Mercy killing is an Evil action?

[Conradine]

The city walls are broken. The evil horde will be here in minutes.
The defenders are all dead exept an handful who still hold the line for a few precious moments.

The Paladin who leads the defenders has the option to kill quickly and painlessly the civilians ( children, women, wounded, infirm ecc. ).
It is an Evil action to kill them if the Paladin is 100% certain ( he has seen, with his eyes, no chance of error ) that they will be....


1)... enslaved, beaten, starved, abused and mistreated?

2)... tortured and painfully murdered?

3) ... sacrified to the dark gods and have their immortal souls unfairly damned?



Personally I have doubts about situation 1 and 2, but I'm pretty sure that situation 3 legittimize a mercy kill.
Your opinion?

[GrayDeath]

First, you might want to change the title. The way it is now it seems that you seem surprised that that IS so, not like you are asking IF it is so. ^^


For your points:

First, I do not believe that there are situations where a "true" Paladin would lose Hope for Good to triumph enough to do such a thing, so in my opinion they would no longer be a Paladin BEFORE doing it, as they would ahve lost the faith, the Drive of Good that made them one.

That said:

1.: Yes, for as long as there is Life, there is Hope.

2.: Yes, for they will not die without a doubt. Though one might argue that if the setting knows enough about the Afterlives (and the Good Gods are actually worth the moniker) I might agree with killing the Children to avoid them being horrifically traumatized and potentially "forcibly made Evil just to make the Pain go away".

3.: Very much no (again, this assumes that what he knows is without ANY doubt true, and that the Setting knows about (and HAS) Good Afterlives.


However, "legitimized" mercy Killing is nothing a Paladin does.
Necessary (if,a gain, there can be such a thing) sure, better alternative to not merciful death, maybe, but legitimizeds gives the sound of "Its legal, so its not soo bad",which is no thought a True Paladin will ever have. :)

[InvisibleBison]

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

On the one hand, killing these people is killing, which tends to be evil. On the other hand, the motivation for killing them is fundamentally compassionate, which leans towards good. I'd say that if there's no way for these people to escape, killing them is neutral. If there is a way for them to escape, the situation is more complicated, but killing them would probably be evil.

[tyckspoon]

I would expect the Paladin to exhort all those who can bear arms to join the defense, that they may go down in service of Good and making a last strike against Evil instead of the variety of horrible fates that will happen if they allow the Evil Horde to take them, or failing that buying a few precious more minutes in which those who truly cannot fight may possibly be evacuated. I would also expect the Paladin to prioritize trying to organize the defense, maintain morale among the hopeless last defenders, or try to oversee an attempted evacuation of those who can't fight instead of even beginning to consider killing people who still have life in them. Or do something stupidly self-sacrificing like offer themselves as a hostage or a willing sacrifice to the Evil Horde's Dark Gods in exchange for a guarantee of safe passage for those who remain in the town.

..honestly just the fact, for me, that 'kill these people' is like the last thing I can imagine a Paladin doing in this situation suggests it is at the very least Not Good.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it evil but it's certainly not good and probably a violation of the paladin's CoC.

First and foremost, the code demands you protect their lives, not their souls. About a third of them are going to those dark gods when they eat it anyway, assuming they're mostly human.

Second, even if you want to discard that then you have to deal with the fact that in the first two scenarios, they're not dead 'til they're dead and the future is -never- certain until it becomes the past. Unless your paladin is omniscient he -can't- know that any of those scenarios will come to pass, he can only be reasonably certain in his belief that they will.

Third, there's the law-chaos matter to consider. These are innocents under the paladin's protection, not vassals under his rule. Their lives aren't his to take. He can -offer- to give them a quick end merciful death but if they don't take the offer then he's violating his oath to protect them.

He'd do better still to tell them the truth of things, hand out daggers and say that anyone who wants the easy out has it in their hand while anyone willing to fight for their life should stand with him to the last. They'll presumably be mowed down pretty quickly but it is what it is.

Taking their lives against their will because "you know better" is against the code and therefore a chaotic action. If there are enough that "need" it then he may well shift on that axis even if his motivation keeps the action from being evil. If it's something he has a legal right and would be seen as having a social responsibility to do, say in a feudal Japanese kind of society, then he's probably safe there though I'd still argue paladin code violation.



TL;DR: I'd almost certainly fall a paladin in all three scenarios unless he secured the people's permission to off them first but I wouldn't necessarily ding his alignment without a lot more detail.

[Mith]

Honestly, depends on what you will do with your world building. I personally would change things such that there is no "unfair" damnation. Sacrifices doesn't send the soul to the Hells/Abyss, but it does provide fuel for what ever ritual is needed, while the soul is sent to it's afterlife with no attempt at resurrection.

With that aspect removed, I would then say that any action of murdering others is an act of despair, and not actually justified as a Good action. Yes it is a brutal situation, but "I am sparing you, a living human being more suffering" is a terrible argument that doesn't hold water in my opinion. If they themselves choose the option, that is different, but that can be done through means of final stands or other personal actions and not imposed.

[aglondier]

In preventing the suffering of those people, you are denying the tragic backstory of future heroes.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Personally I have doubts about situation 1 and 2, but I'm pretty sure that situation 3 legittimize a mercy kill.
Your opinion?

It's not his decision to make. He can explain the situation and offer a quick and painless death, but it's up to the people to accept it or not.
Assisted suicide is not evil in my book unless the asker is obviously not in his right mind. Any other case of killing people "for their own good" is evil, no matter the justification.

Yes, even the edge case where he has to kill them to prevent the evil ritual from being completed is evil. The lesser evil maybe, but still.
Not that it should matter, a true paladin would do it anyway, but he'd expect to fall for it and seek atonement even if he didn't. Or at least that's my interpretation of the paladin code.
The important part is communicating that to the player. It's supposed to be an rp opportunity, not a punishment for having no good options.

[Unavenger]

Your regular reminder that the alignment rules in 3.5 are so horrible that even WotC, who wrote them, now hate them.

I'm certain the paladin would fall for it, and even more certain that any paladin who doesn't at least tell people about it and offer them the chance to choose to die is an awful person and I would happily plane shift to his LG afterlife just to slap him in the face, shove his face to a scrying viewer, and make him watch all the people that he allowed to get enslaved, tortured, or eternally damned to utter torment because he was too busy being NobleBright to take care of real consequences for real people. The idea that he should be chill with torture that he could have prevented terrifies me.

[Jack_Simth]

He'd do better still to tell them the truth of things, hand out daggers and say that anyone who wants the easy out has it in their hand while anyone willing to fight for their life should stand with him to the last. They'll presumably be mowed down pretty quickly but it is what it is.And if you're short on daggers, improvised weapons can work for the purpose.

But yes, this pretty much should be the Paladin's path across the board if escape isn't possible and he's "confident enough" that they're all doomed.

[hamishspence]

It's possible to read the BOVD rules on Murder in a way that allows for this being Not Murder.

Specifically, it states that Murder is any killing of an intelligent being, done for a nefarious purpose (sole exception, beings of "consummate, irredeemable evil". In that particular case, killing "purely for profit" is not murder, when in all other cases, it would be.)

So, reading the rules that way, "mercy killing", because it has a non-nefarious motive, cannot be Murder - which leaves the question of whether it qualifies as an Evil act, up in the air.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Your regular reminder that the alignment rules in 3.5 are so horrible that even WotC, who wrote them, now hate them.

I'm certain the paladin would fall for it, and even more certain that any paladin who doesn't at least tell people about it and offer them the chance to choose to die is an awful person and I would happily plane shift to his LG afterlife just to slap him in the face, shove his face to a scrying viewer, and make him watch all the people that he allowed to get enslaved, tortured, or eternally damned to utter torment because he was too busy being NobleBright to take care of real consequences for real people. The idea that he should be chill with torture that he could have prevented terrifies me.

Personally i think it's one of the more interesting aspects of playing a paladin, having to balance the Code and the rules of their god against doing what they feel is right.
A Paladin isn't supposed to be perfect (ooc). He's supposed to struggle sometimes, to question his faith and the rules he follows. The point is that he keeps trying.
The problems only come when a DM reaches for Falling at the slightest hint of not being a perfect paragon of goodness and going even slightly off what he, the DM, thinks the Code is.

It's not something you should just spring on a player who chose to play a paladin for the mechanics but if they're cool with it it can add a lot to a game.
A paladin that never even has to think about the Code is a fighter with a bit of spellcasting. If that's what the player wants it's fine, but otherwise it's boring.

[King of Nowhere]

this comes very close to real world topics.
But I can contribute to the discussion by quoting two literary precedents i know where a good character at least considers mercy-killing a friend, without the friend's consent.
one, a book by Clive Cussler whose title i forgot, the protagonist dirk pitt is besieged amid some ruins and he is about to shoot is girlfriend, because if she's taken alive she'd be raped and then dispatched.
another, in the first book of the wheel of time, main characters perrin and egwene are running away from big flocks of crows, and perrin considers that if they are taken by the birds, he would kill egwene with the axe
in both those cases, the characters were solidly good. in both cases, though, everyone eventually survived.

[Jazath]

The city walls are broken. The evil horde will be here in minutes.
The defenders are all dead exept an handful who still hold the line for a few precious moments.

The Paladin who leads the defenders has the option to kill quickly and painlessly the civilians ( children, women, wounded, infirm ecc. ).
It is an Evil action to kill them if the Paladin is 100% certain ( he has seen, with his eyes, no chance of error ) that they will be....


1)... enslaved, beaten, starved, abused and mistreated?

2)... tortured and painfully murdered?

3) ... sacrified to the dark gods and have their immortal souls unfairly damned?



Personally I have doubts about situation 1 and 2, but I'm pretty sure that situation 3 legittimize a mercy kill.
Your opinion?

I believe so, letting them suffer is what i'll do.
But 2 and 3..... Seems like something a paladin would do if they had no other choice,
I think the paladin would use the healing class ability the possess

[Vizzerdrix]

I mean, does it matter? It sounds like no one is getting out of it alive either way. The pally can square it up with the gods when he sees them, which sounds like it would be soon.

He could choose instead to provide them with the means to do it themselves. Some milk of the poppy, or in a pinch, buckets of salt water would do it (that second one can be a bit uncomfortable though, so maybe not). D&D IS a world full of brain eating squid tadpoles and worse. I doubt and good or neutral god will be upset if you show up BEFORE something decides to make a host of you instead of after.

[Asmotherion]

The city walls are broken. The evil horde will be here in minutes.
The defenders are all dead exept an handful who still hold the line for a few precious moments.

The Paladin who leads the defenders has the option to kill quickly and painlessly the civilians ( children, women, wounded, infirm ecc. ).
It is an Evil action to kill them if the Paladin is 100% certain ( he has seen, with his eyes, no chance of error ) that they will be....


1)... enslaved, beaten, starved, abused and mistreated?

2)... tortured and painfully murdered?

3) ... sacrified to the dark gods and have their immortal souls unfairly damned?



Personally I have doubts about situation 1 and 2, but I'm pretty sure that situation 3 legittimize a mercy kill.
Your opinion?

Mercy Killing is only a good act in case the recepient has 0 chances of survival in a given situation, and is in a lot of pain and suffering at the moment. Something rare for a paladin to come by, given his ability to heal and to cast healing spells, remove diseases/curses/penalties and negative levels.

In all of the above cases, if we speak about a handful of soldiers, he could attempt an escape plan. Or he could negotiate a deal with the enemy for evacuation. Or pray to his deity for a sign.

So, no, mercy killing is not a good act in any of the described situations, and probably in no known situation for a Paladin.

[False God]

It's evil if the paladin takes it upon himself to wholesale kill people on the basis of what he alone has seen.

It's potentially not evil if the paladin asks people if they would prefer death now over what the paladin says will happen to them later.

Even in the face of the eternal damnation of their souls, since he cannot guarantee that is the fate of every single person he kills (there might be a rescue, the badguys might screw up, some prisoners might fight back, yadda yadda).

Killing the innocent is rarely good, and the fact that their eventual fate may be worse than a quick death now, does not legitimize ending their lives now.

Something being really bad later, does not make something slightly less bad now into something good.

[RedMage125]

It's possible to read the BOVD rules on Murder in a way that allows for this being Not Murder.

Specifically, it states that Murder is any killing of an intelligent being, done for a nefarious purpose (sole exception, beings of "consummate, irredeemable evil". In that particular case, killing "purely for profit" is not murder, when in all other cases, it would be.)

So, reading the rules that way, "mercy killing", because it has a non-nefarious motive, cannot be Murder - which leaves the question of whether it qualifies as an Evil act, up in the air.

This was going to be exactly my point.

I would second what everyone else said about those people being willing or not making the difference. The determination of whether or not an action is evil comes from the ACTION with both INTENT and CONTEXT taken into account. Someone who WANTS you to kill them to spare them what they consider a worse fate...certainly covers intent and context, which may be enough.

[Conradine]

If the horde is alreading skinning, impaling and burning those unfortunate that they managed to capture

AND

they are thousands, and the defenders alive are double digit at best

AND

the civilian are shoulder against wall in a cave / fortified building with no exit

if all these three conditions are met, it's reasonable to expect there's no hope to escape an horrible fate.




Something being really bad later, does not make something slightly less bad now into something good.

In my opinion, a quick death by a clean blow to the head followed by a warm welcome in the Upper Planes is not slightly better than being tortured for a day, my limbs fed to an hungry demon and my soul sent screaming into Baator ( I'm thinking about BoVD sacrifice rules now ).



In all of the above cases, if we speak about a handful of soldiers, he could attempt an escape plan. Or he could negotiate a deal with the enemy for evacuation. Or pray to his deity for a sign.


I was thinking about the final moments of Helm's Deep battle ( Lord of the Rings - the Two Towers ), but without Gandalf to save the situation.

[False God]

If the horde is alreading skinning, impaling and burning those unfortunate that they managed to capture

AND

they are thousands, and the defenders alive are double digit at best

AND

the civilian are shoulder against wall in a cave / fortified building with no exit

if all these three conditions are met, it's reasonable to expect there's no hope to escape an horrible fate.


In my opinion, a quick death by a clean blow to the head followed by a warm welcome in the Upper Planes is not slightly better than being tortured for a day, my limbs fed to an hungry demon and my soul sent screaming into Baator ( I'm thinking about BoVD sacrifice rules now ).
I don't know, being "mercy" killed by someone who has given up all hope, and told me that there is no hope, is a pretty terrible way to die. Further, your Paladin's only surety is that they will die horribly at the hands of their enemies. He's not guaranteeing them a good afterlife via their death, only helping them avoid a horrible death tomorrow. They may go to a good afterlife, they may not.


I was thinking about the final moments of Helm's Deep battle ( Lord of the Rings - the Two Towers ), but without Gandalf to save the situation.
But they didn't know Gandalf was 100% going to be there, he is notoriously late after all. They had hope the situation would change (and also a back-door to the caverns). Frankly, dying without hope, at the hands of the person who told you there is no hope, is a pretty terrible way to die.

[Unavenger]

I don't know, being "mercy" killed by someone who has given up all hope, and told me that there is no hope, is a pretty terrible way to die.

Naturally. It is also leagues apart from being tortured for all eternity, to the point that no comparison between the two is even vaguely defensible.

[Psyren]

"100% certain of all their fates with no chance of error" means the paladin is a deity and is thus above typical concerns of morality. I don't think that's the scenario you intended to present, but that's the only way I can reasonably read it :smalltongue:

Assuming the paladin is mortal, part of his job description is to entertain the possibility that he can find a way to help them that doesn't involve slitting all their throats. To have a little faith, in other words.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Naturally. It is also leagues apart from being tortured for all eternity, to the point that no comparison between the two is even vaguely defensible.

I think the main issue here is the paladin deciding to mercy kill you instead of asking or offering.
Sure, it's not as bad as your assumed fate, but unless you actually agree you're still getting murdered. That's an evil act no matter the motivation.

[Conradine]

"100% certain of all their fates with no chance of error" means the paladin is a deity and is thus above typical concerns of morality.


If I strike a person 1000 times in the head with an heavy hammer, I'm certain he will die.
Sure, there is a very remote chance he will not, but is so tiny to be - in pratice - insignificant.

Everything we do is a more or less reasonable approximation.




I think the main issue here is the paladin deciding to mercy kill you instead of asking or offering.

It would be very cruel to tell a child he's going to die, if it can be avoided.
I agree about grown ups anyhow.

[Arkhios]

If you're wondering if killing, out of mercy or otherwise, is evil, a paladin should only ever use a sap, and even that is grey area.

[Zanos]

If the people don't consent, this is Evil. The Paladin should obviously try to stop it but if he knows it isn't possible, I think offering to provide a swift and merciful death is not in violation of a paladins oath. It's essentially an assisted suicide at that point.

But if just drops a bunch of rocks on a room full of innocent people then he's just a murderer. No longer a Paladin, and probably no longer Good.


If you're wondering if killing, out of mercy or otherwise, is evil, a paladin should only ever use a sap, and even that is grey area.
The books explicitly disagree with this, paladins are allowed to slay the minions of Evil.

[ThanatosZero]

I say, it is not evil or even chaotic, if the paladin has received the consent of all the survivors for a quick, painless death.
The difference between good and evil, is about either respecting or harming the boundaries of other people.
If consent is given, the boundaries are allowed to be crossed.
The only evil and chaotic thing to do, is not upholding to the agreement given to the remaining survivors.

By the way, what level has the paladin and what is the condition of their own body?

If they are a high level paladin and are in a healthy condition, they can instead give advice to the survivors on what to do in the worst case scenario, while the paladin goes on to a final stand and take down as many foes as possible.

[Grek]

Because Good souls go to be rewarded Good afterlives when killed (and likewise for Evil souls receiving Evil rewards in Evil afterlives, and so too for Lawful and Chaotic), this downgrades the badness of murder down to merely being assault + forced deportation. If done with the intent of sparing the victims of greater harms (mercy kills vs. being tortured to death) or with the intent of evacuating the souls before they can be abducted to a much worse afterlife (sending everyone on to their correct afterlife of sending everyone to an Evil afterlife, irrespective of suitability), it wouldn't be Evil. Nor would consensually transporting those who did not wish to be enslaved, or to attempt to persuade the civilians that they ought make peace with the gods before ending their own lives.

D&D morality is a mess.

[Segev]

In this, D&D morality is not a mess. The solution that is most right is clear: let the people choose. Exhort them to fight, possibly to the death, no matter how hopeless. Enable them to choose suicide if that truly is the best course, but fighting on probably is better.

The only place this gets at all close to sticky is the innocent who cannot self-terminate and will be in situation 3. In such extreme situations, a Paladin who is faithful and true should be able to get a small miracle from his god. Advice as to the right path, the innocent dying of natural causes, the innocent finding the strength to stand and fight one last time... something that the omniscient morality license of the divinity can help with.

The Paladin isn’t automatically deserving of a “win,” but the grayest his morals should go might be his god giving explicit instruction to lay a single willing or insensate innocent to rest. Even then, it’s better for some small mercy to come as a miracle.

The agency of the innocent must be respected, and it should never fall to a Paladin to do the butcher’s work on a number of people. The genre is deliberately being subverted and the moral system of D&D being misapplied if that happens.

Paladins and even devoted good heroes live in a world where faith is literally power, and gods literally exist. Again, they don’t deserve a win every time, but they do deserve not to have “evil just gets to win by leaving you no choice but to murder or let the innocent go to the dark gods” be foist upon them.

Such situations can happen! But they should only happen to heroes who are lacking in faith, or follow gods where the butcher’s bill of a mercy killing is acceptable (i.e. a non good deity).

A good but not devout man might find himself having to make such hard choices. It may be neutral under those circumstances. It may even be just the lesser of two evils. Not being a Paladin, as long as it didn’t become a pattern, such forced evils won’t make him evil, or even neutral. But it should haunt him and plague him with guilt, such that he might seek atonement. (If he seeks validation rather than atonement, that is seeking an alignment shift to one that doesn’t scruple over such things, which is at least neutral.)

After such an event, a good man might yet fall to neutrality or evil. He might instead seek forgiveness and greater faith. He does have a crisis of conscience and alignment here. While having a crisis of conscience isn’t going to make you change alignment if you don’t want to, it will torment you if you don’t get absolution or change that alignment.

[Morty]

I would have some very serious questions to a GM or player who allowed such a situation to become relevant; this seems to have very little point except forcing some kind of contrived moral dilemma.

[awa]

I would have some very serious questions to a GM or player who allowed such a situation to become relevant; this seems to have very little point except forcing some kind of contrived moral dilemma.

I don't know if we change it slightly into a Tyranids, zenomorph, zombie, ect scenario this kind of thing crops up fairly regularly. There are plenty of monsters that are just as bad as those with similar powers.



Paladins and even devoted good heroes live in a world where faith is literally power, and gods literally exist. Again, they don’t deserve a win every time, but they do deserve not to have “evil just gets to win by leaving you no choice but to murder or let the innocent go to the dark gods” be foist upon them.

Such situations can happen! But they should only happen to heroes who are lacking in faith, or follow gods where the butcher’s bill of a mercy killing is acceptable (i.e. a non good deity).
.


While I don't think you should try and force a paladin to fall particularly if they are making a good faith effort to do the right thing I also don't think being a paladin should be a get out of tough choices free card. If you are playing in a sufficiently dark game that a mercy kill is necessary I don't think just being a paladin should let you get out of it.

On a somewhat related note when I run games I run very low lethality as a general statement if the pcs make a bad mistake I don't kill them I threaten those around them. If the pcs are say dumb enough to antagonize the evil overlord by convincing the population to rebel with insufficient backing and support they shouldent get a free pass on the hard choices that come from that just because they are good aligned. If the gods of good can just decide to win an unwinnable situation to spare their chosen from making a hard choice then why do they need heroes at all.

I mean don't be dark for the sake of being an edge-lord, but forcing a player to make a hard choice can have a lot of impact, particularly if it was their actions that brought them to this point.

As for is a mercy kill evil, honestly the devil is in the details but generally in my opinion no, provided their though process is rational and their motivation benevolent. It might be neutral but it would only be evil if they either jumped to it to early or if the mercy kill was more about convenience than actual mercy.

In regards to asking permission well that complicated i would suspect that often times in a situation like this time constraints would make it impossible, so again the devils in the details and I might ding a pc if his rational/ motive was deemed insufficient.

[Psyren]

If I strike a person 1000 times in the head with an heavy hammer, I'm certain he will die.
Sure, there is a very remote chance he will not, but is so tiny to be - in pratice - insignificant.

Everything we do is a more or less reasonable approximation.

This awful analogy is not even close to reasonable. An approaching evil horde is not a hammer. Even if they are composed entirely of pitiless creatures like fiends or undead, the people still have at least a chance of running or hiding, and no paladin has the omniscience needed to conclude otherwise. The paladin can furthermore sacrifice himself to buy them time to do either or both. With an assist from his deity or higher power, he might even survive, if not win outright. The point is, there are a lot of options here that don't involve having the paladin go around slitting throats, and a real paladin would know that.

Your contrived scenario is just that - contrived.

[Segev]

While I don't think you should try and force a paladin to fall particularly if they are making a good faith effort to do the right thing I also don't think being a paladin should be a get out of tough choices free card. If you are playing in a sufficiently dark game that a mercy kill is necessary I don't think just being a paladin should let you get out of it.

If you're running that kind of game, you're not running D&D with the alignment system as presented, so my original thesis of the alignment system being misapplied is in force.

You can run dark games. Note that Ravenloft and Dark Sun take pains to discuss how they differ from the usual alignment and morality considerations of other D&D settings. You cannot run dark games and use the baseline alignment system. This isn't a flaw with the alignment system; any more than trying to run Greyhawk using L5R's system would be revealing flaws in L5R's system when, unmodified, L5R's system doesn't support a Greyhawk game very well.


This awful analogy is not even close to reasonable. An approaching evil horde is not a hammer. Even if they are composed entirely of pitiless creatures like fiends or undead, the people still have at least a chance of running or hiding, and no paladin has the omniscience needed to conclude otherwise. The paladin can furthermore sacrifice himself to buy them time to do either or both. With an assist from his deity or higher power, he might even survive, if not win outright. The point is, there are a lot of options here that don't involve having the paladin go around slitting throats, and a real paladin would know that.

Your contrived scenario is just that - contrived.
I also agree that the scenario is never as guaranteed as forced moral conundra tend to make them. A paladin should always be pushing for the chance at the best outcome. The risks are worth it. Barring his god telling him otherwise (which is why I say he deserves at least as much of a miracle as his god giving him guidance about the right course to follow if there is no solution that is obviously good without divine omniscience).

[Psyren]

While I don't think you should try and force a paladin to fall particularly if they are making a good faith effort to do the right thing I also don't think being a paladin should be a get out of tough choices free card. If you are playing in a sufficiently dark game that a mercy kill is necessary I don't think just being a paladin should let you get out of it.

There are plenty of tough choices here that don't involve "getting out of it," nor do they require the paladin to slit throats.

- He can try to lure the horde away from the civilians (can easily fail if he's not sufficiently tricksome or woodsy.)
- He can face them head on and buy the civilians as much time as possible (will likely lead to death, possibly a reroll, but is the most straightforward sacrifice available.)
- He can rally the most ablebodied non-combatants to help fight or divert the horde, so that the children/infirm/etc can get as far as they can.
- He can take the children/infirm with him to maximize their chances of survival, while the ablebodied either escape in a different direction, or buy them time.
- He can run away and abandon them all purely to save himself (this one is the most likely to lead to a Fall.)

All of those choices are tough, and none require the paladin "mercy-killing" anyone.

The mercy-kill choice would likely result in a fall too. One of the few scenarios I can envision where it wouldn't, is the horde being able to convert the civilians into monsters or fuel of some kind that would then pose a threat to other civilians if they aren't killed by each other or the paladin first, e.g. a wightocalypse of some kind. And even then, one of the other options should be at least considered first.

[tiercel]

I guess I feel like if a game is going to play the Paladin Kobayashi Maru scenario, the poor chump should at least have a phylactery of faithfulness. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) (Frankly, given the paladin code of conduct, I’m not quite sure why the phylactery isn’t just a free class feature.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

I guess I feel like if a game is going to play the Paladin Kobayashi Maru scenario, the poor chump should at least have a phylactery of faithfulness. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) (Frankly, given the paladin code of conduct, I’m not quite sure why the phylactery isn’t just a free class feature.)

There's an exalted feat in PGtF called "Gift of Discernment" that is explicitly the phylactery of faithfulness as a feat. Easy pick for a paladin that has a feat free.

[awa]

There are plenty of tough choices here that don't involve "getting out of it," nor do they require the paladin to slit throats.

- He can try to lure the horde away from the civilians (can easily fail if he's not sufficiently tricksome or woodsy.)
- He can face them head on and buy the civilians as much time as possible (will likely lead to death, possibly a reroll, but is the most straightforward sacrifice available.)
- He can rally the most ablebodied non-combatants to help fight or divert the horde, so that the children/infirm/etc can get as far as they can.
- He can take the children/infirm with him to maximize their chances of survival, while the ablebodied either escape in a different direction, or buy them time.
- He can run away and abandon them all purely to save himself (this one is the most likely to lead to a Fall.)
.

and what if they don't work either because the plan was bad or the dice were against them. Being good does not mean your plans are good or that the dice love you.

D&d can be plenty dark just look at some of the monsters that exist in it, look at some of the most dangerous spells. There are plenty of abilities that literally inflict a fate worse then death, and no where in the rules does it say the presence of good aligned person negates the ability to cast vile spells.

Should a mercy kill be a last resort obviously but that does not change the fact that killing can be a mercy that's literally why we have a word for it.


I guess I feel like if a game is going to play the Paladin Kobayashi Maru scenario, the poor chump should at least have a phylactery of faithfulness. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) (Frankly, given the paladin code of conduct, I’m not quite sure why the phylactery isn’t just a free class feature.)

I'm also not impressed with efforts to get the paladin to fall in my opinion if there is no good answer than simply trying to do the best you can should be good enough. You don't need to obscure the moral delemia by making the paladins player try and read your mind worrying about his class features.

[Conradine]

There are plenty of tough choices here that don't involve "getting out of it," nor do they require the paladin to slit throats.

- He can try to lure the horde away from the civilians (can easily fail if he's not sufficiently tricksome or woodsy.)
- He can face them head on and buy the civilians as much time as possible (will likely lead to death, possibly a reroll, but is the most straightforward sacrifice available.)
- He can rally the most ablebodied non-combatants to help fight or divert the horde, so that the children/infirm/etc can get as far as they can.
- He can take the children/infirm with him to maximize their chances of survival, while the ablebodied either escape in a different direction, or buy them time.
- He can run away and abandon them all purely to save himself (this one is the most likely to lead to a Fall.)


These things can be done before a siege.
After the siege is begun, the fort or settlement is usually surrounded. I can't imagine a siege done without surrounding the castle / city or, at very least, cuttining the possible escape routes.

[Psyren]

and what if they don't work either because the plan was bad or the dice were against them. Being good does not mean your plans are good or that the dice love you.

If they don't work then the paladin has tried the solution(s) that doesn't make him a killer of innocents. No one says paladins can't ever fail, what they typically fall for is not trying - especially when killing is the easy solution.

Like Miko not trying to let Shojo face justice in the courts for lying to the Sapphire Guard, or Ji-Kun not trying to negotiate with goblins before killing them.



Should a mercy kill be a last resort obviously but that does not change the fact that killing can be a mercy that's literally why we have a word for it.

Paladins should be held to a higher standard than putting down civilians like Old Yeller just because the alternatives are hard, that's why we have a word for that too.


These things can be done before a siege.
After the siege is begun, the fort or settlement is usually surrounded. I can't imagine a siege done without surrounding the castle / city or, at very least, cuttining the possible escape routes.

My point exactly - you can't imagine.
"To say you have no choice is a failure of imagination" - Jean Luc Picard

EDIT: The "you" there refers more generally to any authors of such a Catch-22 scenario in a game, not you personally.

[Unavenger]

My point exactly - you can't imagine.
"To say you have no choice is a failure of imagination" - Jean Luc Picard

Wow, nitpicking people's choice of words when it's clear what they mean is a COLD TAKE. I expected better of you.

Let's rephrase: it is entirely possible for a situation to occur where the escape routes are all blocked off, the paladin has no support, and it is a certainty to within a rounding error - we're talking about the demonic hordes rolling a lot of nat 1s here - that the paladin will lose any ensuing conflict.

You want to quote people? Let's quote a real philosopher rather than a sci-fi character, here:

"The temptation to imagine a third possibility[...] is difficult to resist. But resist it we must, for in a thought experiment we control the variables, and what we are asking in this one is what he should do if the only two possibilities are to carry out the [action] or refuse to do so. The whole point of fixing the dilemma in this way is to force us to confront the moral problem head on, not think our way around it."
- Julian Baggini, The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 Other Thought Experiments

Confront the problem head on: don't try to think your way around it. If, for whatever reason, you know of statistically certain knowledge that you will lose, do you allow people to be tortured for all eternity or do you not do that?

[Psyren]

Edited previous post.



Confront the problem head on: don't try to think your way around it. If, for whatever reason, you know of statistically certain knowledge that you will lose, do you allow people to be tortured for all eternity or do you not do that?

For starters, printed D&D settings are purposefully not set up for innocents, even murdered ones, to have their souls tortured for all eternity regardless of their own actions. At best, innocent souls can be trapped, and then obliterated if used as fuel, but not to be punished for eternity if they've done nothing wrong. The purpose of gods like Kelemvor/Pharasma/Wee Jas, or planar phenomena like Dolurrh is specifically to prevent this sort of cosmic injustice.

But let's say this contrived scenario is in a custom setting where that is a possibility, and for whatever reason the good gods and psychopomps in that setting are either nonexistent, incompetent, or otherwise content to let that state of affairs stand. In this homebrew world then yes, I would conclude the best option is for the people to die before they can be sacrificed by the onrushing fiends. That still doesn't mean the paladin has to be the one to kill them. He can inform them of their options, presuming he's aware of the relevant metaphysics, and offer to assist any who don't feel like they can do the deed themselves. But the choice to commit suicide or go out swinging should be up to the owners of those lives.

And upon learning of such a scenario in the game I'm playing, I would throw such a setting in the trash where (in my opinion) it belongs. To paraphrase the Giant, suicide shouldn't be portrayed as a reasonable or effective solution to a problem. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?439396-Has-Roy-already-failed&p=19778430&viewfull=1#post19778430)

[icefractal]

I'm not a big fan of the "threat of falling" anyway - when I think "Fallen Paladin" I think of someone who outright rejects being a Paladin and has become thoroughly non-good, not someone who's still good but failed to play Simon Says correctly.

That aside, even when falling is "easy" it should only be from things that are within the Paladin's power. Like, you wouldn't make a Paladin fall for not having ended world hunger at 3rd level. So making the best choice possible, even when that choice is bad, is never fall-worthy.

And I would agree - in a thought experiment, the point is to confront the choice in question. Trying to work around it is just declining to play.

"I wouldn't want to play or run a game with this scenario" is perfectly valid, I probably wouldn't either, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to talk about it.

[Zanos]

For starters, printed D&D settings are purposefully not set up for innocents, even murdered ones, to have their souls tortured for all eternity regardless of their own actions. At best, innocent souls can be trapped, and then obliterated if used as fuel, but not to be punished for eternity if they've done nothing wrong. The purpose of gods like Kelemvor/Pharasma/Wee Jas, or planar phenomena like Dolurrh is specifically to prevent this sort of cosmic injustice.
I believe the fiendish codex's do specify that fiends trade in souls trapped in receptacles. If there's an actual army of them it's not unreasonable for them to employee methods to trap mortal souls, and even without those concerns it's entirely likely that the Evil invaders will simply use mundane or magical healing to keep people alive for a long period of time while they torment them. I think most sane individuals would rather commit suicide then be tortured for decades until they finally are allowed to die. Really I think your exploration of 'third options' that are unlikely longshots are more likely to cause suffering rather than prevent it. Paladins are Lawful Good but it is not a requirement that they be stupid, they can acknowledge that it's nearly impossible for more likely options to succeed. A 1st level Paladin is under no obligation to throw himself at a pit fiend.


But let's say this contrived scenario is in a custom setting where that is a possibility, and for whatever reason the good gods and psychopomps in that setting are either nonexistent, incompetent, or otherwise content to let that state of affairs stand.
If the good Gods were capable of unilaterally interfering with the activities of Evil on the material plane, there would be no need for heroes in the first place.


In this homebrew world then yes, I would conclude the best option is for the people to die before they can be sacrificed by the onrushing fiends. That still doesn't mean the paladin has to be the one to kill them. He can inform them of their options, presuming he's aware of the relevant metaphysics, and offer to assist any who don't feel like they can do the deed themselves. But the choice to commit suicide or go out swinging should be up to the owners of those lives.
Homebrew isn't required for this to occur as I've already outlined, but yes, a Paladin making a unilateral choice to kill someone is a murderer. No Good character should ever kill someone innocent without their consent, and should still have serious misgivings about doing it with their consent.


And upon learning of such a scenario in the game I'm playing, I would throw such a setting in the trash where (in my opinion) it belongs. To paraphrase the Giant, suicide shouldn't be portrayed as a reasonable or effective solution to a problem. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?439396-Has-Roy-already-failed&p=19778430&viewfull=1#post19778430)
Quoting the Giant when he's specifically talking about not wanting to depict suicide as a reasonable option in a comic that children read is not very applicable to this scenario. In dark settings there are scenarios where suicide is a preferable alternative to some people when weighed against their likely fate, and the Giant not wanting to depict that in his comic for children has no bearing on this discussion. This has even been depicted in some darker mainstream fantasy media and based on some historical precedent of when fortresses were lost against armies that were notorious for their poor treatment of survivors. Such a scenario is entirely possible in Ravenloft, or even some of the darker Forgotten Realms material. 3.5 is extremely dark if you read the material meant for Evil powers. They torture and murder the living for fun in ways that are described quite graphically. Lords of Madness includes a complete description of ceremorphosis, where an illithid tadpole devours the brain of a still living creature and implants itself into its brainstem. I won't mention the graphically described lifecycles of other aberrations in that book.

And in general, the Giant is an authority only on his own setting, which explicitly takes liberties from other published 3.5 settings and the 3.5 rules. Quoting him doesn't win you any arguments that aren't about OOTS itself.

[Psyren]

"I wouldn't want to play or run a game with this scenario" is perfectly valid, I probably wouldn't either, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to talk about it.

I never said it was. I am in fact doing just that, talking about it.



And I would agree - in a thought experiment, the point is to confront the choice in question. Trying to work around it is just declining to play.

Pointing out the (gaping) flaws in a choice's underlying premise is a valid form of confrontation. Swallowing a premise whole is not a prerequisite for discussing its implications.

(And that's assuming the scenario is presented in good faith, rather than yet another in a long line of "gotcha paladin!" catch-22 situations that are not uncommon for this subforum - {Scrubbed}.)


I believe the fiendish codex's do specify that fiends trade in souls trapped in receptacles. If there's an actual army of them it's not unreasonable for them to employee methods to trap mortal souls, and even without those concerns it's entirely likely that the Evil invaders will simply use mundane or magical healing to keep people alive for a long period of time while they torment them.

Trapping a soul and torturing a living mortal are generally mutually exclusive in this game. Either you kill them and then prevent the soul from moving on (Soul Bind, Trap The Soul etc), transforming the soul into a largely insensate commodity - or you keep the creature alive and torment them (but their soul remains intact due to not having passed on yet.)


I think most sane individuals would rather commit suicide then be tortured for decades until they finally are allowed to die.

And see, this illustrates my point perfectly. I'm hazarding a guess that you didn't intend to imply that anyone who wouldn't consider suicide in this scenario is mentally unsound, instead of the myriad other reasons they might not want to pursue that option, but it does highlight a good reason why such topics should at the very least be approached with the utmost care.



If the good Gods were capable of unilaterally interfering with the activities of Evil on the material plane, there would be no need for heroes in the first place.

As a general rule, souls aren't tormented on the Material Plane, bodies are. On the outer planes, interference happens all the time, and that's one more thing the scenario presented is being very vague about.

Assuming you mean the fiends in question extract the souls and head home with them - again, D&D settings as written are designed to make that very difficult. Even the Pact Primeval requires mortal souls to be tormented by their own actions. In the few cases where it does happen, D&D specifically has celestials and psychopomps raiding the lower planes for exactly this reason. Put another way, outside of some kind of bizarre homebrew setting, the paladin is never a lone actor in a cosmic sense and the weight of this responsibility being solely on their shoulders is not an expected part of the game.


Really I think your exploration of 'third options' that are unlikely longshots are more likely to cause suffering rather than prevent it. Paladins are Lawful Good but it is not a requirement that they be stupid, they can acknowledge that it's nearly impossible for more likely options to succeed. A 1st level Paladin is under no obligation to throw himself at a pit fiend.

He's under no obligation to slit innocent throats either. And again, the calculus is more complex than the reductive "Oh, by slitting a few throats I can spare their souls a few months/years/decades/centuries of torture before something comes to their rescue." You can justify quite a lot of murder by going down that road; it's a short hop from there to "hey, this abject evildoer repented, dispatch them quickly so they can enjoy a good afterlife instead of taking the risk that they backslide to evil and eternal torment - you're welcome!" - aka the very conclusion Gygax landed on for 1e Paladins that subsequent authors have resoundingly distanced themselves from.



Homebrew isn't required for this to occur as I've already outlined, but yes, a Paladin making a unilateral choice to kill someone is a murderer. No Good character should ever kill someone innocent without their consent, and should still have serious misgivings about doing it with their consent.

But not so serious that they should bother attempting any other options first... right?



Quoting the Giant when he's specifically talking about not wanting to depict suicide as a reasonable option in a comic that children read is not very applicable to this scenario. In dark settings there are scenarios where suicide is a preferable alternative to some people when weighed against their likely fate, and the Giant not wanting to depict that in his comic for children has no bearing on this discussion. This has even been depicted in some darker mainstream fantasy media and based on some historical precedent of when fortresses were lost against armies that were notorious for their poor treatment of survivors. Such a scenario is entirely possible in Ravenloft, or even some of the darker Forgotten Realms material. 3.5 is extremely dark if you read the material meant for Evil powers. They torture and murder the living for fun in ways that are described quite graphically. Lords of Madness includes a complete description of ceremorphosis, where an illithid tadpole devours the brain of a still living creature and implants itself into its brainstem. I won't mention the graphically described lifecycles of other aberrations in that book.

And in general, the Giant is an authority only on his own setting, which explicitly takes liberties from other published 3.5 settings and the 3.5 rules. Quoting him doesn't win you any arguments that aren't about OOTS itself.

I wasn't quoting him to "win." Rather I had two reasons for doing so:

1) His seminal work and the thought processes behind its construction serve as a lingua franca / common point of comparison that I believe most people on this forum can relate to. Presumably, most of us wouldn't be here if we disagreed with the premises in his setting, including those relating to alignment / morality.

2) His respect for and professional association with D&D designers like Monte Cook, who helped define the moral underpinnings of D&D 3.5, lead me to believe his views on various subjects are not that far off from their own, so I consider his perspective to be valuable when discussing why things are or aren't a certain way in D&D. For example, his comic's reasoning for why undead creatures such as vampires are evil aligns with D&D's own rationale for explaining the same phenomenon.

[mashlagoo1982]

One aspect I have not seen covered is whom exactly the paladin worships.

I would think that plays a large roll in determining if the paladin falls.

As others have pointed out, this seems like a questionable scenario.
But I get how some groups enjoy exploring the various moral dilemmas.

I would expect that minimum the paladin should offer whatever comfort they can and the choice to the innocents.
Alternatively, maybe one can provide a different solution to mass assisted suicide.

Not trying to dodge the question.
If I was DMing this scenario, and the paladin had done everything within their power to prevent the inevitable worst case scenario, I would look to the dogma of their deity to determine if the paladin falls.

[xXAmaroqXx]

In warcraft 3 there was a moment where Arthas, a paladin, had to face an overwhelming force of undead that threatened to overrun the country and turn every citizen into powerful Zombies - in the next 20 minutes or so.
He had to rapidly face the decision to either kill the civilians now while they were still alive, or later, when they were undead and much more powerful and evil. He opted to send these poor souls to the gods now rather than allow them to suffer and then die and be used for evil and went to mercy-kill the civilians out of necessity, lest the lands would be doomed, and the citizen would still die. He did not fall from being a paladin at that point, and he was certain that he did the right thing even while being disgusted by it.

There was another Paladin named Uther who despised these actions though and refused to have a hand in this. Both were lawful good and paladins of the same school, so arguments could be made for either way, but i think it was a good example of a paladin doing something usually considered bad in the name of good. Personally i am heavily against punishing the paladin in a tricky situation, and as long as he honestly tries to do good with good intent and arguments can always be made for prioritizing either the long term good (as was in this case) or the short term good (we will figure something out until then).

[RedMage125]

One aspect I have not seen covered is whom exactly the paladin worships.

I would think that plays a large roll in determining if the paladin falls.

As others have pointed out, this seems like a questionable scenario.
But I get how some groups enjoy exploring the various moral dilemmas.

I would expect that minimum the paladin should offer whatever comfort they can and the choice to the innocents.
Alternatively, maybe one can provide a different solution to mass assisted suicide.

Not trying to dodge the question.
If I was DMing this scenario, and the paladin had done everything within their power to prevent the inevitable worst case scenario, I would look to the dogma of their deity to determine if the paladin falls.

Paladins don't have to have deities. They get their power from devotion to "righteousness".

This is a common misconception among D&D players, that paladins, like clerics, get their power from gods. Seems to have started in 3rd edition, too. Maybe because Alhandra has a tattoo of Heironious' holy symbol? Personally, I blame the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith, which conflated the two.

Feel free to read the paladin class in the PHB if you doubt. Paladins do not need to be a part of a religious organization at all.

[Segev]

In warcraft 3 there was a moment where Arthas, a paladin, had to face an overwhelming force of undead that threatened to overrun the country and turn every citizen into powerful Zombies - in the next 20 minutes or so.
He had to rapidly face the decision to either kill the civilians now while they were still alive, or later, when they were undead and much more powerful and evil. He opted to send these poor souls to the gods now rather than allow them to suffer and then die and be used for evil and went to mercy-kill the civilians out of necessity, lest the lands would be doomed, and the citizen would still die. He did not fall from being a paladin at that point, and he was certain that he did the right thing even while being disgusted by it.

There was another Paladin named Uther who despised these actions though and refused to have a hand in this. Both were lawful good and paladins of the same school, so arguments could be made for either way, but i think it was a good example of a paladin doing something usually considered bad in the name of good. Personally i am heavily against punishing the paladin in a tricky situation, and as long as he honestly tries to do good with good intent and arguments can always be made for prioritizing either the long term good (as was in this case) or the short term good (we will figure something out until then).

Eh... this is pretty much the start of Arthas's fall, though. It's not that he didn't fall, it's that the story was about his fall. This was the start, and he kept falling. The lack of remorse for his act is, in fact, part of the reason for his fall.

He never "fell" until he picked up Frostmourn, in a mechancial sense, but the narrative very much is about that being the moment Arthas jumped off the cliff and began falling.

[awa]

Just because it was the start of his fall does not mean he was wrong to do so.
In that specific situation there was no good answer and a mercy kill was not evil, it saved a lot of other lives. Its true he was corrupted but that was due to his pride and his arrogance not his pragmatism.

[Psyren]

Just because it was the start of his fall does not mean he was wrong to do so.
In that specific situation there was no good answer and a mercy kill was not evil, it saved a lot of other lives. Its true he was corrupted but that was due to his pride and his arrogance not his pragmatism.

First, you can't conclude "he still had his Light powers therefore culling Stratholme wasn't evil." Warcraft paladins are not D&D paladins, we have no evidence that they are required to fall immediately if they do something evil. In fact, quite a number of neutral and even evil characters in Warcraft can channel the Light, and some of them are even paladins. Warcraft is very much a Light is not Good (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood) setting.

Second, you're somewhat missing the point of Arthas' fall story. What defined him - what would define any paladin in such an extreme scenario - wasn't necessarily the moment of Culling itself, it's what the paladin does immediately afterward.

Arthas had the choice to, post-culling, do things like make restitution to the families of those he slaughtered, seek amends, perform penance for his actions, save as many others as he could etc. And of course, face justice for doing what he thought was the right thing to do in an extreme circumstance. He did none of that - he hared off to Northrend because of a taunt, then burned his men's ships so they couldn't abandon him there. Even if you're right that he had no choice regarding the Culling itself, he had plenty of choice afterward, and the actions he took then serve only to illuminate his character prior to that point too.

[awa]

First, you can't conclude "he still had his Light powers therefore culling Stratholme wasn't evil." Warcraft paladins are not D&D paladins, we have no evidence that they are required to fall immediately if they do something evil. In fact, quite a number of neutral and even evil characters in Warcraft can channel the Light, and some of them are even paladins. Warcraft is very much a Light is not Good (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood) setting.

Second, you're somewhat missing the point of Arthas' fall story. What defined him - what would define any paladin in such an extreme scenario - wasn't necessarily the moment of Culling itself, it's what the paladin does immediately afterward.

Arthas had the choice to, post-culling, do things like make restitution to the families of those he slaughtered, seek amends, perform penance for his actions, save as many others as he could etc. And of course, face justice for doing what he thought was the right thing to do in an extreme circumstance. He did none of that - he hared off to Northrend because of a taunt, then burned his men's ships so they couldn't abandon him there. Even if you're right that he had no choice regarding the Culling itself, he had plenty of choice afterward, and the actions he took then serve only to illuminate his character prior to that point too.

You quoted me but nothing here references anything I said.
1st I said nothing about his powers or light being good, I used fall in the sense of falling from grace ie turning to evil (and also because the poster right before me used it) rather than a d&d mechanic, he is clearly performing acts of actual evil such as betraying allies while still having his holy powers.
2nd I mentioned that killing them wasn't why he fell it was the other stuff, in fact I agree with this (other than the part about not understanding his story i disagree with that). The killing wasn't the problem it was everything else, the obsession with vengeance the betrayal of the mercenaries. Just because a specific act might be justified does not make him a good man.

[Psyren]

You quoted me but nothing here references anything I said.

You're right, I apologize - I was responding to Amaroq's claim that Arthas must not have committed an evil act by murdering Stratholme because he could still channel Light powers. My mistake for attributing that to you, mea culpa.

[mashlagoo1982]

Paladins don't have to have deities. They get their power from devotion to "righteousness".

This is a common misconception among D&D players, that paladins, like clerics, get their power from gods. Seems to have started in 3rd edition, too. Maybe because Alhandra has a tattoo of Heironious' holy symbol? Personally, I blame the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith, which conflated the two.

Feel free to read the paladin class in the PHB if you doubt. Paladins do not need to be a part of a religious organization at all.

I always forget about that option.

Typically I try to impress upon players just how hard it is to play a paladin character.
Because of this, I have never needed to run a game with a paladin.

So, if a paladin were worshiping a god I would look toward that god's beliefs for guidance.
If no god was selected... maybe base my judgement on what seems to be the paladin's core beliefs according to their past behavior.

For instance...
If there was some history of showing mercy, I would not have the paladin fall for performing a voluntary mercy kill for the extreme scenario described in the OP.
If the paladin never once displayed mercy and always had a righteous fury kind of attitude, I may make them fall if they performed mercy killings for the same scenario. I would expect the righteous fury paladin to try and rally the living into a final stand as an act of defiance. I should emphasize "may fall", because if this somehow turns into a character growth situation near the end of their life, I would probably not have them fall.

TLDR: I wouldn't make them fall unless there was something specific calling this out as a situation where they probably should fall.

[awa]

You're right, I apologize - I was responding to Amaroq's claim that Arthas must not have committed an evil act by murdering Stratholme because he could still channel Light powers. My mistake for attributing that to you, mea culpa.

I understand now I was a bit confused. Then yes I agree with the things you said.

While I am in the group that believes a mercy kill could be the good option in the right circumstances with the the right motives this particular example is complicated by the fact that it is the start of someones slippery slope.