which case he is guilty and a corrupt court is ignoring the facts, or the magic is flawed, in which case he wasn't "positively identified."

[Venger]

that's why they're so expensive.

[Kyutaru]

I'd rather make a trolley problem that involves the heroes choosing between ending all magic in country and slaying one innocent princess.

How much is one life valued? Is it worth all enhanced technological advancement for miles around?

[Segev]

I'd rather make a trolley problem that involves the heroes choosing between ending all magic in country and slaying one innocent princess.

How much is one life valued? Is it worth all enhanced technological advancement for miles around?

<Princess> I'd rather die than live without my smartmirror!

[Doctor Awkward]

We've already established the "neutral" in "Lawful Neutral" is neutral along the good/evil axis, not neutral on the lawful/chaotic axis. What is left is Lawful without being constrained by Good or Evil. If a Lawful Neutral character is not lawful - and as said, acting as a personal code directs a character qualifies that person as Lawful Neutral - then the concept of Law has no meaning and D&D's own examples contradict the system it's setting in place. Is that your argument?

And that is an arbitrary definition of the rules, because a character's personal code could certainly be in conflict with local laws and the character would still be Lawful. Period.


No my argument is that you are stating your conception of what you think should be lawful, and that conception is in conflict with the plain text.
"My character lives solely by a personal code and follow it at all times so that makes him lawful. He ignores all other rules except for the ones he has decided are the correct ones."
That's not automatically a lawful character. That could just as easily describe a chaotic character because he isn't following the rules he is following his conscience. Further examination of the character is needed to accurately establish his alignment.




Cherry-picking an arbitrary character from another culture and from a genre and franchise with zero connection to a Western roleplaying game and then arbitrarily tagging that person as the exemplar of Chaotic Evil in order to prove your point is an intellectually dishonest debating tactic. That said, based off that overlong Wiki page I've been directed to, it looks to me like Bankotsu is a hypocrite, exemplified by the fact he supposedly has unswerving loyalty and compassion towards his companions, but goes ahead and murders one of them. "I would never betray a comrade!" Well, your actions speak louder than words, you jackalope, you killed him, that's the biggest betrayal you can inflict on a person. Never mind the fact the Wiki indicates that's not a statement of his rule - in context, it's what he says is the difference between himself and the character who committed the murder. That is, the statement is the normal response to another character inflicting a narcissistic injury upon him - denial. It is not some statement of a personal code he follows.

So, no, he's not lawful, but neither is he citing a rule nor a personal code he lives by, so the example is invalid.

But when the Giant "cherry-picks" an arbitrary character from a Western culture that has zero connection to a Western roleplaying game and arbitrarily tags that person as the exemplar of Chaotic Good in order to prove his point that's perfectly fine?

Your double-standard is boring.

That said, what's intellectually dishonest is basing your opinion of the character solely on that text in page without any other knowledge of the source material. You are allowing another person's research to inform your opinion rather than your own experience. This is evidenced by you settling on a very flawed read of the situation in which he killed the member of his team by ignoring the circumstances that led him to do so.

And finally, in the spirit of "cherry-picking", Lolth is listed as chaotic evil, yet demands her clerics conduct their lives by a specific ethos, and worship of her involves just as many structured rites and rituals as any deity. Does that mean the books (all of them) are wrong, and she is actually lawful? I could list probably a dozen other characters from random sources that are all specificed (or would at least qualify) as chaotic evil despite the fact that they also have specific sets of standards by which they conduct themselves of vary degrees. The mere presence of which should, by your argument, automatically make them lawful.

[noob]

I'd rather make a trolley problem that involves the heroes choosing between ending all magic in country and slaying one innocent princess.

How much is one life valued? Is it worth all enhanced technological advancement for miles around?

Depending on how rational people are about using magic removing all the magic in the country might be a good thing because then people will get more educated in other domains and also nobles will stop throwing fireballs at commoners.

[Segev]

Depending on how rational people are about using magic removing all the magic in the country might be a good thing because then people will get more educated in other domains and also nobles will stop throwing fireballs at commoners.

Eh, let's not get down this path. I could have a lengthy argument over whether magic stifles learning or is no different than computing.

[Spore]

Raise Dead is only 5k, redirect it towards the 1 Good NPC and rez


trolleys are probably very expensive in dnd. they'd be worth more than 5k. melt it down and use the money for the diamonds. the trolley must make amends for the people it kills.

Now I'm waiting for optimizers to build a trolley with wheels made out of "Unobtainium" that prevents true resurrection and even miracle/wish. You know, just to update the problem to D&D power levels.


You know, this train of threads is getting me thinking of making a halfing philosopher named Phillippa Proudfoot after the inventor of the modern Trolley Problem thought experiment.

At least make the problems setting appropriate: "If Elminster could destroy the Red Wizards of Thay, how many slaves does he have to free at a minimum to alleviate the lives lost by higher prices on magical weapons and the ensuing heroes unable to injure these adult red dragons that terrorize every other town."

[Segev]

The Giant is right when he says that a Paladin walking into the Orc King's lands isn't bound to follow the Orc King's laws just because he walked into there. The Paladin is bound by legitimate authority. He is not required to recognize the Orc King as "legitimate," but actually breaking down what would be required for that recognition is a very complicated subject if you want to spell it out, while it's usually pretty easy to sus out with a "it feels right" sort of thing. Not "I like it this way," but "I have a sense for what would and would not be legitimate."

The simplistic way to look at it is that the Paladin obeys the laws of the authority to which he subscribes. And likely does so as a matter of custom everywhere, with the only exceptions being things that he knows are matters of jurisdiction rather than laws-as-strict-rules. If peaceably in a foreign land, he likely recognizes the laws of that land as legitimate, but if his presence is not peaceable, it's likely he's there on the authority of his own chosen leader or cause, and will operate according to their rules and not the local ones. In particular as may pertain to executing duties assigned to him by his chosen authority figures which may be against the legal codes of his current locale.

For instance, a Paladin executing an order to lead an army to overthrow the tyranny of the Southern Kingdom and its oppressive system of slavery isn't going to stop his assault just because a guardsman orders him to in the name of the Southking, even though violently stealing the living property of wealthy landowners (i.e. liberating slaves from their captivity) is most definitely against the laws of the Southern Kingdom.

[zlefin]

I can't believe it took me so long to figure out the proper DnD answer to the trolley problem:
stop the trolley and destroy it for xp. Then kill the lone person adn the other 5 people for more xp.
and angst about it for roleplaying xp.

[Segev]

I can't believe it took me so long to figure out the proper DnD answer to the trolley problem:
stop the trolley and destroy it for xp. Then kill the lone person adn the other 5 people for more xp.
and angst about it for roleplaying xp.

You forgot to loot the bodies, rip up the tracks for material value, and to break down the trolley's husk for more material to sell at market.

[Venger]

I'd rather make a trolley problem that involves the heroes choosing between ending all magic in country and slaying one innocent princess.

How much is one life valued? Is it worth all enhanced technological advancement for miles around?

Kill the princess, then use magic to rez her. Textbook nonissue.

[Arbane]

From Somethingawful.com: The Faerun Trolley Problem (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=115495):


On Twin Faerun, a druid(me) in a town is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the druid can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the druid is aware of this, for the druid knows trolleys. The druid is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the druid can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single lawful neutral cleric, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the druid steers the trolley to the right. If the cleric on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty elves (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the elves' caravan will be crossing later that night). One of the elves that will be killed would have grown up to become a Lawful Evil tyrant who would make good utilitarian halflings do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become Drizzt, while a third would invent the Vancian Magic system.

If the druid chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a Chaotic Good bard on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local temple that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the druid is aware of this, for the druid knows hearts. If the bard on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the cleric on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten dwarves: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local temple for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the carvan of elves will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the wizard responsible for putting the druid at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis spells available, however the druid does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the druid's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other druids and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the druid chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue (Chaotic Good), while if the druid chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result (Lawful Evil). Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the druid in such a manner that the druid is never sure if it is being deceived.


QUESTION: What should I do to avoid losing my powers?

[Liquor Box]

The Giant is right when he says that a Paladin walking into the Orc King's lands isn't bound to follow the Orc King's laws just because he walked into there. The Paladin is bound by legitimate authority. He is not required to recognize the Orc King as "legitimate," but actually breaking down what would be required for that recognition is a very complicated subject if you want to spell it out, while it's usually pretty easy to sus out with a "it feels right" sort of thing. Not "I like it this way," but "I have a sense for what would and would not be legitimate."

The simplistic way to look at it is that the Paladin obeys the laws of the authority to which he subscribes. And likely does so as a matter of custom everywhere, with the only exceptions being things that he knows are matters of jurisdiction rather than laws-as-strict-rules. If peaceably in a foreign land, he likely recognizes the laws of that land as legitimate, but if his presence is not peaceable, it's likely he's there on the authority of his own chosen leader or cause, and will operate according to their rules and not the local ones. In particular as may pertain to executing duties assigned to him by his chosen authority figures which may be against the legal codes of his current locale.

For instance, a Paladin executing an order to lead an army to overthrow the tyranny of the Southern Kingdom and its oppressive system of slavery isn't going to stop his assault just because a guardsman orders him to in the name of the Southking, even though violently stealing the living property of wealthy landowners (i.e. liberating slaves from their captivity) is most definitely against the laws of the Southern Kingdom.

I think a lawful character would abide by the laws of a country he or she visits as well.

The reason the Paladin is not subject to the orc-king's authority is that (in the Giant's example) he has entered the swamp specifically to do battle with the orc-king. He is and invader, not a visitor.

[Liquor Box]

The paladin would be entirely safe from falling if he or she did nothing. It is not evil for him or her to do nothing (although it may be overtly 'good' to prevent further murders) and nor is it unlawful , so there is no risk of falling.

If the paladin does intervene he or she may be at risk of falling.
- First, the act would be unlawful even if it is good. A paladin must uphold both sides of the alignment requirement. I accept that good my trump lawfulness if the paladin has no option but to either do something evil or do something unlawful, but here there is a third option - to do nothing.
- Second, it is not clear that it is 'good' to kill the murderer and this may depend on your DM. Is it ok to kill a person pre-emptively because 'undoubtedly' (whatever that means in this context) they will kill someone else in the future? YMMV - but if the paladin isn't justified in killing the 'murderer' then he himself is murderer.

Like others, I struggle a bit with the scenario. Generally the court of law will be entrusted to decide on a person's guilt because it is best placed to make that decision (it may not always be right, but the court's decision is going to be more reliable than the conclusions of a random paladin). Evidence is usually excluded for good reason, so the magical divination would ordinarily be allowed in court, unless it was flawed in some way, and if it is flawed then the paladin ought not rely on it themself. Accordingly, in most circumstances the paladin should accept the court's finding on the issue, in the knowledge that his or her own conclusions are generally going to be less robust

[DarkSoul]

"You're being tried for the murder of no fewer than 5 innocent people. Be aware that the seat you are chained to is sitting in the center of a truth spell (Zone of Truth). When you are asked a question about the crimes you're being tried for, you will respond as quickly and briefly as possible. Be aware that failing to answer a question you are asked will result in an immediate guilty verdict. Do you understand?"

"Are you responsible for the death of this person? Did you personally kill them? Were you in full control of your body, mind, and belongings when you killed them?"

Three "yes"es? Smite.

[Kyutaru]

Depends if the Orc-King is also a recognized ruler and his lands a legitimate country. Depending on how the rest of the nations feel about this guy, he might not have a right to rule and merely seized what was available. Even if it was an ancestral orc homeland, no one likes a tyrant and being denounced by your neighbors means they don't recognize your authority.

[Liquor Box]

"You're being tried for the murder of no fewer than 5 innocent people. Be aware that the seat you are chained to is sitting in the center of a truth spell (Zone of Truth). When you are asked a question about the crimes you're being tried for, you will respond as quickly and briefly as possible. Be aware that failing to answer a question you are asked will result in an immediate guilty verdict. Do you understand?"

"Are you responsible for the death of this person? Did you personally kill them? Were you in full control of your body, mind, and belongings when you killed them?"

Three "yes"es? Smite.

It's possible depending on how the legal system is set up. In many real world (modern) countries defendants have a right to refrain from answering questions that would incriminate them. Alternatively, it may not work because the defendant themself has the means to magic sufficient to circumvent the ZoT - possibly they may even be granted such resources on the basis that the defence should be sufficiently resourced.

[Red Fel]

There is a mass murderer who has been brought before a court of law. He has been positively identified through magical means as having committed no fewer than 5 murders without proper justification. However, due to some...over eager adventurers who wanted to see this man put to justice, the case was tampered with in such a way that it is not possible to prosecute.

If he is let go, he will undoubtedly kill someone again. But if he isn't let go, it breaks the tenets of the court system.

What is the paladin of the town supposed to do?

(Obviously, keeping watch over him, and try to intervene when it's attempted, but let's just say wasn't just the incompetence of the guards that caused it to take 5 murders to get this guy. And yes, the town's paladin sees the legal system as legitimate.)

We've established several facts as incontrovertibly true.
This person is the killer.
He has committed at least 5 murders.
They were unjustified, actual murders.
He will most certainly do so again, without question.
Based on this? Paladin should Smite Evil.

Look, even if we take as given that the proper legal procedure has been followed, and that the Paladin recognizes its legitimacy, his obligation is to Good first, not to Law. Even though it means taking the law into his own hands, he has a duty to defend the innocent of the town.

Now, if any of the facts listed above were not given, that would be a different story. The Paladin would be tending in a very Miko direction. But that's not the case here. We know as a fact that this person is a mass murderer, and will do so again - not just might, but definitely will. These are established facts.

A Paladin is not required to wait until after this guy kills again to Smite Evil, nor is he required to sit and wait until then to pounce. The fact that this person will kill again is established truth, and lawful system of justice or not, the Paladin has an obligation to prevent that. Any deaths he could have prevented are, from this point forward, on him.

Good first, Lawful second. It's not hard.

And why am I the one saying this?

[Faily]

Also keep in mind the pre-modern justice was justice in the loosest of terms. They were rarely about unmasking the true culprit, but more about pinning the blame on someone fast enough to calm down the community.

Hence all the witches burnt at the stake. You just need enough people saying "[person] did this to my cows and turned me into a newt (but I got better)", and then whoever is in charge in the community passes the verdict and the judgement is carried out. You'd have to go to much bigger settlement to actually have proper courts, judges, and maybe even lawyers.

And *even if* a third party "tampered" with justice, by trying to vigilante-murder him, or whatever they did(?), that would not mean that he gets to go free. The third party could get punished for unlawful acts, but in no way would that mean that a *confirmed* murderer would go free.

[legomaster00156]

A paladin is Good first and Lawful second. They should be willing to bend the rules when doing so protects innocent lives, even rules like due process.

[hamishspence]

The reason the Paladin is not subject to the orc-king's authority is that (in the Giant's example) he has entered the swamp specifically to do battle with the orc-king.

No - with orcs who are raiding nearby villages. They aren't the Orc King himself- but his underlings.


Being Lawful in D&D means following a set of codes and rules—not obeying every law of every nation you ever find yourself in. As I've said before, when your paladin enters the evil Orc Warlord's swamp and starts killing orcs who are raiding a nearby human village, does he turn himself in to be tried by the Warlord for murder? No, because he doesn't recognize the Warlord's authority as a head of state. As far as he's concerned, that swamp belongs to the King whose nation it's in, regardless of what the orcs who live there think.

[Psyren]

Now, if any of the facts listed above were not given, that would be a different story. The Paladin would be tending in a very Miko direction. But that's not the case here. We know as a fact that this person is a mass murderer, and will do so again - not just might, but definitely will. These are established facts.

A Paladin is not required to wait until after this guy kills again to Smite Evil, nor is he required to sit and wait until then to pounce. The fact that this person will kill again is established truth, and lawful system of justice or not, the Paladin has an obligation to prevent that. Any deaths he could have prevented are, from this point forward, on him.

I agree, but will point out that the Paladin can still use nonlethal force here, if there is perhaps another jurisdiction or authority that wasn't corrupt. Not that I think lethal force would be wrong either.



Good first, Lawful second. It's not hard.

And why am I the one saying this?

...To truly understand Evil, you must understand Good? Or something?

[hamishspence]

We've established several facts as incontrovertibly true.
This person is the killer.
He has committed at least 5 murders.
They were unjustified, actual murders.
He will most certainly do so again, without question.
Based on this? Paladin should Smite Evil.

Look, even if we take as given that the proper legal procedure has been followed, and that the Paladin recognizes its legitimacy, his obligation is to Good first, not to Law. Even though it means taking the law into his own hands, he has a duty to defend the innocent of the town.

Now, if any of the facts listed above were not given, that would be a different story. The Paladin would be tending in a very Miko direction. But that's not the case here. We know as a fact that this person is a mass murderer, and will do so again - not just might, but definitely will. These are established facts.

A Paladin is not required to wait until after this guy kills again to Smite Evil, nor is he required to sit and wait until then to pounce. The fact that this person will kill again is established truth, and lawful system of justice or not, the Paladin has an obligation to prevent that. Any deaths he could have prevented are, from this point forward, on him.

Good first, Lawful second. It's not hard.
Or, as BoED puts it:


Divided Loyalties

For better of for worse, a paladin is not just good: she is lawful good, sworn not just to uphold the principles of good but also bound by a code of conduct, and subject to local law as well. Many paladins are also members of a specific deity's church, a knightly order of some sort, or both. At the best of times, these various loyalties - her code of conduct, her church's laws, her order's demands, the laws of her nation, and the abstraction of her alignment - are all in harmony, and her path is clear before her. When circumstances are not so ideal, she finds herself torn between conflicting demands: her superior in her knightly order commands her to kill a brutal murderer who has escaped punishment in court on a legal technicality, for example. Her personal code requires that she punish those that harm innocents, and this killer certainly falls in that category. However, her personal code also instructs her to respect legitimate authority, which includes both her knightly superior and the local law that has let the killer go free. The demands of her good alignment suggest she should punish the wrongdoer, but the demands of her lawful alignment insist that she obey the judgement of the court. It is entirely possible that either her superior or the magistrate in the case is corrupt or even possessed. Whom does she obey? How does she sort out the conflicting demands of her loyalties?

Paladins are by no means alone in this situation. Any character who tries consistently to do good eventually finds himself in a situation where different loyalties are in conflict. Chaotic Good characters might care far less about a potentially corrupt or at least ineffectual court system, but they might have other personal standards or obligations that cause conflict in similar or different situations. In the end, however, many such conflicts boil down to a question of priorities, and for a character who aspires to exalted deeds, good is the highest priority. In the example above, the murderer must at least be captured, if not killed, before he can kill again. If she has reason to suspect corruption, either in the court or in her own order, the paladin must attempt to uncover it, though it might mean being cast out of her order, punished under local law, or both. Her paladinhood and her exalted status remain intact, since she acted in the cause of good even when that required questioning the legitimacy of authority. Magistrates or knightly superiors who serve the cause of evil while posing as agents of good are not legitimate authority, and the paladin is right for exposing their corruption.

[Saintheart]

No my argument is that you are stating your conception of what you think should be lawful, and that conception is in conflict with the plain text.
"My character lives solely by a personal code and follow it at all times so that makes him lawful. He ignores all other rules except for the ones he has decided are the correct ones."
That's not automatically a lawful character. That could just as easily describe a chaotic character because he isn't following the rules he is following his conscience. Further examination of the character is needed to accurately establish his alignment.

Again with the reference to conscience! Can we pick and stick to a term that isn't defined by a moral sense of good and evil, which muddies these waters considerably?

I do agree with you that examination of the character might be needed to establish alignment, but that would clearly indicate there are shadings of lawful; it is not just one arbitrary standard that applies.

I don't accept the conception is in conflict with the plain text. WOTC's own wording for a Lawful Neutral character, which is about as close as you're going to get to a solely lawful character since Good and Evil are winnowed out of the equation, is that a lawful neutral character "acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her." Not 'and'. "Or". Someone who sticks rigidly to their personal code is, necessarily, lawful.



But when the Giant "cherry-picks" an arbitrary character from a Western culture that has zero connection to a Western roleplaying game and arbitrarily tags that person as the exemplar of Chaotic Good in order to prove his point that's perfectly fine?

Your double-standard is boring.

I'd agree - if I was resorting to the Giant for an explanation of what's lawful and what's not. I'm not. Different poster, my friend.



That said, what's intellectually dishonest is basing your opinion of the character solely on that text in page without any other knowledge of the source material. You are allowing another person's research to inform your opinion rather than your own experience. This is evidenced by you settling on a very flawed read of the situation in which he killed the member of his team by ignoring the circumstances that led him to do so.

...dude, you referred me to the webpage yourself. I'm going solely off that webpage's content. If you're saying it's an unreliable source, then why did you resort to it in order to enlighten or buttress your argument?


And finally, in the spirit of "cherry-picking", Lolth is listed as chaotic evil, yet demands her clerics conduct their lives by a specific ethos, and worship of her involves just as many structured rites and rituals as any deity. Does that mean the books (all of them) are wrong, and she is actually lawful? I could list probably a dozen other characters from random sources that are all specificed (or would at least qualify) as chaotic evil despite the fact that they also have specific sets of standards by which they conduct themselves of vary degrees. The mere presence of which should, by your argument, automatically make them lawful.

Lolth is held in most incarnations to be a cruel goddess, even and especially to the drow themselves. As such, I don't think you can rule out the possibility that she insists on her entire people adhering to a dreadful, destructive way of life as a large-scale cosmic joke, a torture that's in keeping with her status as a chaotic evil goddess. The same system she instituted which demands a certain ethos from her clerics is the same system that resulted in her cities being subject to unending strife amongst her people. After all, if you believe in Chaos as a highpoint of philosophy - as one might expect a literal deity to so believe - what more exquisite torture could you arrange for your followers than to force them to observe a rigidly lawful existence?

[noob]

Eh, let's not get down this path. I could have a lengthy argument over whether magic stifles learning or is no different than computing.

I was more speaking about how magic users were frequently portrayed to be irrational or dangerous in fiction and thus that removing magic could be a good thing depending on the fiction in which you are.
Also the magic removal was at kingdom level so you can still benefit from disease healing and resurrection and magically crafted goods by just having your magic users get 3 meters out of the kingdom
so you lower access to magic but do not remove it and also prevents irrational spur of the moment fireballs and stuff like that so in a small enough kingdom the loss of access is lower than the potential benefits.(again setting dependant)

[Troacctid]

If I believe the court system is legitimate, then I have faith that they will make the right decision. WTF kind of paladin goes around murdering prisoners? Why is that where your brain goes?

[Venger]

I was more speaking about how magic users were frequently portrayed to be irrational or dangerous in fiction and thus that removing magic could be a good thing depending on the fiction in which you are.
Also the magic removal was at kingdom level so you can still benefit from disease healing and resurrection and magically crafted goods by just having your magic users get 3 meters out of the kingdom
so you lower access to magic but do not remove it and also prevents irrational spur of the moment fireballs and stuff like that so in a small enough kingdom the loss of access is lower than the potential benefits.(again setting dependant)

That might be true in conan novels or whatever, but no one would think that in dnd. It's too important.

[lord_khaine]

If I believe the court system is legitimate, then I have faith that they will make the right decision. WTF kind of paladin goes around murdering prisoners? Why is that where your brain goes?

As interesting as this is, then i think you misunderstood the situation outlined by the OP.

Since the court system did not make the right decision.
They allowed a know and dangerous killer to walk free.
Not because they though he was innocent.
But because of technical reasons.

That endangers the innocent. And so is ground for considering the court system illegitimate.

[Saintheart]

WTF kind of paladin goes around murdering prisoners?

This is a legitimate question. A Paladin of Slaughter has to refuse help to those in need, he can't laugh cruelly at the begging prisoners if he's dismembered them all.

[SirNibbles]

That might be true in conan novels or whatever, but no one would think that in dnd. It's too important.

Right. Magic is the answer to most plot holes/design errors in D&D settings.
"Why is that city not surrounded by farms, you know like the kind that grow food to feed people who live in the city?"
-"Don't worry, magic."

"How is the entire economy of this town based on providing things for adventurers? You have no mines to get the raw materials for the armour and weapons you sell them, you have no breweries to brew the beer that's sold in the tavern where all the quests are given, and let's not even get started on your sewage system and sanitation!"
-"Magic."

[Venger]

Right. Magic is the answer to most plot holes/design errors in D&D settings.
"Why is that city not surrounded by farms, you know like the kind that grow food to feed people who live in the city?"
-"Don't worry, magic."

"How is the entire economy of this town based on providing things for adventurers? You have no mines to get the raw materials for the armour and weapons you sell them, you have no breweries to brew the beer that's sold in the tavern where all the quests are given, and let's not even get started on your sewage system and sanitation!"
-"Magic."

I'd call both of those pillars of the setting rather than plot holes, but tomato (from a create food and water trap) tomahto (also from a create food and water trap)

[Red Fel]

If I believe the court system is legitimate, then I have faith that they will make the right decision. WTF kind of paladin goes around murdering prisoners? Why is that where your brain goes?

The answer is that, while the court system is legitimate, in the instant case the court was unable to reach the right decision. The right decision, as is again an established fact, is that the villain is a mass murderer who will kill again, for whom imprisonment or execution are the only options. However, the outcome was the result of procedural defect - because of circumstances, the court was procedurally precluded from reaching the right decision. It was forced, due to defect, to release the clearly and indisputably guilty prisoner.

The Paladin will not be murdering a prisoner. First of all, the villain will not be a prisoner - he has been (or will be) released. Second, it's not murder, in that there is a justification for it (albeit not quite a lawful one) - it is generally accepted that killing someone to save the life of that person's victim is justifiable. Again, it is established as a fact that this villain will kill again - that's not in dispute. Based on that, the Paladin is affirmatively saving a life - a justification, therefore not murder.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Three threads merged. One thread per topic, please. Obvious "another one of these" type scenarios should just go in the existing threads. The impulse to create a parody thread should be resisted. Please don't clutter up the Forum.

Also, I know that merging three threads like this creates a monstrosity, but that's on your heads.

[dancrilis]

Again, it is established as a fact that this villain will kill again - that's not in dispute.

For the sake of it let us assume that perfect knowledge of this is available to the paladin - they are still setting an example for others to mete out justice when they feel that the legal system fails, this could result in innocent people being hurt or killed as others without perfect knowledge follow the paladins example on what they think are justifiable grounds.

By undermining the law the paladin undermines the legal system (while flawed can be improved) which thereby endangers those innocent people protected by it.

If the paladin has perfect knowledge that the killer will kill again then they could setup a sting operation to catch them in the act.

Also the paladin in this case did not have perfect knowledge 'If he is let go, he will undoubtedly kill someone again', 'undoubtedly: Not doubted or questioned; accepted (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/undoubtedly)', just because something is not doubted or questioned does not mean that it is true.

Were I am evil god of trickery (and I am not saying that I am) tricking paladins into killing innocent people would be one way I would get my laughs, and creating a situation where guilt was not doubted should be simple enough.

[Red Fel]

For the sake of it let us assume that perfect knowledge of this is available to the paladin - they are still setting an example for others to mete out justice when they feel that the legal system fails, this could result in innocent people being hurt or killed as others without perfect knowledge follow the paladins example on what they think are justifiable grounds.

By undermining the law the paladin undermines the legal system (while flawed can be improved) which thereby endangers those innocent people protected by it.

Hypothetically, potentially undermines the legal system. In order to definitely, certainly save lives.

In a D&D context, where absolute morality is absolutely a thing, it's not much of a decision. "Do I definitely protect innocents, acting outside of the law, or do I preserve the integrity of law, maybe preventing other crimes, but definitely letting innocents die?" I don't know many Paladins who would consider it a hard one.


If the paladin has perfect knowledge that the killer will kill again then they could setup a sting operation to catch them in the act.

If the Paladin has perfect knowledge that the killer will kill again, a sting operation is unnecessary. The whole point of a sting is to catch the criminal in the act, in order to produce ideal evidence of guilt suitable for trial. If the Paladin has perfect knowledge, there would be no reason to prove guilt for trial. If the Paladin could catch the killer in the act - that is, if the killer doesn't complete his latest murder before the Paladin shows up - the Paladin would be well within rights to kill the killer on the spot. Killing to protect an innocent life is generally a Good act by D&D standards, and rarely frowned on by most D&D societies (save those that overemphasize Law over Good).

Killing the villain would simply be preemptive.


Also the paladin in this case did not have perfect knowledge 'If he is let go, he will undoubtedly kill someone again', 'undoubtedly: Not doubted or questioned; accepted (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/undoubtedly)', just because something is not doubted or questioned does not mean that it is true.

Were I am evil god of trickery (and I am not saying that I am) tricking paladins into killing innocent people would be one way I would get my laughs, and creating a situation where guilt was not doubted should be simple enough.

This feels like a word game. It feels like you're saying, "The OP said 'undoubtedly,' not 'actually,' which means only that there is no doubt, not that the villain is actually guilty! It's a trick, ha ha!"

This isn't a situation where everyone believes the villain to be guilty. The OP would simply have said that. Instead, the OP told us that he was guilty, and that he would kill again. The word choice ("undoubtedly") is surplusage, for emphasis. To treat it as a trick qualifier is to introduce elements into the hypothetical that aren't really there.

That said, I do agree with you - it's a great way to make a Paladin fall, by tricking them into doggedly pursuing someone who isn't Evil, even going so far as to exceed the bounds of the law. Clearly, the Giant also agrees with you - Miko has been mentioned.

But that's not this hypothetical. I didn't see any quibbling or qualification about the villain's guilt or likelihood of reoffending. Murderer gonna murder, yo.

[SangoProduction]

Sheriff: Three threads merged. One thread per topic, please. Obvious "another one of these" type scenarios should just go in the existing threads. The impulse to create a parody thread should be resisted. Please don't clutter up the Forum.

Also, I know that merging three threads like this creates a monstrosity, but that's on your heads.

I mean, wouldn't making the original posts that were in the new threads be hijacking another's thread? I thought that was against the rules.

[Psyren]

If I believe the court system is legitimate, then I have faith that they will make the right decision. WTF kind of paladin goes around murdering prisoners? Why is that where your brain goes?

There is a clear paradox here; in the premise as presented, the magic and the court's contrary judgement cannot both be infallible. The two main scenarios are:

Magic is right about the killer, court acquits anyway:

This is the scenario presented in the OP. In this scenario, the court is either corrupt or incompetent; in either case, the paladin has no obligation to submit to the court's incorrect judgement. He should pursue the course of action that will result in the least risk to innocent life; this might be exposing and thwarting the corruption within the court, incapacitating the killer and taking him to another jurisdiction, taking the law into his own hands and meting out lethal justice, or even sending for help while he monitors the situation further.

All four depend on other factors and entail additional risks - exposing the court may be lengthy and have a low chance of succeeding, meanwhile the killer is free to kill again; the paladin may lack the manpower to keep the killer contained into another jurisdiction; executing the killer may either be unsuccessful (due to the corrupt court now offering protection) or result in collateral damage to innocents; and sending for help may also be lengthy. There may be other options beyond these as well, and the paladin's responsibility is to do his/her best with the information he/she has. In all cases, it's unlikely the paladin will fall unless they make some pretty egregious errors or decide to wash their hands of the whole business and do nothing, knowing that innocents will continue to die.

The magic is flawed or its conclusions doubtful:

In this case the court is right to acquit, and the paladin should continue trying to find other proof that he has the right criminal while keeping an eye on them. But that is not the scenario presented in the OP.

A third option is that the magic is flawed AND the court corrupt, but that isn't appreciably different than the first except that the paladin might be more plausibly tricked.


I mean, wouldn't making the original posts that were in the new threads be hijacking another's thread? I thought that was against the rules.

IANAM, but mods don't actually recognize "thread ownership." If you feel a post is sufficiently off-topic I would report that specific one or ones for them to take a look at post-merger.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Hypotetical situation.

There's a woman who has been convicted for murder on the basis of solid although not 100% certain evidence. People saw and heard the woman arguing bitterly with the victim just an hour before the murder, blood has been found on her dress and her fingerprints on the murder's weapon.

The explanation given by the woman is she bumped into a junkie fleeing the murder scene ( so he got smeared with a bit of blood who she didn't notice ) , picked up the murder weapon because it blocked her car ( and didn't notice the blood because the murder weapon is a red fire estinguisher ) and drove away without noticing the body.

The husband of the convicted woman is personally certain his wife is not a murderer although he has not evidence to prove it. And with all the appeals exausted his wife is deeply depressed and suicidal. So he comes up with an elaborate plan to make his wife escape in a foreign country, with him and their son ( a child ).


( by the way yes, she's innocent )


1- Is it an Evil action to make a person you can't prove innocent evade just because your instinct tells you she's innocent?

2- Would the action be less justified if there was a chance of parole / semi-liberty after several years of prison ( in a lenient system )?

3- Would the action be more justified if the woman was sentenced to death penalty?

4- Would the action be more or less justified if the prison system was hellish ( Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil prisons ) or dignified and sustainable ( Lawful Good prisons ) ?


----


And by the way, did you recognize the film that inspired this question? ;)

Why is it D&D Trolley problem? I don't see the trolley.

[ekarney]

So I see the "paradox" you're aiming for here, but it's not going to work.
I assume you're trying to pit "A Paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority," against "punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

What you're ignoring here, is a couple of things. 1. The "primary" fall reason is willfully commits an evil act, other than that the paladin must grossly violate their code.
If the Paladin respects the "legitimate authority" of the town, then the Paladin is both not punishing those who threaten and harm innocents, and well as violating the code by helping someone, who would use that help (allowing the murder to walk around town unhindered would be helping him" to further chaotic/evil ends.

Compared to:

The Paladin ignores the "legitimate authority" of the town. That is the only part of the code the paladin breaks, which is arguably not grossly breaking the code, especially compared with the alternative, of break two parts of the code, and those two parts directly hinder the Paladins prime directive of stopping evil.

Not to mention, if the court has done this sort of thing multiple times, the Paladin is no longer required to respect them as legitimate authority, as "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code."


So here's the simple step by step.

Ask the DM "Will killing a violent, evil being cause me to fall?"
If the DM says "No" proceed to the next step, if the DM says "Yes" throw a PHB at the and proceed to the next step.
Smite the evil being.
Whilst the town may have found the murderer innocent of murder, the Paladin found the murderer guilty of evil.
From this point on, seeing the ineptitude of this town's court, I'd argue that now the only "legitimate authority" in the town, is that of the Paladin's.

tl;dr: killing evil people, who do evil things, doesn't violate your code.

[Liquor Box]

No - with orcs who are raiding nearby villages. They aren't the Orc King himself- but his underlings.

Well in that case, he of course wouldn't recognise the orc-king's authority for an entirely different reason. The orc king's claim to authority is clearly illegal in terms of the laws of the kingdom within which the orc king has claimed his domain. That's not analogous to visiting a different sovereign country and disregarding the laws you don't like. If i went down to the park near where you live and claimed it as my domain, of course that doesn't mean that a lawful character would have to obey my authority. I had thought that the orc king was the recognised ruler of some area and the paladin was seeking to displace him, but if the orc king is not even a recognised authority, then the argument is less strong in opposing the proposition that lawful character must obey authority.


The answer is that, while the court system is legitimate, in the instant case the court was unable to reach the right decision. The right decision, as is again an established fact, is that the villain is a mass murderer who will kill again, for whom imprisonment or execution are the only options. However, the outcome was the result of procedural defect - because of circumstances, the court was procedurally precluded from reaching the right decision. It was forced, due to defect, to release the clearly and indisputably guilty prisoner.

The Paladin will not be murdering a prisoner. First of all, the villain will not be a prisoner - he has been (or will be) released. Second, it's not murder, in that there is a justification for it (albeit not quite a lawful one) - it is generally accepted that killing someone to save the life of that person's victim is justifiable. Again, it is established as a fact that this villain will kill again - that's not in dispute. Based on that, the Paladin is affirmatively saving a life - a justification, therefore not murder.

The scenario is not that the court is unable to reach the 'right' decision. It's just that the court has reached a decision that you, knowing the accused did kill some people, disagree with.

This legitimate court would only exclude evidence for a reason that it (or that those who prepared the laws) consider reasonable. Handwaving it as a technicality allows us to pretend there is no reason, but that is probably not the case, and certainly not established. Often that reason is that the evidence would be misleading or unduly prejudicial relative to its probative value - but that cannot be the reason in this case because we know that the evidence was sufficient to establish the fact of the murders. As such, the likely reason for the evidence being excluded is because some other injustice would be done by relying on it - a real life example might be that the court excludes evidence flowing from the use of torture because it does not want to incentivise the use of torture in such situations - perhaps the magical means in this case is as invasive as torture.

The truth is that we do not know what the reason was that the case against the accused could not be made - but you are assuming that the prosecution did not have a good reason to decline to kill or imprison the murderer. Based on the view that a court (which is legitimate, at least in the paladin's opinion) will generally make sound decisions, I think the better conclusion is that the court/prosecution did have a good reason.

So it is not just a matter of the paladin knowing as a matter of certainty that the legal system got it wrong. At best it would be the paladin (who is perhaps not intelligent, or perhaps not informed of the wider implications) substituting his or her own judgment for that of the court. Personally I prefer a society where people do not kill one another whenever they think they know better than the court.

[Saintheart]

The magic is flawed or its conclusions doubtful:

In this case the court is right to acquit, and the paladin should continue trying to find other proof that he has the right criminal while keeping an eye on them. But that is not the scenario presented in the OP.

A third option is that the magic is flawed AND the court corrupt, but that isn't appreciably different than the first except that the paladin might be more plausibly tricked.

This is particularly important in the case in the "killing without proper justification" element of the discussion. I can see fact-finding magic being able to irresistibly conclude that a killing took place, or at least causality. 'Without proper justification' isn't quite so simple a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, are we assuming magic that can irresistibly draw judgments about the killer's motive at the time of the event which was the cause of the person's death? And even then - suppose the killer really, really disliked the victim but the killer was under some form of unbreakable magical domination which coincidentally happened to be compelling them to kill? There is causality, perhaps, but arguably no means for the killer to will the death that took place?

In short: are we assuming magic has irresistibly concluded that the facts do not admit of any circumstance to the killing which would excuse the killing given the laws of the land, i.e. are mistake of fact, self-defence, killing on provocation all ruled out irresistibly by said magic?

[Liquor Box]

This is particularly important in the case in the "killing without proper justification" element of the discussion. I can see fact-finding magic being able to irresistibly conclude that a killing took place, or at least causality. 'Without proper justification' isn't quite so simple a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, are we assuming magic that can irresistibly draw judgments about the killer's motive at the time of the event which was the cause of the person's death? And even then - suppose the killer really, really disliked the victim but the killer was under some form of unbreakable magical domination which coincidentally happened to be compelling them to kill? There is causality, perhaps, but arguably no means for the killer to will the death that took place?

In short: are we assuming magic has irresistibly concluded that the facts do not admit of any circumstance to the killing which would excuse the killing given the laws of the land, i.e. are mistake of fact, self-defence, killing on provocation all ruled out irresistibly by said magic?

I agree with you. It goes beyond the magic understanding motives to applying some sort of code to those motives (or other circumstances) to determine justification.

But, I think the point of these sorts of scenarios is to not pick holes in them, but to take them as given. For example, in the real trolley problem, there is no third option - your cannot stop the trolley or get the people off the tracks. No reasons are needed for why you are unable to do these seemingly achievable tasks, you are just supposed to take it as given that these are impossible. The idea is to force you to make the choice, not to find a hole to wiggle through (which is kind of contrary to most DnD situations).

[hamishspence]

Well in that case, he of course wouldn't recognise the orc-king's authority for an entirely different reason. The orc king's claim to authority is clearly illegal in terms of the laws of the kingdom within which the orc king has claimed his domain. That's not analogous to visiting a different sovereign country and disregarding the laws you don't like. If i went down to the park near where you live and claimed it as my domain, of course that doesn't mean that a lawful character would have to obey my authority. I had thought that the orc king was the recognised ruler of some area and the paladin was seeking to displace him, but if the orc king is not even a recognised authority, then the argument is less strong in opposing the proposition that lawful character must obey authority.


Even if a bunch of other states did recognise them, that wouldn't stop the paladin from acting. Take Gobbotopia - it's been recognised by Cliffport and a bunch of other states, but that's not going to stop Hinjo, O-Chul, etc from refusing to recognise it, and seeking to overthrow it and restore Azure City.

Paladins oppose evil because it's evil, not "because it's illegal".

[Segev]

From an LG standpoint, Laws exist to enshrine Good. They're there to protect people from abuses of power of all sorts. All flavors of Good tend to be pretty successful at protecting people from abuses of physical power expressed as violent force. CG tends to be particularly bad at protecting people from abuses of power that arise from personal biases and misunderstandings. This truth is why LG wants procedures, checks, and mechanisms to protect those accused of evil from being judged by those who do not or cannot know they really did the deed. The law's purpose is to keep the good-hearted but angry noble from executing the "vile murderess" who he knows poisoned his son, by slowing him down and requiring standards of evidence that will, if followed, give the accused woman a chance to defend herself. Maybe for some adventurers to discover the real killer was the noble's scheming rival who saw the son's love affair with the accused woman's daughter as a great way to get rid of the boy without having suspicion fall on himself.

Now, such procedures can be exploited, manipulated, and snarled in ways that prevent the standard of evidence from being met even as the criminal gloatingly sneers in a way that is practically a confession. And an LG person has to let him go...until he finds that proof. But...if he doesn't? IF he breaks those laws, but he is genuinely, truthfully certain of his righteousness, a paladin CAN take matters into his own hands. He can perform a Chaotic act without falling, as long as he doesn't make a habit of it sufficient to cease being LG. He may need to seek Atonement, but it's not the end of his career as a wielder of holy magic.

The challenge for the Paladin isn't NEVER doing such things. It's avoiding having it become the norm. He should always go out of his way to find a legal, legitimate, honorable way to achieve his goal. And most of the time, he'll find it, even if it's harder. Even if it costs him more, personally. Even if it's more thankless.

[SangoProduction]

I agree with you. It goes beyond the magic understanding motives to applying some sort of code to those motives (or other circumstances) to determine justification.

But, I think the point of these sorts of scenarios is to not pick holes in them, but to take them as given. For example, in the real trolley problem, there is no third option - your cannot stop the trolley or get the people off the tracks. No reasons are needed for why you are unable to do these seemingly achievable tasks, you are just supposed to take it as given that these are impossible. The idea is to force you to make the choice, not to find a hole to wiggle through (which is kind of contrary to most DnD situations).

Exactly what a trolley problem is. Do you actively kill one, or negligently let down the other (often where negligence is a greater objective cost)?
Although your reply seems to imply that the person you replied to were trying to weasel out of the question, when it was offering a possible justification. The reply would seem more apt for those just not engaging with the question and saying it doesn't make sense.

[hamishspence]

Now, such procedures can be exploited, manipulated, and snarled in ways that prevent the standard of evidence from being met even as the criminal gloatingly sneers in a way that is practically a confession. And an LG person has to let him go...until he finds that proof. But...if he doesn't? IF he breaks those laws, but he is genuinely, truthfully certain of his righteousness, a paladin CAN take matters into his own hands. He can perform a Chaotic act without falling, as long as he doesn't make a habit of it sufficient to cease being LG. He may need to seek Atonement, but it's not the end of his career as a wielder of holy magic.

The challenge for the Paladin isn't NEVER doing such things. It's avoiding having it become the norm.

As the Eberron book Sharn, City of Towers (page 126) puts it:

ALIGNMENT AND JUSTICE

Can a lawful good character break the law? Yes, she can—if she has good reason. A lawful alignment indicates a belief that order and structure are a valuable part of society. However, if a character is visiting a society whose cultural values are distinctly different from her own, she is not required to adhere to those laws. A tribe of barbarian giants in Xen’drik may have a law stating that whenever newcomers arrive, they must select one of their party, kill him, and eat him. A lawful giant from this culture would be expected to take this seriously—but a lawful character from Sharn would consider this to be abominable.

Likewise, Cavallah the ogre mage is lawful evil, yet she is in charge of a criminal organization. Her lawful alignment reflects her adherence to the laws and decrees of the hags of Droaam, along with her tendency to maintain strict discipline among the members of Daask. Alignment is only intended to be a general guideline to personality and behavior, especially in Eberron. Alignments are extreme viewpoints, and people often stray from the path.

So a lawful character can break the law, if she has to. But given the choice she would prefer to respect the structures imposed by society. A chaotic character takes the opposite view. He may decide that a particular law serves a useful purpose, but in general he feels that complex systems of codified laws restrict the freedoms that are a vital part of life. Chaotic good cultures believe that people are capable of governing themselves and making the right decisions; chaotic evil folk just want to do what they want with no consideration for others.


Well in that case, he of course wouldn't recognise the orc-king's authority for an entirely different reason. The orc king's claim to authority is clearly illegal in terms of the laws of the kingdom within which the orc king has claimed his domain. That's not analogous to visiting a different sovereign country and disregarding the laws you don't like.

The basic point being made is that obeying every nation's laws (when in that nation) is not obligatory for the Lawful:



Remember, folks, being Lawful has NEVER meant you obey every law for every nation whose borders you cross. You can choose to have a character that acts like that, but it is NOT part of the alignment description. After all, such a character would be required to obey the mandates of an orc chieftain the moment she entered his swamp. They would be seen as wishy-washy and easily swayed, kowtowing to whatever person could assert themselves the strongest.

Most lawful characters, though, will pick a certain set of authorities that they respect and ignore all others as illegitimate. An LG cleric of Pelor doesn't obey the authority of the High Priest of Vecna, for example. That doesn't make the cleric not Lawful.

[Psyren]

I agree with you. It goes beyond the magic understanding motives to applying some sort of code to those motives (or other circumstances) to determine justification.

But, I think the point of these sorts of scenarios is to not pick holes in them, but to take them as given. For example, in the real trolley problem, there is no third option - your cannot stop the trolley or get the people off the tracks. No reasons are needed for why you are unable to do these seemingly achievable tasks, you are just supposed to take it as given that these are impossible. The idea is to force you to make the choice, not to find a hole to wiggle through (which is kind of contrary to most DnD situations).

The problem though is that D&D alignment in general (and paladins in particular) aren't designed for this kind of academic navel-gazing. They're a construct designed for a group of friends to have fun. "No third option, pick your way of falling" is, for most groups, not fun.

Which is not to say that paladins should never fall ever. But if they do, it should be because of flawed judgement on the paladin's part - i.e. something they can control and strive to be better at, not an endless series of Kobayashi-Marus.

[Saintheart]

Exactly what a trolley problem is. Do you actively kill one, or negligently let down the other (often where negligence is a greater objective cost)?
Although your reply seems to imply that the person you replied to were trying to weasel out of the question, when it was offering a possible justification. The reply would seem more apt for those just not engaging with the question and saying it doesn't make sense.

I certainly didn't take it that way, being the guy to whom Liquor Box replied :smallsmile: I fully accept my asking for details does potentially and maybe pointlessly frustrate what was meant as more a "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object" alignment question. That said, I'd still tune the scenario a bit: can the Zone of Truth spells operating in this setting actually read intentionality, motive, feeling? Even if they do deliver a verdict that at that nanosecond the intent was to kill, what happens where the killer changes his mind but was unable to stop the fall of the knife? etc.

[SangoProduction]

The problem though is that D&D alignment in general (and paladins in particular) aren't designed for this kind of academic navel-gazing. They're a construct designed for a group of friends to have fun. "No third option, pick your way of falling" is, for most groups, not fun.

Which is not to say that paladins should never fall ever. But if they do, it should be because of flawed judgement on the paladin's part - i.e. something they can control and strive to be better at, not an endless series of Kobayashi-Marus.

People were complaining that the original wasn't a trolley problem. So, I made one.
I never said the paladin would fall, regardless of their choice. I chose paladin because they implicitly hold both aspects in high regard.

[Conradine]

People , just a question.

Russell Crowe's character in The Next Three Days acted in an Evil way from a d&d perspective?

[Segev]

People , just a question.

Russell Crowe's character in The Next Three Days acted in an Evil way from a d&d perspective?

I know nothing about the movie. So I can't answer without further information.

*one Wikipedia page later*

Okay, I can't tell if he hurt anybody uninvolved or not, as there's mention of an elderly couple. Involving them was neutral to evil as a single act, though certainly not enough by itself to dip an alignment. He behaved in an extremely unlawful way, but it's key to remember that an extended singular act of defiance to the law is still just one act, and is defying one law. I'd characterize his overall behavior from the description on Wikipedia of the plot as "neutral," overall. A paladin in his position would probably be risking his Lawful alignment, but unless he actively threatened the elderly couple mentioned, probably not evil. Neutral and non-good, certainly, but probably not evil. If the Paladin were an adherent this particular legal system (as Mr. Crowe's character was by virtue of having grown up in this society and not having a definitive tie to a different code), this would qualify as a MASSIVELY Chaotic act. The paladin would almost certainly shift to Neutral on the ethical axis, and thus lose his powers, but he wouldn't "fall" in the sense that a solid Atonement couldn't restore him.

[RedMage125]

Exactly what a trolley problem is. Do you actively kill one, or negligently let down the other (often where negligence is a greater objective cost)?
Although your reply seems to imply that the person you replied to were trying to weasel out of the question, when it was offering a possible justification. The reply would seem more apt for those just not engaging with the question and saying it doesn't make sense.

{Scrubbed}

The Trolley Problem isn't about Morality or Ethics. It simply gauges the importance of Personal Accountability vis Utilitarianism in the person being asked. Basicaly, how important the weight of a "net save" of 4 lives is, as opposed to the person at the hypothetical lever feeling personally accountable for the death of the guy on the second track.

It's also useless to adjudicate by 3.5e D&D mores. Even using Paladins as an example.

Why is not relevant to D&D? Well,as we all know, a Paladin only falls if they "intentionally commit an evil act". However, the Evil of the deaths of people in the Trolley Problem is on the head of the person who tied all 6 people to the tracks in the first place. The Paladin at the switch has no agency to commit an Evil act. Yes, it could be argued that by throwing the switch, he is "killing" the person on the second track, but that means only that he should NOT throw the switch because he doesn't fall for failing to commit an act. A truly diabolical villain would tie 5 murderers/rapists/child molesters to one track, and a saintly old priest to the other, and not tell the person at the switch. Of course, this has no effect on the Paladin one way or another, because Action and Intent determine the alignment effect of an act, not Consequences (source: BoVD, chp 2, "Intent and Context").

Point is, the Paladin is now in a deathtrap, and someone is going to die. The Paladin did not put these people there, and he has no agency to stop ALL of them from dying. He has not "murdered" anyone. The only question the standard Trolley Problem poses to the Paladin is: "is saving a net 4 lives more important than feeling responsible for the death of one?". And that's where it gets REAL screwy. Because, if the Paladin chooses not to throw the switch, has he placed his value of his own purity over the lives of 4 people? Isn't that selfishness? Contrariwise, if he was willing to risk falling by throwing the lever, because saving 4 lives is more important than him having Paladin powers, isn't that actually a very selfless act? Isn't he actually sacrificing his own power to save them? Like I said, it's all screwy, and moreso, because by the RAW, the Paladin has no agency to actually "murder" anyone in this scenario. 3.5e defines "murder" as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes" (BoVD).

The only good choice a Paladin in this scenario has is to reject the dichotomy. The Paladin can throw himself in front of the trolley, probably dying in the process, using their own armored body to bring the trolley to a stop.

OTOH, there are 2 variants to the Trolley Problem that are relevant to D&D alignment, and to Paladins. The Fat Man and Fat Villain variants.

In the Fat Man variant, the Paladin is on a bridge over the runaway trolley, which is speeding towards 5 people tied to the tracks. Also on the bridge is a grossly obese man. The fat man is a total innocent. If the paladin pushed this innocent fat man off the bridge onto the tracks in front of the trolley, his weight will be sufficient to arrest the momentum of the trolley before it hits the 5 people tied to the tracks. This is "killing an innocent" to save lives. Not the standard Trolley Problem. And it is an Evil act, because this Paladin still should have chosen to sacrifice himself and not killed someone else to avoid that. Saving lives is a Good Act. But Committing an Evil Act to achieve a Good End, even if you succeed, is still, by 3.5e mores, committing an Evil Act, followed by a Good Act.

The Fat Villain variant is very similar to above, but that obese man? He's the one who tied the 5 other people to the tracks, and the querent knows this. While this may still pose some ethical problems IRL, D&D is actually quite simple. A Paladin does not fall for pushing the Fat Villain in front of the Trolley. Much how it is not an evil act in D&D to defend yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force. Killing an evil person who is in the process of attempting to murder 5 people by throwing them into their own trap which also saves the 5 intended victims? Not evil. Period.

[Liquor Box]

Even if a bunch of other states did recognise them, that wouldn't stop the paladin from acting. Take Gobbotopia - it's been recognised by Cliffport and a bunch of other states, but that's not going to stop Hinjo, O-Chul, etc from refusing to recognise it, and seeking to overthrow it and restore Azure City.

Paladins oppose evil because it's evil, not "because it's illegal".

The paladins did oppose Gobbotopia because it was an invading force that had occupied their home city - not because they were evil - Miko captures the order even after finding that they were not evil. Of course being lawful does not prevent them from doing that. I'm not sure if they were aware that other nations had recognised Gobbotopia, but I agree that even if they had the paladins would still have been free to oppose the occupiers.

But had Azure City (the paladin's own sovereign) recognised Gobbotopia as legitimate (say through a formal surrender one of the terms of which would be a cessation of hostilities), then I don;t think the Paladins could rightly continue to try and overthrow it.


However, if a character is visiting a society whose cultural values are distinctly different from her own, she is not required to adhere to those laws. A tribe of barbarian giants in Xen’drik may have a law stating that whenever newcomers arrive, they must select one of their party, kill him, and eat him. A lawful giant from this culture would be expected to take this seriously—but a lawful character from Sharn would consider this to be abominable.

I think that is a lawful character does not intend to comply with local laws than he or she should not visit the country.

However, this text is explicit that a lawful character should comply with a law in their own country even if that law is as ridiculous as killing and eating a friend. All the scenarios proposed in this thread relate to paladins operating within their own country, not paladins visiting other countries.


The problem though is that D&D alignment in general (and paladins in particular) aren't designed for this kind of academic navel-gazing. They're a construct designed for a group of friends to have fun. "No third option, pick your way of falling" is, for most groups, not fun.

Which is not to say that paladins should never fall ever. But if they do, it should be because of flawed judgement on the paladin's part - i.e. something they can control and strive to be better at, not an endless series of Kobayashi-Marus.

Different gaming groups will go different directions as to how much they want to philosophise about good vs evil/lawful vs chaotic in their game. You are probably right that in most games third options are part of the fun, and they would not want to spend much time on these issues so long as the intention were fundamentally lawful/good. But this thread is not part of a real game, and clearly intends for people to seek to answer the alignment dilemma rather than try to avoid it with third options.

[Psyren]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

The Trolley Problem isn't about Morality or Ethics. It simply gauges the importance of Personal Accountability vis Utilitarianism in the person being asked. Basicaly, how important the weight of a "net save" of 4 lives is, as opposed to the person at the hypothetical lever feeling personally accountable for the death of the guy on the second track.

It's also useless to adjudicate by 3.5e D&D mores. Even using Paladins as an example.

Why is not relevant to D&D? Well,as we all know, a Paladin only falls if they "intentionally commit an evil act". However, the Evil of the deaths of people in the Trolley Problem is on the head of the person who tied all 6 people to the tracks in the first place. The Paladin at the switch has no agency to commit an Evil act. Yes, it could be argued that by throwing the switch, he is "killing" the person on the second track, but that means only that he should NOT throw the switch because he doesn't fall for failing to commit an act. A truly diabolical villain would tie 5 murderers/rapists/child molesters to one track, and a saintly old priest to the other, and not tell the person at the switch. Of course, this has no effect on the Paladin one way or another, because Action and Intent determine the alignment effect of an act, not Consequences (source: BoVD, chp 2, "Intent and Context").

Point is, the Paladin is now in a deathtrap, and someone is going to die. The Paladin did not put these people there, and he has no agency to stop ALL of them from dying. He has not "murdered" anyone. The only question the standard Trolley Problem poses to the Paladin is: "is saving a net 4 lives more important than feeling responsible for the death of one?". And that's where it gets REAL screwy. Because, if the Paladin chooses not to throw the switch, has he placed his value of his own purity over the lives of 4 people? Isn't that selfishness? Contrariwise, if he was willing to risk falling by throwing the lever, because saving 4 lives is more important than him having Paladin powers, isn't that actually a very selfless act? Isn't he actually sacrificing his own power to save them? Like I said, it's all screwy, and moreso, because by the RAW, the Paladin has no agency to actually "murder" anyone in this scenario. 3.5e defines "murder" as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes" (BoVD).

The only good choice a Paladin in this scenario has is to reject the dichotomy. The Paladin can throw himself in front of the trolley, probably dying in the process, using their own armored body to bring the trolley to a stop.

OTOH, there are 2 variants to the Trolley Problem that are relevant to D&D alignment, and to Paladins. The Fat Man and Fat Villain variants.

In the Fat Man variant, the Paladin is on a bridge over the runaway trolley, which is speeding towards 5 people tied to the tracks. Also on the bridge is a grossly obese man. The fat man is a total innocent. If the paladin pushed this innocent fat man off the bridge onto the tracks in front of the trolley, his weight will be sufficient to arrest the momentum of the trolley before it hits the 5 people tied to the tracks. This is "killing an innocent" to save lives. Not the standard Trolley Problem. And it is an Evil act, because this Paladin still should have chosen to sacrifice himself and not killed someone else to avoid that. Saving lives is a Good Act. But Committing an Evil Act to achieve a Good End, even if you succeed, is still, by 3.5e mores, committing an Evil Act, followed by a Good Act.

The Fat Villain variant is very similar to above, but that obese man? He's the one who tied the 5 other people to the tracks, and the querent knows this. While this may still pose some ethical problems IRL, D&D is actually quite simple. A Paladin does not fall for pushing the Fat Villain in front of the Trolley. Much how it is not an evil act in D&D to defend yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force. Killing an evil person who is in the process of attempting to murder 5 people by throwing them into their own trap which also saves the 5 intended victims? Not evil. Period.

Very well detailed; I have to say kudos.

[hamishspence]

However, this text is explicit that a lawful character should comply with a law in their own country even if that law is as ridiculous as killing and eating a friend.

"Take it seriously" doesn't mean "comply with it". Especially when one is Good and the law is as overtly evil as that.

[GrayDeath]

I think that is a lawful character does not intend to comply with local laws than he or she should not visit the country.

However, this text is explicit that a lawful character should comply with a law in their own country even if that law is as ridiculous as killing and eating a friend. All the scenarios proposed in this thread relate to paladins operating within their own country, not paladins visiting other countries.




Just mentioning again the (to most poeople who follow these discussions) obvious things:

1.: Alignments are descriptive, not prescriptvie. You are lawful because you value Order, adhere to your own beliefs very strongly and inflexibly and (most of the time) follow the laws of your culture. Not the other way around.
Same with GOod (unless you are an Outsider): Youa tre Good because you DO GOOD, you dont do Good because you are Good....^^

and even more importantly

2.: Lawful =! "Law-abiding/following Laws!". I know a few people have already told you so, but let me mention it again,a s it is imperative that the misunderstanding is removed to actually understand Lawful Characters.
Laws are simply culturally codified and enforced "(personal) Codes". Its completely and utterly irrelevant to a Lawful Character that is not a Judge, Police officer or otherwise, if a Code/Rule is called a Law, a Principle or a personal Code.
If it is part of what the character considers central to his own dedication to order, he WILL follow it (unless he cannot). If it runs agains tthat, he WILL break it (unless the consequences of that are worse than following them).
Otherwise, as most people do with their decision,s he will ponder what to do, and decide accordingly.

Yes, on a very broad generalization and assuming similar Cultural standards" a Lawful Character is more likely than not to accept Laws and follow them, even if they are not "His own", but this is again descriptive, not prescritive.

Simple as that.


Not to mention that it gets much more complicated as soon as a character is also Evil or Good in addition to Lawful.

[RedMage125]

Very well detailed; I have to say kudos.

Thank you.

I'm pretty well-known for being a pro-alignment debater, but the misuse of the Trolley Problem with regards to D&D alignment has been a thorn in my side for years. Almost as if none of the people citing it had ever taken a college-level Ethics class before.

To be honest, a great deal of that post was copy/pasted from ealier posts this year on the same topic.

[dancrilis]

The Paladin did not put these people there, and he has no agency to stop ALL of them from dying. He has not "murdered" anyone.

...

If the paladin pushed this innocent fat man off the bridge onto the tracks in front of the trolley, his weight will be sufficient to arrest the momentum of the trolley before it hits the 5 people tied to the tracks. This is "killing an innocent" to save lives.


I am not sure I see much distinction between directing the train to kill the man (to save others), and directing the man in front of the the train (to save others) - if you know that it will kill them in either case.



The Fat Villain variant is very similar to above, but that obese man? He's the one who tied the 5 other people to the tracks, and the querent knows this. While this may still pose some ethical problems IRL, D&D is actually quite simple. A Paladin does not fall for pushing the Fat Villain in front of the Trolley. Much how it is not an evil act in D&D to defend yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force. Killing an evil person who is in the process of attempting to murder 5 people by throwing them into their own trap which also saves the 5 intended victims? Not evil. Period.[/spoiler]
What if it is an unrelated evil man - he had no knowledge of the events but now that he sees them he is happy to watch the show, grinning like a madman as people are about to die in front of him (and pinging as evil), is it evil to kill him to save others if he is a jerk but has (as for as the paladin knows) don't nothing else?

Also what about if it is a troll (minding its own business and known to be semi-intelligent and not a threat to the community, working with people for food on occassion etc), it will be seriously hurt by the train - but it (probably) won't die, will (likely) stop the train and if it survives will recover via regeneration in short order. Is it evil to inflict severe pain, emotional damage and possible kill on an innocent creature - to (likely) save others.
What if the paladin (who would very likely die if they tried) and is (very likely) simply not heavy enough to stop the train with their own body - should it change the moral calculations relating to the troll?

[lord_khaine]

Thank you.

I'm pretty well-known for being a pro-alignment debater, but the misuse of the Trolley Problem with regards to D&D alignment has been a thorn in my side for years. Almost as if none of the people citing it had ever taken a college-level Ethics class before.

To be honest, a great deal of that post was copy/pasted from ealier posts this year on the same topic.

All the same, yes it was well done.
Of course, the general twist with the grossely obese man is that while he is heavy enough to slow the trolley, then your not.
So jumping as the paladin would only be a suicide.

[Liquor Box]

"Take it seriously" doesn't mean "comply with it". Especially when one is Good and the law is as overtly evil as that.

Sure, if a law required a lawful good person to do a thing that was clearly overtly evil, then the character would have to weigh whether to do the lawful thing (which is evil) or the good thing (which is non-lawful) - and which you choose would depend on the circumstances and whether the character more strongly adhered to good or to lawfulness. So yes, "take it seriously" means balancing whether to break with being "good" or being "lawful".

I don't think anyone has suggested that lawfulness should always triumph over good. Only that disobeying laws is not a lawful act. Breaking a person out of prison (in the society you live in) is clearly not a lawful act.


[QUOTE=GrayDeath;24026543]Just mentioning again the (to most poeople who follow these discussions) obvious things:

1.: Alignments are descriptive, not prescriptvie. You are lawful because you value Order, adhere to your own beliefs very strongly and inflexibly and (most of the time) follow the laws of your culture. Not the other way around.
Same with GOod (unless you are an Outsider): Youa tre Good because you DO GOOD, you dont do Good because you are Good....^^

I think you are overstating the lack of prescriptiveness in the defintion of lawfulness. If a player consistently fails to acted in the way 'lawful' is described in the PHB, they will no longer be lawful. If they consistently fail to act in the way 'good' is described in the PHB they will no longer be classified as good. Should either of these things happen to a paladin, they will fall. SO there is a degree of prescriptiveness.

That why people are discussing whether there would be an alignment shift or a fall if a paladin did an chaotic action like breaking his wife out of prison.


and even more importantly

2.: Lawful =! "Law-abiding/following Laws!". I know a few people have already told you so, but let me mention it again,a s it is imperative that the misunderstanding is removed to actually understand Lawful Characters.
Laws are simply culturally codified and enforced "(personal) Codes". Its completely and utterly irrelevant to a Lawful Character that is not a Judge, Police officer or otherwise, if a Code/Rule is called a Law, a Principle or a personal Code.
If it is part of what the character considers central to his own dedication to order, he WILL follow it (unless he cannot). If it runs agains tthat, he WILL break it (unless the consequences of that are worse than following them).
Otherwise, as most people do with their decision,s he will ponder what to do, and decide accordingly.

Yes, on a very broad generalization and assuming similar Cultural standards" a Lawful Character is more likely than not to accept Laws and follow them, even if they are not "His own", but this is again descriptive, not prescritive.

Simple as that.

Not to mention that it gets much more complicated as soon as a character is also Evil or Good in addition to Lawful.

Here I'm afraid you are simply mistaken. The players handbook explicitly states that being lawful means "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and
reliability." Obeying laws is clearly part of obedience to authority. It doesn't mention principles or personal codes, although I suppose you could read those things into 'honor', so they probably are still relevant to a lawful character.

So while lawfulness may not equal following laws (because there are other elements to lawfulness), following the law is an important component of it.


As an aside, I notice an appeal to popular opinion in your post (you open your post by saying what follows is obvious to most people following the discussion, and later point out that "a few people have already told you this"). Putting aside whether populate opinion is a relevant gauge of these types of questions, I think you guessed wrongly as to where the popular sentiment lies. I think only you and Hamisphance have seriously argued that following the law is not a component of being lawful. On the other hand the very first three replies to this thread all state that breaking the law is a non-lawful action. On the first page along eight people say it. Elkad himself notes "I'm in with the apparent majority. (I didn't actually count votes) It's definitely Chaotic.". So most people do understand the obvious, that part of being lawful is complying with the laws. This is obvious because it explicitly says so in the Players Handbook.

[hamishspence]

Obeying laws is clearly part of obedience to authority.

I think you're overstating the importance of "obeying laws" as a component of "obeying authority".

After all, there are Lawful Evil criminal organizations, where, instead of obeying the law (their lives revolve around breaking the law) the members obey their seniors within the organization.

[Liquor Box]

I think you're overstating the importance of "obeying laws" as a component of "obeying authority".

After all, there are Lawful Evil criminal organizations, where, instead of obeying the law (their lives revolve around breaking the law) the members obey their seniors within the organization.

Sure, there are other components to it. A more relevant example (because it is lawful good, which is what we are talking about) is Paladin's own order. That will usually have its own rules and regulations set out by the more senior members of the order, and a lawful paladin would generally strive to uphold those rules. But that doesn't mean that the King (or whatever system of government) doesn't also have authority over the paladin, and obeying authority also requires the paladin to adhere to the rules set out by the king (ie laws).

I wonder if are talking past each other to some degree at this point. I agree with you that a lawful good character might sometimes break the law when adhering to the law is evil, although that would not be a lawful action, because they judge the need to avoid evil as greater in the circumstances than the need to avoid chaos. I also agree with you that there is more to being lawful than obeying the law - it also implies trustworthiness, reliability, honor and an ordered life. Do you disagree with me that obeying the law is generally one component of being lawful?

[hamishspence]

I will agree that it's a common component - just not a compulsory one.

[Liquor Box]

I will agree that it's a common component - just not a compulsory one.

So generally (putting aside unusual cases like venturing into the orc king's swamp) do you agree that failing to follow the laws (failing to be obedient to authority) is a non-lawful act?

So we don't cover old territory, I agree that a lawful good character might choose to break the laws in certain circumstances - there are lots of things (including a desire to avoid evil) that might motivate a person to act contrary to their lawful nature.

[hamishspence]

Disobeying an authority, when it's one you would normally treat as having authority over you, tends to be a Chaotic act, yes.

A yakuza disobeying their oyabun, a paladin disobeying direct orders from their deity, a trooper disobeying an officer in their own army, and so forth.

As The Giant put it:


Generally, paladins and clerics can be following a divine law that is, in their eyes, superior to any law written by Man and still be 100% Lawful.

So, if you have to choose between obeying one authority or obeying another, and you obey the one you have always regarded as superior, then it's not Chaotic to disobey the inferior authority.

[Liquor Box]

Disobeying an authority, when it's one you would normally treat as having authority over you, tends to be a Chaotic act, yes.

A yakuza disobeying their oyabun, a paladin disobeying direct orders from their deity, a trooper disobeying an officer in their own army, and so forth.

As The Giant put it:



So, if you have to choose between obeying one authority or obeying another, and you obey the one you have always regarded as superior, then it's not Chaotic to disobey the inferior authority.

Yes, I can agree that lawful characters might have a hierachy of rules and will probably choose the rules arising from the authority they judge most legitimate. I don't agree that where the players handbook says a lawful character will show 'obedience to authority' it allows the lawful character to pick and choose who they regard as having authority (remembering that the word 'legitimate' doesn't even appear in the PHB text on lawful). Instead I think that a lawful character will almost always regard laws made by the King (or whatever) as having authority over them. That may be the nexus of our disagreement.

However, we do not need to resolve that disagreement to address the problem presented in this thread. It seems clear that the paladin DOES subscribe to the local laws because he has operated within them to this point. There is no hint of any alternative superior code of rules that might overrule the laws of the land in this case. Accordingly, even on your interpretation, it is chaotic to disobey the law. That's not to say that the paladin should never disobey the law - there might be other motivations (such as avoiding evil) that compel him to disobey the law - but it will be chaotic for him to do so. In the present case, it is not evil to leave his wife in prison, and it arguably evil to assist in her escape. It is certainly chaotic to do so though, so the paladin may be at risk of falling.

[hamishspence]

(remembering that the word 'legitimate' doesn't even appear in the PHB text on lawful).

It does for the Paladin's Code though. As such, it's clear that a paladin only needs to at least try to obey legitimate authority, rather than all authority. Which was the point The Giant tried to make.

If the paladin "behaves lawful" most of the time, one Chaotic deed is very unlikely to make them Fall.

[Liquor Box]

It does for the Paladin's Code though. As such, it's clear that a paladin only needs to at least try to obey legitimate authority, rather than all authority. Which was the point The Giant tried to make.

No, that's not correct. To not fall a paladin has to remain lawful good (the first sentence in the code of conduct and the first sentence under the Ex-Paladins heading). The rest of the code is just additional requirements (which do overlap with lawfulness and goodness). If a paladin is no longer lawful, they fall. Anyway, I don't think there's any hint in the scenario that the authority is not legitimate, so that argument is a red herring.


If the paladin "behaves lawful" most of the time, one Chaotic deed is very unlikely to make them Fall.

Except that in the scenario it is not one chaotic deed. The scenario contemplates a continuing course of chaos where the paladin will continue to live outside the law if he successfully breaks his wife out of prison. I agree that, if he broke the law (even an important one like this) that may not change his lawful alignment if he turned himself in to the authorities afterward. But he is intending to live his life avoiding justice for breaking the law. It seems to me that if anything was to lead to losing a lawful alignment that would be it.

[RedMage125]

I am not sure I see much distinction between directing the train to kill the man (to save others), and directing the man in front of the the train (to save others) - if you know that it will kill them in either case.

Because the Paladin didn't tie any of those people to the rails. There are 6 people currently in a deathtrap. The trap will either kill 1 person or it will kill 5. The Evil of the murder(s) is on the person who put them there. The Paladin's only real options in this scenario are to try and save a net of 4 lives (Utilitarianism) by way of making him feel responsible for the death of one (Personal Accountability). But it is the deathtrap, and the person who tied 6 people to it that cause the death(s).

The distinction is that the Fat Man is not in the deathtrap. He is in no danger, and he is an innocent. The Paladin's choice then will actually involve causing the man's death to save lives.



What if it is an unrelated evil man - he had no knowledge of the events but now that he sees them he is happy to watch the show, grinning like a madman as people are about to die in front of him (and pinging as evil), is it evil to kill him to save others if he is a jerk but has (as for as the paladin knows) don't nothing else?

Also what about if it is a troll (minding its own business and known to be semi-intelligent and not a threat to the community, working with people for food on occassion etc), it will be seriously hurt by the train - but it (probably) won't die, will (likely) stop the train and if it survives will recover via regeneration in short order. Is it evil to inflict severe pain, emotional damage and possible kill on an innocent creature - to (likely) save others.
All of that is unrelated. The Fat Man and Fat Villain variants are accepted variations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Both variations are described there.


What if the paladin (who would very likely die if they tried) and is (very likely) simply not heavy enough to stop the train with their own body - should it change the moral calculations relating to the troll?


All the same, yes it was well done.
Of course, the general twist with the grossely obese man is that while he is heavy enough to slow the trolley, then your not.
So jumping as the paladin would only be a suicide.

A Paladin wearing full plate weighs a LOT. Paladins are usually warriors, pretty muscular...assuming he's human, let's say about 200 pounds. Full Plate weighs another 50. And since we're at it, the increased durability of all that metal is going to create increased friction that the Fat Man's excess weight would have contributed in his case.

I did say the paladin should "throw his armored body" onto the tracks.

Of course, this is a 3.5e thread...the paladin could always summon their mount onto the tracks. If an obese man is enough to stop it, a 2,000 pound warhorse in barding certainly is. The paladin loses the ability to summon his mount for 30 days (or until he gains a level), and gets penalties to attacks for that time.

[Psyren]

Of course, this is a 3.5e thread...the paladin could always summon their mount onto the tracks. If an obese man is enough to stop it, a 2,000 pound warhorse in barding certainly is. The paladin loses the ability to summon his mount for 30 days (or until he gains a level), and gets penalties to attacks for that time.

I love this solution :smallbiggrin: such a uniquely paladin way to go. Brilliant!

[Liquor Box]

Because the Paladin didn't tie any of those people to the rails. There are 6 people currently in a deathtrap. The trap will either kill 1 person or it will kill 5. The Evil of the murder(s) is on the person who put them there. The Paladin's only real options in this scenario are to try and save a net of 4 lives (Utilitarianism) by way of making him feel responsible for the death of one (Personal Accountability). But it is the deathtrap, and the person who tied 6 people to it that cause the death(s).

The distinction is that the Fat Man is not in the deathtrap. He is in no danger, and he is an innocent. The Paladin's choice then will actually involve causing the man's death to save lives.


I have to say, if a paladin was in the trolley problem, and got it 'wrong' (exclamation marks because I don't think there is a clear right or wrong here), I don't think he or she should fall. Making a very difficult ethical in a split second that was later judged to be not optimally ethical does not seem to me to be something that should count for much from an alignment or paladin code perspective.

[RedMage125]

I have to say, if a paladin was in the trolley problem, and got it 'wrong' (exclamation marks because I don't think there is a clear right or wrong here), I don't think he or she should fall. Making a very difficult ethical in a split second that was later judged to be not optimally ethical does not seem to me to be something that should count for much from an alignment or paladin code perspective.

I agree, which highlights my point about how people misunderstand the Trolley Problem, because they use it as some kind of "morality limitus test".

It is not.

Unfortunately, it depends on the DM whether or not hitting the switch counts as "killing" the one innocent on the 2nd track, and the RAW are not clear on that matter. What they are clear on, is that the Paladin does NOT fall for doing nothing. He didn't kill the 5 people, and has not "intentionally committed" any kind of act, let alone an Evil one.

But like I said in my earlier post, that can get all kinds of screwy.

Point is, the Trolley Problem is not about Morality at all. Even by D&D alignment mores, Good and Evil don't figure in to the actions of the person at the switch. Only the Fat Man/Villain variants are applicable to D&D. One is actually a choice of killing an innocent to save lives, and the other is simply a win-win for the Paladin.

[Psyren]

Fat Man might result in a fall if the paladin had the option of using himself + armor + horse + barding in place of the innocent. (Or a boulder etc.)

[Liquor Box]

Fat Man might result in a fall if the paladin had the option of using himself + armor + horse + barding in place of the innocent. (Or a boulder etc.)

Only if it occurred to him. I don't think you can blame him if he fails to think of those options.

[Psyren]

Only if it occurred to him. I don't think you can blame him if he fails to think of those options.

That's part of the grey area I think. At what point can a paladin plead ignorance, and at what point is thinking outside the box key to upholding the high standard expected of him? Could the same act both cause a paladin to fall or not to fall depending on how thoroughly they considered the alternatives? I don't have an easy answer to these questions myself.

[Troacctid]

Choosing not to sacrifice yourself to save others is a neutral act, not an evil one. Consequently it will never cause a paladin to fall.

[dancrilis]

Of course, this is a 3.5e thread...the paladin could always summon their mount onto the tracks. If an obese man is enough to stop it, a 2,000 pound warhorse in barding certainly is. The paladin loses the ability to summon his mount for 30 days (or until he gains a level), and gets penalties to attacks for that time.

Isn't that pretty evil - the mount is dead, the paladin summons a different one after 30 days.


... a paladin gains the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed ...

...

The mount is the same creature each time it is summoned, though the paladin may release a particular mount from service.

,,,

Should the paladin’s mount die, it immediately disappears, leaving behind any equipment it was carrying. The paladin may not summon another mount for thirty days or until she gains a paladin level, whichever comes first, even if the mount is somehow returned from the dead. During this thirty-day period, the paladin takes a -1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.


Essentially this would be the paladin betraying an intelligent loyal ally likely resulting in their death, all the while the ally has an empathic link to the paladin so they gets to experience its confusion and pain as this happens - seems kindof messed up.

[hamishspence]

Choosing not to sacrifice yourself to save others is a neutral act, not an evil one. Consequently it will never cause a paladin to fall.

Sacrificing others to save yourself is always evil though.

Is "sacrificing others" (who are not in danger at the moment) to save a larger group of others, Evil? If an element of selfishness is present in the "choice of people to sacrifice" - maybe it qualifies.

[Conradine]

Sacrificing others to save yourself is always evil though.

In my opinion...
which is just that, an opinion...
not always. Often, but not always.

If I were put in a arena and had to fight till death against another prisoner, I would feel no grudge or hate for him if he bests me and I'm about to die. Also I would feel no guilt if it's me the winner.
The fault and the blame would be all on the slave masters.

[GrayDeath]

Thats not sacrificing someone else though, thats self defense.

Sacrifice implies that there is a choice and that the sacrificee is in no way attacking you or yours.

[hamishspence]

"Lethal Self-defense" is not sacrificing others in this context.

To qualify as "sacrificing others" they need to not be attacking you.

Villain throws an unarmed, tied up prisoner in your cell (you are not bound, and have some low-end weaponry) and tells you: "Kill him, or die."

If you obey the villain's orders, you have just committed an Evil act.

EDIT: Ninjaed.

[RedMage125]

Fat Man might result in a fall if the paladin had the option of using himself + armor + horse + barding in place of the innocent. (Or a boulder etc.)
Fat Man specifies that the obese man is an innocent. Killing him for any reason is an intentional Evil act. by the RAw, the paladin would have committed an Evil act (killing an innocent), followed by a Good act (saving 5 people's lives). And since the Evil act was intentionally committed, he would fall from grace.

Only if it occurred to him. I don't think you can blame him if he fails to think of those options.


That's part of the grey area I think. At what point can a paladin plead ignorance, and at what point is thinking outside the box key to upholding the high standard expected of him? Could the same act both cause a paladin to fall or not to fall depending on how thoroughly they considered the alternatives? I don't have an easy answer to these questions myself.
I don't think that doing nothing because an alternative did not occur to you should result in a fall. Like I said, even in the original Trolley Problem, the paladin does not fall for not pulling the lever, because the RAW says if he "intentionally commits an Evil act". Not "failing to act results in innocenty death". It is Action and Intent that determine whether or not an act is Evil, not Consequences. This can be proven in the RAW in the BoVD, chapter 2, under the "Intent and Context" heading. The first example given has the Paladin Zophas accidentally cause a rockslide which kills innocent villagers in a hut down the mountain. Not an Evil act. But if someone warned Zophas that climbing up those rocks could cause that, or if he saw it for himself, then the same thing becomes an Evil act, because he chose to knowingly endanger innocents to save his own life.

So no. Paladin does not fall for not pulling the lever, and does not fall if the Trolley hits the 5 people because he could not think of a better option. Much like O-Chul would not have fallen if Redcloak has thrown the Azurites off the tower into the rift when interrogating him, the Paladin had no hand in their deaths, and if he genuinely did not think of a good solution, but tried to, then he's in the clear.

Choosing not to sacrifice yourself to save others is a neutral act, not an evil one. Consequently it will never cause a paladin to fall.



Sacrificing others to save yourself is always evil though.
This. Exactly what I was going to say.


Is "sacrificing others" (who are not in danger at the moment) to save a larger group of others, Evil? If an element of selfishness is present in the "choice of people to sacrifice" - maybe it qualifies.
Killing the innocent obese man is an Evil act. Saving 5 others is a Good act (or 5). While that may be an overall wash, morally, and some view as acceptable (Utilitarianism), by the RAW, an Evil act was still intentionally committed during that process, and the Paladin falls.


Isn't that pretty evil - the mount is dead, the paladin summons a different one after 30 days.

Essentially this would be the paladin betraying an intelligent loyal ally likely resulting in their death, all the while the ally has an empathic link to the paladin so they gets to experience its confusion and pain as this happens - seems kindof messed up.

I suppose you have a point, but as a counterpoint, consider this: it is a celestial creature, a native of a higher plane. That means that even though it is a magical beast and not an outsider, it's energies return to the celestial plane from which it hails, and a new animal of that type can be formed. It's not a true mortal death, but might as well be, for all intents and purposes. It's also intelligent, and since it's from a Lawful Good plane, it is Lawful Good itself. It would likely be willing to do this.

Although, if we're talking about a 2,000 pound animal (the approximate weight of a clydesdale), which is supernaturally tough (bonus HD, STR, and natural armor), AND wearing 100 or more pounds of steel barding...is a runaway trolley going to kill it? A regular heavy warhorse that doesn't have STR boosts from the bond with a paladin can push/drag 4,500 pounds. It's entirely possible that the horse could charge the trolley and survive the impact.

But that's all entering in a number of factors that depend on the DM, so unless someone wants to do the math for the physics of the weight of a trolley, the speed it would be travelling at, and the force that the impact would create...etc, ad nauseum, then I think we can just assume the trolley would kill the mount.

I only brought it up to remind people that when you are presented with a choice between 2 crappy options, sometimes the best answer is to reject the dichotomy and find a 3rd or 4th option.

[hamishspence]

Killing the innocent obese man is an Evil act. Saving 5 others is a Good act (or 5). While that may be an overall wash, morally, and some view as acceptable (Utilitarianism), by the RAW, an Evil act was still intentionally committed during that process, and the Paladin falls.


To be fair, at least one order of mostly paladin/rogues and cleric/rogues, subscribes to "sacrifice the few to save the many": the Order of Illumination from Complete Adventurer


The Order of Illumination expounds that it is better to sacrifice a village that hides a powerful demon than it is to risk letting the demon escape or the evil spread"

and

"Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own righteousness allow shadowbane inquisitors (the PRC for the paladin-rogues) to root out evil cleanly, even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral doubt that other knights might feel."

[Segev]

In theory, the "innocent fat man" and the "single innocent on the other track" are more or less interchangeable. In the scenario presented, if you allow for the (hah) rails, either the man at the trolley-switch chooses to take an action that makes an innocent who would not otherwise die die, or he does not (and four innocents die).

Of course the person who actually tied them there and placed the poor trolley-switchman in this position is guilty of evil. The question is whether the trolley-switchman is committing evil if a) he chooses to do nothing (and let four people die) or b) he throws the switch (and saves four people but kills a fifth who wouldn't otherwise have died).

We don't really need a paladin, here, and I think having a paladin creates some unreasonable expectations of over-and-beyond heroism. But let's stay in context of D&D, because that gives us some interesting additional caveats we can play with.

Let's start with some modified scenarios: In the first, the trolley-switchman is the only person on the path the trolley is currently traveling, but there is one innocent man tied up on the other track. Is the trolley-switchman committing an evil act when he flips the switch to save himself, knowing he's condemning another man to die? I think most would, on some level, condemn him for the selfish act. But is it evil, or just neutral?

If there are four people on the other track, does that change it? Obviously not, if you take the position that it's already evil with just one. But if you don't think it evil when there's one person to literally be thrown under the bus by the trolley-switchman, does this change if there are two? Three? Any number? If any number, what is it and why?

Note: some of our most evil monsters in fiction are in the trolley-switchman's place, here. Consider vampires of the sort that must kill to get sustenance.

In our next scenario, it is as the classic, with one alteration. The random guy suddenly finding himself at the trolley switch sees it is barreling down on 4 people tied to the tracks. But there is nobody on the other track. All he has to do to save four lives and kill nobody is throw the switch. Is he evil if he chooses not to? This seems like a strange question - and I agree, it is pretty scummy to refuse to save people when all you ahve to do is push a button or something similarly easy - but...why?

What does the guy dropped in front of the switch and told his choice owe these people? Or rather, how much does he owe? Here's one where "paladin" puts too much assumption on it. We all agree, I hope, that it is an actively good deed for the man at the switch to throw it and save the lives of those people. The paladin is expected, by stereotype, to actively be seeking to do good. But is it neutral or evil to refrain from throwing the switch?

What if he'd be paid a year's salary to leave it be? Is he evil or neutral for choosing to let them die for the payout? What if it would cost him 10% of a year's salary to throw it? 20%? 30%? 100%? All his worldly goods? What if the other track isn't empty, because he's tied to it? At what point is it at least a neutral, not an evil, act to refrain from saving those other four people? Or is it ever? Does he owe those four people everything he has, up to and including his life, because there are more of them than him?

Back to the original scenario, but now the one person is his best friend, lover, child, sibling, or other loved one, and the four people are strangers. Does this change things if he chooses to refrain from throwing the switch? Does it make him better or worse if the fact that he knows and cares about the one person changes whether he would have thrown it at all?

What if it's the original scenario (4 will die unless he pulls a switch that kills 1) he's being offered a reward for everybody who was tied to the tracks that survives? Heck, let's put the paladin back into this one. Does the fact that he's being rewarded more for saving the 4 make him less good if he throws the switch? Let's even make it a reward he can't turn down, since we've got magic here: he'll get a +1 inherent bonus to all his stats for every tied-up person who survives. So either a +4 for throwing the switch, or a +1 for not doing so. He can't refuse it, and he can't give it away; it will just magically happen.

If one of the four people is a loved one, and the other three on that side and the one on the other are strangers, does that make the trolley-switchman more evil than otherwise for throwing the switch?



All of this is only interesting because there are no right answers. There's no "good" solution that doesn't get people killed. A lot comes down to motives. What motivates the choice? Is it wrong to be motivated by greater care for one person than another? Is it wrong to be motivated by self-interest when put in a lose/lose scenario? Is it wrong to benefit from tragedy and from hard decisions made for the right reasons? Is it worse to make those hard decisions for the wrong reasons if the same outcome occurs?

One reason these scenarios are all so contrived is because you generally won't find cases where motivation doesn't change outcome to some degree. Which is why the examination of motives is the important part. This is also why "Paladin Fall" scenarios are often so fraught: you're dealing with either a "gotcha GM" or a player who is pushing the boundaries and trying to use justification to get out of having his character held accountable, in most of the situations we hear about. (It's generaly not as interesting or worth sharing when the DM and player are on the same page, and neither is forcing things nor is trying to weasel around things, so we hear less about those tales.)

But if you can get an honest assessment of a character's motives, you can do a much better job of judging alignment. Because a Lawful and Chaotic person can make exactly the same choice, even in a situation fraught with ethical ambiguity, but they likely come to it from very different angles. And when they do overlap will be rare. Which is one reason why one act generally doesn't change an alignment: maybe it was a real and genuine deviation from usual alignment-based motives, or maybe it was actually motivated just fine by a given alignment and philosophy, even though it looks from the outside like it's what you'd expect from the opposite alignment.

The former is fine; few are genuine paragons of an alignment who never deviate. The latter is going to be pretty rare, though, as long as everyone involved as a similar understanding of what alignments mean in broad strokes. Either way, repeat "offenses" do represent a shift, just for different reasons. The former, done repeatedly, means the character is not sticking to his principles and may even be changing them. The latter, done repeatedly, suggests that the mental justifications for seemingly-opposed choices are just that: justifications. The character really is of the other alignment (or just neutral on that axis) and just trying to weasel-word his way into claiming otherwise.

[Liquor Box]

That's part of the grey area I think. At what point can a paladin plead ignorance, and at what point is thinking outside the box key to upholding the high standard expected of him? Could the same act both cause a paladin to fall or not to fall depending on how thoroughly they considered the alternatives? I don't have an easy answer to these questions myself.

I don't think it is that grey. I agree with Redmage that doing nothing where the most 'good' cause of action is not obvious (and perhaps even when it is) is not evil, it is just neutral.

Just like in the two scenarios posed in this thread (breaking the wife out of prison or killing the murderer) I think doing nothing is not evil.

[hamishspence]

Given that Good aligned characters have a responsibility to help those in need (though they are allowed to prioritise) - doing nothing may be out-of-character for them, for the purposes of "remaining Good".

[Conradine]

I think that an evil action done under duress, and that causes the doer emotional discomfort, cannot change his alignment into Evil. From Good to Neutral yes, but not more down than that.

[hamishspence]

I think that an evil action done under duress, and that causes the doer emotional discomfort, cannot change his alignment into Evil. From Good to Neutral yes, but not more down than that.

The alignment rules don't say much about what restrictions there are on alignment change due to acts committed under duress. They do say that the Atonement Spell is easier on the caster, when cast on someone whose evil acts were "under some form of compulsion"

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm

If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden.

[Segev]

Given that Good aligned characters have a responsibility to help those in need (though they are allowed to prioritise) - doing nothing may be out-of-character for them, for the purposes of "remaining Good".

And there's the part that is often either the hidden question or the unasked assumption: how are you to prioritize? That really is part of what's being asked with the classical problem: how to you prioritize your own action/inaction with two possible results?

The "one track is empty, but you have to pull the switch to switch to it" variant is asking whether you have that responsibility at all. You, hamishspence, have asserted that the responsibility exists for Good people. There's certainly argument to be made here: it is no better than Neutral to do nothing, and certainly is a Good act to save them. Interestingly, depending on whether you go with Utilitarianism or a system that measures sacrifice, you're either performing a MORE GOOD action when you save them and it costs you nothing but the effort of flipping the switch, or you're performing a MORE GOOD action when you save them at great cost to yourself (perhaps having to give up a year of your life's savings to pay for the privilege of flipping the switch). Utilitarianism leads to some weird results compared to our intuition, which would typically expect that it's a more impressively noble and good act the more you sacrifice to help or save others; Utilitarianism measures overall "good" of the results, so if you didn't have to sacrifice as much, you committed the greater good, provided the end results were equal to if you had made great sacrifices.

This also means Utilitarianism agrees that the switch-flipper who goes for that which rewards him, as long as the reward to him is greater than the cost of his decision to others, is also Good. i.e., if he's getting +4 to all his stats for saving 4 people, and +1 to all his stats for doing nothing (and leaving one person to survive who he'd otherwise be responsible for sending the trolley down the track that kills him), utilitarianism says that he's even more good for having been motivated by that than if he'd just been motivated by saving 4 people over 1.

Again, all of which is a little counterintuitive to our usual instinctive reactions.



I mean, let's look at a case with two people tied to tracks. One is a rich man, who has promised great rewards to the switch-flipper if the switch-flipper just saves his life. The other is a man who makes no such promises (regardless of how rich or poor he might be). The rich man currently has the trolley destined to go down his track. The other man will be safe unless the switch is flipped. Is it evil to flip the switch to save the man who's promised rewards?

Would it be evil if it were two strangers?

Utilitarianism would argue that, if it's two strangers whose lives and deaths make equal difference to the switch-flipper, flipping the switch or not are equally good/evil/neutral actions. Either way, one person dies and one person lives, and in that net calculus, the switch-flipper's choice is meaningless.

Utilitarianism would also argue that it is actually MORE GOOD to save the rich man by diverting the train onto the track with the man who makes no promises, because the rich man won't really miss the rewards he's promised and the switch-flipper's life would be forever changed for the better by the rewards elevating his financial status.

Also, if it's evil to switch it for reward, is it evil to switch it if there's no reward? I'm sure some people would argue that switching it for a reward shows a callous disregard for life, or a selfish greed, or something.

What if the rich man is on the "safe" track, and will not die unless you flip the switch? Is it evil to refrain from flipping the switch if the rich man promises you a reward for not doing so? Is the rich man evil for promising you a reward for refraining from flipping the switch, if he knows there's somebody on the other track who will die if it is not flipped? Is he evil for offering a reward in the prior scenario, where he is currently doomed, and knows that you flipping the switch will save him by killing another?

[hamishspence]

Is the rich man evil for promising you a reward for refraining from flipping the switch, if he knows there's somebody on the other track who will die if it is not flipped? Is he evil for offering a reward in the prior scenario, where he is currently doomed, and knows that you flipping the switch will save him by killing another?

Presumably "sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act" applies even when done by proxy - hiring another to commit the actual sacrificing act.

So, whether or not he's evil-aligned, the act of promising a reward would be an evil act, yes.

[Liquor Box]

Given that Good aligned characters have a responsibility to help those in need (though they are allowed to prioritise) - doing nothing may be out-of-character for them, for the purposes of "remaining Good".

Yes exactly. It is neither a good action, nor an evil action to do nothing. It is the same as if the good character had taken a different path to the market that day and had not come across the trolley at all (or had not had his wife imprisoned or had not heard about the release of the murderer depending on which scenario you are thinking of).

[Segev]

Presumably "sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act" applies even when done by proxy - hiring another to commit the actual sacrificing act.

So, whether or not he's evil-aligned, the act of promising a reward would be an evil act, yes.

Does this apply both to bribing you not to flip the switch as well as to flip the switch?

If it applies to offering you a reward if you do nothing, does that mean that, if he had the switch and could choose to flip it to kill himself instead of somebody else, it is evil for him to refuse to sacrifice himself?

[Psyren]

Yes exactly. It is neither a good action, nor an evil action to do nothing. It is the same as if the good character had taken a different path to the market that day and had not come across the trolley at all (or had not had his wife imprisoned or had not heard about the release of the murderer depending on which scenario you are thinking of).

Is it possible, in your eyes, to do evil through inaction? Not saying that's what's happening in this scenario specifically, I'm more curious about the philosophical question in a more general sense.

[Troacctid]

Is it possible, in your eyes, to do evil through inaction? Not saying that's what's happening in this scenario specifically, I'm more curious about the philosophical question in a more general sense.
Yes. Imagine you have a baby under your care. The baby is hungry. You choose inaction and leave the baby to starve. Congratulations, you just killed a baby.

[Liquor Box]

Is it possible, in your eyes, to do evil through inaction? Not saying that's what's happening in this scenario specifically, I'm more curious about the philosophical question in a more general sense.

If you see a toddler (who is not your own child or someone you have a special duty to protect) drowning in shallow water, and you could save it without any risk to yourself, but choose not to do so because you don't want to get your shoes wet.

I think I would be unimpressed by a person who failed to save the child in real life. Not so sure it is evil in DnD by RAW, but I think it probably should be.

However, I don't think that would be anything like as bad (in real world or DnD) as proactively murdering a child, and I think there should be a high threshold before inaction can be said to be evil. The key is that rescuing the child is nothing more than a minor inconvenience - if there was any danger involved I think the passer-by is entitled to decline to rescue him.


Yes. Imagine you have a baby under your care. The baby is hungry. You choose inaction and leave the baby to starve. Congratulations, you just killed a baby.

To be clear, I do agree with this. I think there are clearly some cases where you owe an active duty to prevent harm. To your own child is an example, another is a medical professional to a patient or a bodyguard to his or her client.

[hamishspence]

I think I would be unimpressed by a person who failed to save the child in real life. Not so sure it is evil in DnD by RAW, but I think it probably should be.


From BoVD: regarding a character who is about to poison a well (because he believes everyone in the village is in fact a demon).

"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

[Liquor Box]

From BoVD: regarding a character who is about to poison a well (because he believes everyone in the village is in fact a demon).

"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

Yeah its interesting how they make that passing reference which is so out of sink with the rest of the book. Throughout the rest of the book (even when they discuss twenty or so examples of evil) the evil they reference is positive actions rather than inaction. Even there they only describe him as more evil than killing the poisoner which they say is not evil at all.

It also appears to contradict the book of exalted deeds. It says "Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom..... Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided." and "In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood.". Applying that to the person witnessing the poisoning, killing an innocent (the BoVD says the poisoner is not evil, having been deceived herself) is indeed an evil act even if it is done to avoid a catastrophe.

I guess it would be reasonable to rule either way as DM, as there are statements in the rules you can hang your hat on. I would be wary about making a character fall or change alignment based on something that is so ambiguous though.

[hamishspence]

The poisoner might not be an evil person, but they're not an innocent either. They are attacking - even if in a slow way - and killing them is defence of others - no more evil than self-defence is.

[RedMage125]

From BoVD: regarding a character who is about to poison a well (because he believes everyone in the village is in fact a demon).

"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".
The big distinction between this example and the standard Trolley Problem, is that with the poisoner, you have actual agency to stop the deaths entirely before they happen. In the Trolley Problem, you are being presented with the illusion of such agency, because no matter what, at least one of the people that the villain put in this death trap is going to die. Asking you to make a choice to "cause" one death or "allow" 5 others to die is a false narrative.

But to be able to actually stop someone from killing hundreds of people? You can prevent ANY deaths.


Yeah its interesting how they make that passing reference which is so out of sink with the rest of the book. Throughout the rest of the book (even when they discuss twenty or so examples of evil) the evil they reference is positive actions rather than inaction. Even there they only describe him as more evil than killing the poisoner which they say is not evil at all.

It also appears to contradict the book of exalted deeds. It says "Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom..... Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided." and "In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood.". Applying that to the person witnessing the poisoning, killing an innocent (the BoVD says the poisoner is not evil, having been deceived herself) is indeed an evil act even if it is done to avoid a catastrophe.

I guess it would be reasonable to rule either way as DM, as there are statements in the rules you can hang your hat on. I would be wary about making a character fall or change alignment based on something that is so ambiguous though.
Side note...you meant "out of synch", not "sink".

Remeber that the BoVD also tells us that Intent and Context matter. Killing the poisoner, who is just deceived themself, is indeed an Evil act, assuming you know they are misguided. The greater Evil is to allow them to poison the well when you had the agency to stop it. But the "most Good" option would be to subdue the poisoner non-lethally. This is an instance of what I frequently harp on about Paladins...that they are held to a higher standard of Good and should never use Evil means just because it's easier or more convenient. Subduing the target, and then having to find a way to restrain or confine them until you can correct their misconception (which could be the result of an enchantment, madness, or some grand deception that's been played on them non-magically), is a lot harder than just killing them because you caught them in the act. But if you did not know they were deceived and simply knew them to be trying to kill everyone in town with poison, then using lethal means is not an Evil act.

Again, Consequences do not determine the alignment value of an act. Action and Intent do, as per the BoVD.



The poisoner might not be an evil person, but they're not an innocent either. They are attacking - even if in a slow way - and killing them is defence of others - no more evil than self-defence is.

What I said to Liquor Box, above, applies here as well. You are correct IF you do not know they are being deceived. Otherwise, they are just an innocent pawn in some other Evil individual's scheme. It doesn't matter what their alignment is, either. The target's alignment isn't carte blanche to kill them, ever. Paladin determines that the miserly bartender is evil (he's a greedy and selfish man who waters down his ale and overcharges for it, but has not committed any crimes)...killing him is an Evil act. But if the Paladin catches a Neutral mercenary sabatoging the town's gate-closing mechanism, and the merc attacks him with lethal force, it is not Evil for the Paladin to defend himself with lethal force.

Which is how the BoVD is not contradicting anything, here. Because while killing the poisoner is still an evil act, it is far more evil to allow them to poison the well when you could have stopped it.

[Segev]

Remeber that the BoVD also tells us that Intent and Context matter. Killing the poisoner, who is just deceived themself, is indeed an Evil act, assuming you know they are misguided. The greater Evil is to allow them to poison the well when you had the agency to stop it. But the "most Good" option would be to subdue the poisoner non-lethally. This is an instance of what I frequently harp on about Paladins...that they are held to a higher standard of Good and should never use Evil means just because it's easier or more convenient. Subduing the target, and then having to find a way to restrain or confine them until you can correct their misconception (which could be the result of an enchantment, madness, or some grand deception that's been played on them non-magically), is a lot harder than just killing them because you caught them in the act. But if you did not know they were deceived and simply knew them to be trying to kill everyone in town with poison, then using lethal means is not an Evil act.

I would also argue that, if it came down to the wire, and your choice was "use lethal force" or "let them poison the well," even if they're misguided, using lethal force becomes acceptable. Tragic, but acceptable. Sometimes, you lack sufficient power to overpower without killing.

Sadly, Man of Steel did a terrible job of portraying that, despite that being exactly what they were trying to suggest with Zod and Superman. (Seriously, Supes, you can just cover his eyes with your hand.) But that's hardly the only bad writing sin of that movie. >_<

(Sorry, tangent, but I wanted to head off any use of it as an example or counterexample, because it's just plain badly done.)

But, say, a scrawny preteen trying to stop a grown man from poisoning the well. THe preteen has a knife, but not the strength to hold back the grown man. Sure, try. Grapple him. Look for clever alternatives. But if it comes down to the grown man being one action away from poisoning, and the preteen's only means of stopping him is to stab him in hopes that it prevents the grown man from completing the action....

Or, more directly for D&D, a scrawny wizard is trying to stop a mighty fighter, but the wizard's down to only one spell left for the day: power word: kill.

[RedMage125]

I would also argue that, if it came down to the wire, and your choice was "use lethal force" or "let them poison the well," even if they're misguided, using lethal force becomes acceptable. Tragic, but acceptable. Sometimes, you lack sufficient power to overpower without killing.

Sadly, Man of Steel did a terrible job of portraying that, despite that being exactly what they were trying to suggest with Zod and Superman. (Seriously, Supes, you can just cover his eyes with your hand.) But that's hardly the only bad writing sin of that movie. >_<

(Sorry, tangent, but I wanted to head off any use of it as an example or counterexample, because it's just plain badly done.)

But, say, a scrawny preteen trying to stop a grown man from poisoning the well. THe preteen has a knife, but not the strength to hold back the grown man. Sure, try. Grapple him. Look for clever alternatives. But if it comes down to the grown man being one action away from poisoning, and the preteen's only means of stopping him is to stab him in hopes that it prevents the grown man from completing the action....

Or, more directly for D&D, a scrawny wizard is trying to stop a mighty fighter, but the wizard's down to only one spell left for the day: power word: kill.

Okay, but this is 3.5e, so a knife (dagger) will not reduce the poisoner to -10. You could drop him to 0 and stabilize him. Still non-lethal means.

More importantly, I made the point that context matters, as per the BoVD. If the poisoner is at the well and about to administer the poison, and you are too far away to reach him in time, but have a scroll of Fireball, or some other long-range spell that can conceivably stop him, but only do lethal damage, then yes, I would agree with you. But there needs to be the point that semantics don't work here. That had to literally be your only means of stopping the poisoner.

I said that killing a misguided person because it is "easier" or "more convenient" than stopping them non-lethally is where you go down the path of "certainly an evil act".

[hamishspence]

Which is how the BoVD is not contradicting anything, here. Because while killing the poisoner is still an evil act, it is far more evil to allow them to poison the well when you could have stopped it.

The BOVD quote specifically says it is not Evil to kill the poisoner.


You are correct IF you do not know they are being deceived. Otherwise, they are just an innocent pawn in some other Evil individual's scheme.


It doesn't say anything about "You have to be unaware that the poisoner is being deceived".

[Segev]

Okay, but this is 3.5e, so a knife (dagger) will not reduce the poisoner to -10. You could drop him to 0 and stabilize him. Still non-lethal means.

More importantly, I made the point that context matters, as per the BoVD. If the poisoner is at the well and about to administer the poison, and you are too far away to reach him in time, but have a scroll of Fireball, or some other long-range spell that can conceivably stop him, but only do lethal damage, then yes, I would agree with you. But there needs to be the point that semantics don't work here. That had to literally be your only means of stopping the poisoner.

I said that killing a misguided person because it is "easier" or "more convenient" than stopping them non-lethally is where you go down the path of "certainly an evil act".

I agree that you can't be doing it just because it's easier or more convenient. I will say that it doesn't have to be your literally only solution...but it had better be the only one you can think of and you'd better be waiting for the last moment before you resort to it (in hopes that a better solution presents itself).

This goes back to intent, of course: did you kill the guy because it was easier than trying other things, or did you do it because you genuinely saw no other choice besides "let him kill a city?" Ignorance and even stupidity are not evil. Making a sub-optimal choice that you thought was the best you could do doesn't make you wicked, just tragically wrong.

[RedMage125]

The BOVD quote specifically says it is not Evil to kill the poisoner.
I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm going to take what you quoted earlier to be at face value as legit.

And that was "Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

Saying "X is more evil than Y" is not the same as saying "Y is not evil at all"



It doesn't say anything about "You have to be unaware that the poisoner is being deceived".
Under "Intent and Context" in the BoVD, Chapter 2: When the paladin Zophas climbs some rocks to escape some owlbears and accidentally triggers a rockslide that kills innocent villagers it is not an evil act, but an accident. If his friend pointed out to him that the rocks looked unstable and could cause said rockslide, and Zophas does it anyway...Evil act, Zophas falls from grace.

Context and foreknowledge absolutely have impact in this scenario. If all you know is that he's trying to kill the whole village, then a valid perception is that's he's just a mass-murderer. If you know he's been deceived, then why is killing him the option you are considering? If you know this man believes he is ridding the world of demons, in a world where demons are actual beings that exist, then he's probably not just a mass-murderer, but someone is using him as a catspaw.



I agree that you can't be doing it just because it's easier or more convenient. I will say that it doesn't have to be your literally only solution...but it had better be the only one you can think of and you'd better be waiting for the last moment before you resort to it (in hopes that a better solution presents itself).
Right. When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.


This goes back to intent, of course: did you kill the guy because it was easier than trying other things, or did you do it because you genuinely saw no other choice besides "let him kill a city?" Ignorance and even stupidity are not evil. Making a sub-optimal choice that you thought was the best you could do doesn't make you wicked, just tragically wrong.

Which can also make for great Paladin Dilemmas. Don't take their powers, but overwhelm them with guilt.

[hamishspence]

I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm going to take what you quoted earlier to be at face value as legit.

And that was "Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

Saying "X is more evil than Y" is not the same as saying "Y is not evil at all"

The full quote:


Another character witnesses the good character about to put poison in the town's drinking water. Is it evil for the witness to kill the poisoning character in order to stop him? No. Again, the intent isn't evil, and the context makes such an act preferable to the alternative. Standing by while a mass murder occurs - the only other choice the witness has - is far more evil than preventing the poisoning.

So, it's clear that the choice is between a nonevil act, and an act that's "far more evil" than the nonevil act.

[dancrilis]

So, it's clear that the choice is between a nonevil act, and an act that's "far more evil" than the nonevil act.

Just because an act is more evil then non-evil act doesn't make it an evil act.

[MrSandman]

Just because an act is more evil then non-evil act doesn't make it an evil act.


Is it evil for the witness to kill the poisoning character in order to stop him? No. Again, the intent isn't evil, and the context makes such an act preferable to the alternative.

That's all I have to add to this discussion

[dancrilis]

That's all I have to add to this discussion

I don't know what that has to do what what I posted?


Just because an act is more evil then non-evil act doesn't make it an evil act.
To break this down.
Act A is not evil.
Act B is more evil than Act A.
Is Act B evil? We do not know as we have insufficient data.

[MrSandman]

I don't know what that has to do what what I posted?


My bad, I misread your post.

[hamishspence]

Just because an act is more evil then non-evil act doesn't make it an evil act.

Not just "more evil" - far more evil.

[Segev]

Not just "more evil" - far more evil.

"He didn't just refuse to pluck out his own eyes to restore the witch's sight; he refused to even cut off his little toes as material for the witch to turn into new eyes! Losing one's little toes is far less costly than losing one's eyes, so his refusal is far more evil than refusing to give up his eyes!"

[RedMage125]

The full quote:

So, it's clear that the choice is between a nonevil act, and an act that's "far more evil" than the nonevil act.

Okay, so i was mistaken. I didn't have the books in front of me. But again, if there is some foreknowledge that the poisoner is being misled...why is killing him your first go-to option? Killing him may not be evil, but it's not the "most Good" option, either.

And again, as it relates to "doing nothing" in the standard Trolley Problem...the person in the "well poisoner" situation has actual agency to stop the killings, as opposed to the illusion of choice offered in the Trolley Problem. The person standing at the switch is being offered a false choice of "saving" people. Remember how I quoted the BoVD as saying context is important?

Because, one more time, the standard Trolley Problem has nothing to do with morality. It only tells you how the person being asked values Utlitarianism vis Personal Accountability*. Both of which, however, assume that "throwing the switch" = "killing one person", and that doesn't really stand up with 3.5e D&D alignment mores. Which is why I always only advocate for the Fat Man and Fat Villain variants, which can be applied to D&D.


*Disclaimer: I don't expect that most of us are familiar with Deontological Ethics vis Consequentialist Ethics, so I use more common parlance words. At the simplest level, they break down to the same thing. In this instance "Consequentialism = Utilitarianism" and "Deontological = Personal Accountability".