A Paladin's Moral Quandry

[filmore]

Let me propose a scenario involving a Paladin named Roj

Roj comes from a kingdom in dire need of a cure for a disease. He has been ordered to travel to a nearby kingdom to retrieve the only cleric in the realm who can cure the disease. But, this cleric is old and weak, and every minute wasted is another closer to death, and every minute wasted is another citizen dead.

Now lets say the Roj comes across a group of trolls harassing a random farm. Does Roj forsake his mission to help the farm? Does he continue with his orders knowing the lives of a few dozen people can be saved by not stopping, thus getting the cure home that much sooner?

What if it's just a kobold with an attitude? What about a demon with greater aspects beyond the farm? What about an entire village in trouble?

At what point is it OK for Roj to forsake his kingdom in an effort to do good?

And would that make him N/G instead of L/G?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Roj goes and saves the farm. Sacrificing people is evil, always. EVERY good char, except maybe a few CG's, would go and lend a hand, no matter how pressing the matter. A life lost because of your stupidity and fear is a life lost and it's your fault. No good char worth his salt will run away from such a situation.

[filmore]

Roj goes and saves the farm. Sacrificing people is evil, always. EVERY good char, except maybe a few CG's, would go and lend a hand, no matter how pressing the matter. A life lost because of your stupidity and fear is a life lost and it's your fault. No good char worth his salt will run away from such a situation.

But saving the lives costs the lives of his own people. Are the lives of random strangers worth so much more than your hometown neighbors?

[AslanCross]

I think present inaction and unwillingness to help people in need that are right in front of you outweigh not being able to help someone just because you were late. Either way, someone dies. I'd justify helping them now by saying that ignoring them could result in the demon or whatever it is waylaying me and potentially delaying my mission even further. (Not to mention possibly killing the cleric who was the objective of the mission to begin with.)

[Azerian Kelimon]

Indeed. It doesn't matter if they're strangers or close people. Or are you implying that, just because they know you, your friends life are worth more overall? That's an Evil, or Neutral attitude, if you consider selfishness as neutral. That'd shift you to LN, not NG.

[Hranat]

Well this is one of the 'lesser of two evils' things. A paladin is allowed to (grudgingly) accept that he cannot help everyone in the world, that his power is limited. And he does as much as he can. Maybe that means he decides to walk on, with tears in his eyes and such.

[Zincorium]

As always with these, my thought is:

If you're afraid to do something which is good because you might lose your status as a paladin...

...Do you really deserve to be one?

There are a lot of specifics to the situation you describe that need to be weighed fairly quickly, and generally the removal of an ongoing evil (the trolls) should be dealt with if possible. That a few people might die of the plague that otherwise wouldn't have is distinctly regrettable, but it's a bad situation, and you just have to do what seems right regardless of the personal consequences.

Of course, if this happens in-game, the DM is obviously setting up an unreasonable situation for you to fall because of. Turn it on his head, be proud of doing good even if it costs you your paladinhood, and get another profession. If the DM continues making it suck for you, get a new one.

[Selv]

In my opinion: Both courses of action are compatible with a LG alignment, and worthy of a paladin. He'll recognise the quandry, and I'd expect him to give it a lot of thought and act, in the end, in what he considers to be the course that allows him to do the most good.

This is not a question of principle, it's a question of judgement. While I'd hope that Paladins have good judgement, I consider alignment to be primarily about motivation.

[Azerian Kelimon]

"As much as he can". This means he must do EVERYTHING he can, and abandoning people is anathema to that.


Plus, Clerics can scribe spells up. Why can't that cleric scribe it and leave it for some other bloke as a safeguard if he dies? There's no need to fret all over things when you can keep a few scrolls.

[Riffington]

This is one of the differences between Lawful and Chaotic. A Chaotic or Neutral good person has a very hard time justifying not helping a person in need. There is someone who can be saved Right Now, whereas this cleric may or may not really be currently-alive-yet-about-to-die.

The Paladin is Lawful Good and can thus ignore the trolls. He is on a righteous mission and appropriately following his duty to escort the cleric. Mission creep should be avoided.

[Wolfwood2]

In my opinion: Both courses of action are compatible with a LG alignment, and worthy of a paladin. He'll recognise the quandry, and I'd expect him to give it a lot of thought and act, in the end, in what he considers to be the course that allows him to do the most good.

This is not a question of principle, it's a question of judgement. While I'd hope that Paladins have good judgement, I consider alignment to be primarily about motivation.

Word. Too many folks get hung up on the idea that there is only one proper course of action in any given situation.

There are wrong answers and there are right answewrs, but there is rarely only one right answer.

[Tokiko Mima]

A human life is a human life, whether it be your countryman or a stranger. If a paladin can save someone, then they should feel compelled to do so regardless of whose life they are saving. Paladins have been known to spare their worst foes if doing so doesn't jeopardize other lives. A paladin should strive to be a positive example to others, because that is the difference between champions of good and exemplars of evil.

This is why rogues and rangers are usually better for fetch and carry missions like this, since they don't get distracted as easily. This paladin would be faced with a serious time crunch, and would have to slay the troll, kill the kobold and demon and save the village all while under the gun to deliver the antidote for the disease in time. If Roj has companions, it would be a good time to split up and let one side of the party get the cure while Roj stays behind and aids those in trouble.

[filmore]

This is one of the differences between Lawful and Chaotic. A Chaotic or Neutral good person has a very hard time justifying not helping a person in need. There is someone who can be saved Right Now, whereas this cleric may or may not really be currently-alive-yet-about-to-die.

The Paladin is Lawful Good and can thus ignore the trolls. He is on a righteous mission and appropriately following his duty to escort the cleric. Mission creep should be avoided.

This is a good synopsis of what I'm wondering. Is a Paladin more bound by his law or his good?

[Wolfwood2]

This is a good synopsis of what I'm wondering. Is a Paladin more bound by his law or his good?

Yes.

It's a class, not a single character. They don't all act the same. If they did, they would be worthless as a class.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

The paladin would have to try to find a way to save both the party members and the person in question.

Captain James T. Kirk never ever accepted losing a man's life as the only alternative. He is essentially a paladin. Ask yourself: What would James T. Kirk do?

[Joran]

Captain James T. Kirk never ever accepted losing a man's life as the only alternative. He is essentially a paladin. Ask yourself: What would James T. Kirk do?

He would lose his shirt, punch an alien, and sleep with another alien.

I agree with Salv; it's a judgment call. Either choice can easily be justified within the code the Paladin believes.

[Riffington]

Captain James T. Kirk never ever accepted losing a man's life as the only alternative.

Captain James T Kirk never accepted losing a woman's affection as an alternative. Nor would he let that annoying Prime Directive get in the way of helping individuals. He's Chaotic Good. What's more, he starred in the kind of show that promises happy endings. Real people have to make real choices.

/Yes, Kirk is awesome. This is related to his lack of Paladinity.

[Riffington]

Yes.

It's a class, not a single character. They don't all act the same. If they did, they would be worthless as a class.

Yes, this is exactly right.
I gave one example of a way a Paladin might act, and to be honest he could go either way. But it is because he is lawful that this is a real quandary. For the chaotic character, the good that can be done right here right now will likely take precedence.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Captain James T Kirk never accepted losing a woman's affection as an alternative. Nor would he let that annoying Prime Directive get in the way of helping individuals. He's Chaotic Good. What's more, he starred in the kind of show that promises happy endings. Real people have to make real choices.

/Yes, Kirk is awesome. This is related to his lack of Paladinity.

He is not chaotic good. As he clearly explained to Spock just recently on the remastered Star Trek:

Spock says something to the effect of "How did you anticipate starfleet would approve?"

Kirk's reply is: Sometimes you need to follow the spirit in which the law was written. I knew they would understand.

Kirk has only rarely ever broken any starfleet laws/regulations.

When he saved spocks life by disobeying starfleet, it was due to his personal honor. How could he allow his friend to die over some ridiculous ceremony. And he was proven correct when Starfleet contacted kirk and retroactively allowed to have saved spock.

When he crossed the neutral zone and got himself "killed", it was under starfleet directives.

The only time he outright broke starfleet law was when he was courtmarshalled for going back in time to save the universe. And do you know how that was handled? He was rewarded with a captainship and given back his wife and only woman he truly loved - the Enterprise!!!!!!!!!!


He was Lawful Good, buddy. That's starfleet talkin'. Otherwise he wouldn't be the youngest captain in Starfleet.

[Pokemaster]

Roj kills or drives away the trolls and makes up the difference by marching for a few extra hours before resting.

[Serpentine]

I think that this is an excellent roleplay situation. I think that, as long as you/your character is thinking more about "Which is right? Which involves the most risk to the most people? What is my highest priority? Can I live with myself if I do this?" and not so much "If I do this, will I lose my abilities?" it shouldn't effect your alignment at all. Regardless of whether one is "better" than the other (and in any case I think neither is Evil), as long as you/he is conflicted you'll have done the right thing. If the decision turns out to have disastrous after effects, well, that's something for your character to angst over, grow through and learn from.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

Roj kills or drives away the trolls and makes up the difference by marching for a few extra hours before resting.

You're like the guy that responds to "Whats the sound of one hand claping?" by closing his hands with his fingers extended and curled...

[Azerian Kelimon]

No, it's more like clapping your hand to your wrist, which is a perfect answer to one hand clapping. Making up by marching a bit more is a perfect idea, you'll rest when the work is done.

[Riffington]

He is not chaotic good. As he clearly explained to Spock just recently on the remastered Star Trek:

Kirk's reply is: Sometimes you need to follow the spirit in which the law was written. I knew they would understand.

Yeah, obeying the spirit rather than the letter: chaotic. Not to mention, he assumes he knows the spirit of the law when in fact he's had almost no legal training.




When he saved spocks life by disobeying starfleet, it was due to his personal honor. How could he allow his friend to die over some ridiculous ceremony. And he was proven correct when Starfleet contacted kirk and retroactively allowed to have saved spock.

Yes, three chaotic things: valuing a friend's life over a ceremony (chaotic or good), having personal honor rather than honor derived from his position (firmly chaotic), and asking forgiveness rather than permission (chaotic).



He was Lawful Good, buddy. That's starfleet talkin'. Otherwise he wouldn't be the youngest captain in Starfleet.

You get to be the youngest captain in Starfleet by breaking the rules and happening to be right. Lawful Starfleet captains are bald and have had heart replacement surgery.

[Porthos]

The correct answer to this question is:

Bribe the DM so that what ever action you do in this "no-win" situatiuon doesn't make you Fall.

That's the James T. Kirk solution. :smallwink:

[Mike_Lemmer]

It depends. If the trolls/demons/whatever are right there and it'd only take a few minutes to beat the cr*p out of them, then you should help. If they're coming "later", simply offer to pass word on. Tell of their plight at the next church you stop at, offer to set up a reward using your own money to attract adventurers, etc. Remember that you aren't the only crusader for good in the world; calling for backup is perfectly reasonable.

[KIDS]

Both ways don't change your alignment, because being put between impossible choices and choosing to do good either way does not make you any less good than you already are. It's a win-win situation and people you can't help dying in the world isn't something that makes you evil in any sense.

Now, if the Paladin after defending the farm stopped at it for two days to heal up and everything knowing that people are dying because of it, that is irresponsible and unpaladinish. Whether it's enough to lose your status, maybe. No true answer.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Yes, three chaotic things: valuing a friend's life over a ceremony (chaotic or good), having personal honor rather than honor derived from his position (firmly chaotic), and asking forgiveness rather than permission (chaotic).

you are 100% wrong for stating this, and need to review the laws and rules pertaining to Paladins and their alignment: Lawful Good.

There was no imminent threat at the ceremony.
There was life threatening imminent threat to Spock.

Chosing to abandon the ceremony to save his honor, and friend is Lawful Good. Especially since it was an Oath Level Honor Bind.

Kirk followed the oath he swore the Prime Directive, and the Prime Directive is fluidic. The Purpose of the Prime Directive is to insure the safety and survival of the universe and thos living within it. When he disobeyed the letter of the law, it was always for the end result of the law, and he was always given retro-active permission and honorary benefits for upholding the purpose of the law and the common good.

That is not Chaotic, that is Lawful by paladin standards. Because Captain James T. Kirk followed his oath.


The correct answer to this question is:

Bribe the DM so that what ever action you do in this "no-win" situatiuon doesn't make you Fall.

That's the James T. Kirk solution.

Or by stealing the DMG and re-writing the rules page to allow you to win ;)

(ST2: Wrath of Kahn, spock revealed that Kirk reprogrammed the computer during his final exam)

[tainsouvra]

If every minute wasted in delivering his cure is another citizen dead, then the greater good is served by not deviating from his delivery. It's unpleasant, but the greater good is more important than the paladin's individual desire to help those right in front of him.

Stopping to help the farm would be a shortsighted act which endangers an untold number of lives simply so the paladin himself can avoid a heavy conscience. That is a chaotic act, and although it wouldn't instantly cause a fall since it's definitely a good act, it's definitely unpaladinlike to deviate from a critical mission in order to undertake a lesser mission.

Now, if there were some flex room in his delivery schedule, it would be another matter entirely. As stated in the original post, however, there simply isn't room for him to deviate from his course no matter how regrettable his forced inaction would be.

[dyslexicfaser]

He would lose his shirt, punch an alien, and sleep with another alien.

My WWJTKD* bracelet is never as situationally relevant as I wish it was.

*What Would James T. Kirk Do, of course.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Does the paladin fall? No. Not under either circumstance. Remember, Falling is a divine punishment; a God of good wouldn't punish his followers for trying to help someone, or making a difficult decision for the good. (Maybe if it's St. Cuthbert being extremely strict)

Second, the morality: OP was right to call this a Moral Quandry, because it's a significant dilemma.

I'd say, it comes down to the individual paladin. Moreover, it's more of an issue of why you do what you do than what.

If your paladin is too much of a utilitarian: if he's dismissive of the farmer as insignificant, even in the face of the plague, he's drifting toward LN, but not enough to fall.

If your paladin abandons his quest entirely: if he defeats the monsters and begins a small campaign to defeat the troll tribes just because the farmers right there in front of him, he's drifting toward CG, but, again, not enough to fall.


Falling is serious business, it should be the result of a bad decision, not just a difficult one.

[Frosty]

He should do some mental calculations, and do whiever course of action will likely save the most number of lives.

[WhyBother]

This is a judgement call as to which solution is "best", but there are more than 2 original options to choose from:

1) You expect us to believe that you are the only one sent on a simple convoy mission to retrieve an indescribably important person to save hundreds of lives? No escort? No entourage? No secondary party to pick up the slack just in case the paladin ("Paladin" comiing from the high-elven for "trouble magnet") gets sidetracked? Send your men ahead while you fend off the attack.

2) It's not necessarily required to kill the trolls. If "harassing" means that you stumble into the middle of the attack, then go ahead and aid the farmers. It would be callous to leave them to certain death because you felt it was more important to get in that full 30 minutes more of riding before lunch. However, if the attacks are frequent, an ever-present threat, then offer to let the farmers ride with you to the nearest settlement, with the promise that you will deposit them there for safe keeping until the kingdoms nearby can lend more men to help you route out the infestation. "Better a few lost sheep and a few lost crops than a lost head; remember, the trolls aren't going to be able to walk off with your land." At the very least offer to convey the children to safety (or wade into combat to save who you can and make an appropriately daring horseback escape).

Also remember: there is something of a difference between "a person who will die" (like that farmer whose about to be decapitated) and "some hypothetical person that may die." You're a paladin; you're in good with the gods. Petition them for a quick fight and no losses to disease in that lost time.

Plus, depending on how high-fantasy this is, you have a number of options even with a cleric whose DOA. If he can't be resurrected because of his natural death, then try speaking with the dead to petition him for post-mortem help. (See the Book of Exalted deeds section on Channeling spirits.) Send messengers in advance to beg him to scribe a few scrolls just in case, or even have him and a friendly wizard there cobble together a minor (heal one person daily) magical item. Anything as a fall back.

You don't act Lawful Good by lucking out and always picking the single "perfect" option, you act Lawful Good by doing whatever good you can, wherever you can, no matter how small it may seem.

[Mike_Lemmer]

If every minute wasted in delivering his cure is another citizen dead, then the greater good is served by not deviating from his delivery. It's unpleasant, but the greater good is more important than the paladin's individual desire to help those right in front of him.

The question is, would the minutes spent saving the farmer be wasted anyway?

There's always going to be time lost, even on a critical journey like this. You need to eat, rest, bathe, arrange a meeting with the priest, wait for the old priest to clothe himself, and so on. And it's not like the priest will leave that very minute.

I see it this way:

What are the odds the priest croaks before curing the disease just because the paladin stopped for 5 minutes to help a farmer?

Now, what are the odds the priest, when the paladin meets him, says he won't travel until the next day because he has to pack, prepare, and rest for the journey? What are the odds the 5 minutes the paladin thought he saved by passing by the farmer really don't make a difference? Congratulations, paladin of efficiency! You've turned your back on people in need for a negligible difference!


Stopping to help the farm would be a shortsighted act which endangers an untold number of lives simply so the paladin himself can avoid a heavy conscience. That is a chaotic act, and although it wouldn't instantly cause a fall since it's definitely a good act, it's definitely unpaladinlike to deviate from a critical mission in order to undertake a lesser mission.

I disagree. Part of being a paladin is knowing when to deviate for a lesser mission, even when fulfilling a critical mission. It reminds me of one atonement mission:

"The paladin's asked to deliver a message to a cleric in another city. Along the way, he meets a crippled man heading the other way. The crippled man asks for his help traveling to the city the paladin just came from. If the paladin helps him, the man's revealed to be the cleric and he's atoned. If he doesn't help him, he isn't atoned."


Now, if there were some flex room in his delivery schedule, it would be another matter entirely. As stated in the original post, however, there simply isn't room for him to deviate from his course no matter how regrettable his forced inaction would be.

There's always flex room. As I said, if he has time to eat & rest on this journey, he can spare a few minutes to help the farmer. He could even spare an hour if he could get the farmer to do a time-saving favor for him, like have a meal ready for him when he's done.

[Riffington]

A lot of people seem to be assuming that the Paladin can simply wipe up the trolls in a few moments. Yes, combat takes minimal real time. If it's an issue of 42 seconds, then this isn't a moral dilemma.

However, one cannot instantaneously evaluate the cost of a battle. If he is going to rush into a fight without proper scouting (as he must if he will save the villagers), he is going to leave himself vulnerable. Were the trolls hired by an assassin to lure him off the path into a trap? Perhaps the very same assassin who spread the disease in the first place? Will his King simply wait three days for him to return, then send another envoy? Has the King already sent another envoy, who currently lies dead? He can answer none of these questions in time to make a proper decision. Soldiers are taught to avoid mission creep for a reason. Charities are unable to avoid it for a reason. If you think this puzzle is easy then you are mistaken.

Frosty: There are no Paladins of Utilitarianism.

Dalboz: You know that Kirk cheated on his exams and still call him Lawful? Does chaotic just mean "got reprimanded" to you?

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Dalboz: You know that Kirk cheated on his exams and still call him Lawful? Does chaotic just mean "got reprimanded" to you?

The exam in question had no successful conclusion.

It was a lose lose situation.

By posing a lose lose situation, it was saying to Kirk that there is no way to make a winning choice.

Paladins do not like lose lose situations, because there is always another way.

Kirk simply... modified the program so it allowed for a successful solution.

Technically Kirk didn't cheat. What he did was he was posed with a problem. The problem was taking an exam that was Lose Lose. If he had cheated what he would have done would be to change his grade for the exam. Instead, he "re-wrote" the exam. In other words. He played by the rules, after he changed the rules while obeying them. If you notice, there was no rule against altering the simulation (therefore there were no rules to be broken), and he was re-warded for thinking outside the box.

A Chaotic person wouldn't bother to change the rules. They would instead cheat afterwards by changing their score or threatening the person who graded them. Thus breaking the rules.

What kirk did was well within the realms of being LAWFUL. Since there was no rule that prohibited him from altering the program, and he was re-warded for his actions.

[Riffington]

The test was not designed to allow a person to win. It was designed to see how gracefully an examinee loses - what one does in an impossible situation. Kirk was so flummoxed by an "unfair" test that he trespassed on government property to alter an exam. If you tried that, you'd be rightfully kicked out of [school, military, wherever you tried it]. Because Kirk is amazingly charismatic, he got people to like his solution. While this charisma makes him awesome, it does not make him lawful.

[Joran]

Dulmer: "Be specific Captain, which Enterprise? There's been five."
Lucsly: "Six...."
Sisko: "This was the first Enterprise, Constitution Class..."
Dulmer: "....His ship..."
Lucsly: "James T. Kirk!"
Sisko: "The one and only..."
Lucsly: "Seventeen separate temporal violations, the biggest file on record."
Dulmer: "The man was a menace..."

[Dalboz of Gurth]

The test was not designed to allow a person to win. It was designed to see how gracefully an examinee loses - what one does in an impossible situation. Kirk was so flummoxed by an "unfair" test that he trespassed on government property to alter an exam. If you tried that, you'd be rightfully kicked out of [school, military, wherever you tried it]. Because Kirk is amazingly charismatic, he got people to like his solution. While this charisma makes him awesome, it does not make him lawful.
It was a deceitful test, by not telling the students that the intent of the test was to see them fail. THAT IS LYING! A Lawful Character cannot just sit back and abide by the government LYING to its people. Therefore Kirk did his best to prevent Starfleet from lying to him.

^_^

He did not break any laws by changing the parameters of the test, period. No matter how many times you want to try and say he cheated, he didn't. He had full authority and was never charged. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he had high charisma.

It was because he changed the test that they decided to pass laws to prevent people from changing the test.

Retroactive Laws do NOT affect the actions of a paladin before the laws were broken.

As far as that DS9 quote -- please, it was done during the Rick Berman era, and does not actually show that Kirk broke laws on a whim. Aftarll, Paladins are allowed to break or otherwise ignore laws that would perpetuate a harm onto the subjects of the law.

[Joran]

The entire movie of Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock was Kirk violating every law in the Federation.

Here's a listing of what he and his associates did:

The charges and specifications are: Conspiracy; Assault on Federation Officers; Theft of Federation Property; namely the Starship Enterprise; Sabotage of the U.S.S. Excelsior; willful destruction of Federation Property, specifically the aforementioned U.S.S. Enterprise; and finally, disobeying direct orders of the Starfleet Commander.

He's lucky he saved the Earth in Star Trek 4 and got the charges dismissed.

[Krasus]

It may be the influence of a Paladin I play with often, but I see it like this:
Take the alignment aspect out of it for a moment and let's look at the aspect of Paladin. He must do whatever he can to help whoever needs him whenever. Yes there is a plague hitting his kingdom, and he has been charged with finding and escorting the only person who has the cure back to his kingdom, but he has come across evil in the form of trolls. It was his gods will that he be there. To the Paladin, he came across this farmer in need because his god put him along that path, ergo his god wants him to help the farmer. He isn't forsaking the original misson, just pausing. It'll all work out in the end, have faith. His god is watching over him and those he cares for.
As for alignment, a quote comes to mind: 'A single good deed is not enough to attone for a life time of wickedness.' It seems to me that Roj wouldn't have some sort of major alignment shift or lose his paladinhood just for stopping and helping, especially when he isn't abandoning the quest. He would have to do something major, or do many infractions to cause a shift.

I hope that helped filmore.

[Joran]

t was his gods will that he be there. To the Paladin, he came across this farmer in need because his god put him along that path, ergo his god wants him to help the farmer. He isn't forsaking the original misson, just pausing. It'll all work out in the end, have faith.

This is one legitimate player interpretation. Of course, if your paladin was more paranoid, he could view it as a distraction caused by *insert evil deity here* to fog his purpose and delay much needed help.

[Danin]

James T Kirk as a Paladin of Freedom?

[Corolinth]

The paladin has no way of knowing the cleric can actually help. Furthermore, he has no way of knowing that people can't be helped without the cleric (some people do recover from diseases naturally, after all). Finally, after a certain point, paladins can also cure diseases. In other words, we can't say for certain whether every minute the paladin tarries actually translates to one more death. We do know that those trolls are coming back.

The way I read the initial dilemma, the farm being harassed by trolls is in the same realm, which would mean the paladin is probably sworn to protect them just as he's sworn to protect the people of the town ravaged by disease.

If you look at what happens, if the paladin is delayed saving the farmers, he hasn't abandoned his quest to bring back the cleric. Being late is not the same as not showing up at all. On the other hand, if he presses on to find the cleric, he has abandoned those farmers. Neither decision should result in a fall. In either scenario, the paladin is choosing to do the right and proper thing according to his code. He's just been dealt a bad hand, and has to make the best of what he's got.

[Ozymandias]

Frosty: There are no Paladins of Utilitarianism.

Why not? Optimizing virtue sounds like the noblest course of action possible (by definition, even), and it's pretty lawful because I assume you'd use algorithms. Just because it's not intuitive or visceral does not mean it isn't 'good'. Science and reason often save more lives (and takes more) than ineffectual martyrdom or pointless villainy.

[tbarrie]

Technically Kirk didn't cheat. What he did was he was posed with a problem. The problem was taking an exam that was Lose Lose. If he had cheated what he would have done would be to change his grade for the exam. Instead, he "re-wrote" the exam. In other words. He played by the rules, after he changed the rules while obeying them. If you notice, there was no rule against altering the simulation (therefore there were no rules to be broken), and he was re-warded for thinking outside the box.


A paladin's head would explode just reading this paragraph.

[cupkeyk]

A paladin is also lawful and it would be against his loyalty to his country to falter.

[Mike_Lemmer]

A paladin is also lawful and it would be against his loyalty to his country to falter.

By that logic, it's also disloyal for him to sleep, eat, or rest until his duty's done. The paladin may be exhausted, starving, and unable to protect himself or his charge from bandits or monsters, but at least he'll be loyal!

As for the "troll conspiracy theories": Sure, it could be, but sometimes a troll is just a troll. If a paladin uses "mission creep" as an excuse to avoid any deeds he didn't plan for, on the offchance it's a plot against him, he'll fall faster than a blind man in a dodgeball game.

[Fawsto]

Good over Law... Paladins are Paragons of Good, not Paragons of Law, if you check the class skills there are Detect Evil and Smite Evil, not Detect Chaos and Smite Chaos.

Paladins are Lawful just because that means Honor and Trustworthyness when allied with Good. It is convenient to their ideal to Lead By Example to be Lawful.

Everybody is saying the same, I presume, but in this case the Paladin is ought to help the farmers, even if it is possibily a trap, he must take a look and make sure it is. Not fighting the Trolls is, what we call, a lesser Evil in benefit of a Greater Good, possibily (not even sure if the cleric will work). Sooner or later everybody understands that no Good can come from Evil actions, no matter how small they are.

Paladin helps the Farm. Then he helps his country. It is the best he can do, no one would demand more than that from a single man.

edit: Ohh, and if he is a low level Paladin uncapable of fighting the Trolls without suffering a horrible death, what he must do is wait till the Trolls go away and help any survivors by doing the best as he can... Including using some lay on hands, heal checks and even helping to re-build the Barn.

I am not to discuss Captain Kirk's moral Dilemas... Sorry.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

A paladin's head would explode just reading this paragraph.

SEE! A valid defense for James T. Kirk - his head exploded at the irreconciliable situation starfleet put him in, so he had a moment of temporary insanity while he took the test, preventing him from any class checks.

WUAHAHHAHAHHA

[Riffington]

If a paladin uses "mission creep" as an excuse to avoid any deeds he didn't plan for, on the offchance it's a plot against him, he'll fall faster than a blind man in a dodgeball game.

Unless, by chance, he happens to currently be on a mission of the utmost importance to his country. :smallbiggrin:

[Sightless]

Im surprised everybody has assumed you have to choose between resting or moving on. If a paladin (physically fit adventurer) is traveling with an old feeble priest possibly dying of disease they are going to be traveling at the priest's pace (unless mounted.) Just send whatever militia or farmers that are victim's to the trolls to help out the priest for a day or two on the road while you take care of the whole farm harassment issue. Surely a paragon of good and his magical mount are strong enough to catch up to a feeble old man only a few days up the road.

[Riffington]

Why not? Optimizing virtue sounds like the noblest course of action possible (by definition, even), and it's pretty lawful because I assume you'd use algorithms. Just because it's not intuitive or visceral does not mean it isn't 'good'. Science and reason often save more lives (and takes more) than ineffectual martyrdom or pointless villainy.

It may have the best results, and may be good, but it is by no means noble. It is a triumph of utils over nobility. Science and reason are wonderful things, but they don't inspire Paladins. They inspire Experts whose ranks in Knowledge (happiness) do more good than a Paladin thrice their level. Paladins are warriors and true believers, not level-headed statisticians.

As to lawful, it's unclear today. Does Rule Utilitarianism ultimately collapse into Act Utilitarianism once you study it properly? Does a good heart produce better results than proper calculations? Must a Utilitarian become Lawful? Alternatively, must a Utilitarian become Chaotic? These are questions that we lack the math to answer...

[Doresain]

ya see...this is why i play NE necromancers...it takes all the guesswork out of morality, and makes it a simple question of "how am i doing on raw materials?"

[Ozymandias]

It may have the best results, and may be good, but it is by no means noble. It is a triumph of utils over nobility. Science and reason are wonderful things, but they don't inspire Paladins. They inspire Experts whose ranks in Knowledge (happiness) do more good than a Paladin thrice their level. Paladins are warriors and true believers, not level-headed statisticians.

As to lawful, it's unclear today. Does Rule Utilitarianism ultimately collapse into Act Utilitarianism once you study it properly? Does a good heart produce better results than proper calculations? Must a Utilitarian become Lawful? Alternatively, must a Utilitarian become Chaotic? These are questions that we lack the math to answer...

Fair enough. If I were a paladin, though, I'd at least try to decide what course would bring the greatest good. D&D morality is rather hard on pragmatism...

[Quietus]

ya see...this is why i play NE necromancers...it takes all the guesswork out of morality, and makes it a simple question of "how am i doing on raw materials?"

Do you mind if I sig this? That got an awesome laugh out of me, and I think others should get to see it.

[Doresain]

Do you mind if I sig this? That got an awesome laugh out of me, and I think others should get to see it.

do i get a cookie if i say yes?

[tainsouvra]

The paladin has no way of knowing the cleric can actually help. Furthermore, he has no way of knowing that people can't be helped without the cleric (some people do recover from diseases naturally, after all). Finally, after a certain point, paladins can also cure diseases. In other words, we can't say for certain whether every minute the paladin tarries actually translates to one more death. We do know that those trolls are coming back. Quoting the OP:
He has been ordered to travel to a nearby kingdom to retrieve the only cleric in the realm who can cure the disease. But, this cleric is old and weak, and every minute wasted is another closer to death, and every minute wasted is another citizen dead.
We do know that the cleric can help. It's in the premise for the thread.
We do know that the people can't be helped without the cleric. It's in the premise for the thread.
We do know that the people can't be helped by the paladin. It's in the premise for the thread.

You can't just ignore the premise of the thread and invent your own situation in which there is an easier moral question, it just botched the whole concept.

[tainsouvra]

It was a deceitful test, by not telling the students that the intent of the test was to see them fail. THAT IS LYING! A Lawful Character cannot just sit back and abide by the government LYING to its people. Therefore Kirk did his best to prevent Starfleet from lying to him. This is, by far, the best example in this thread of a principle I have mentioned before. In threads such as this, an answer is only minimally affected by the situation and characters--by far the biggest factor is the alignment of the people who respond to the thread, not the character being examined.

Dalboz, the actual Lawful thing to do would be to quit the test and file an official complaint about the unfair circumstances--that would be within the parameters given to him, the very spirit of Lawfulness. Altering the parameters so that you can do good in a way more appropriate to your personal moral compass, regardless of the legality or precedent for doing so, is practically the definition of Chaotic Good. There is nothing wrong with being Chaotic, so this is not a condemnation, but the situation you described was so blatantly a Chaotic action that it really isn't something you can debate rationally.

I point this out because of the tremendous relevance to the paladin's situation. Each of us readers is injecting our own alignment into the question, and ultimately the best we can do is attempt to justify our own responses in terms of the alignment descriptors, as we can't avoid having our own alignments be the major deciding factor.

[TimeWizard]

You're like the guy that responds to "Whats the sound of one hand claping?" by closing his hands with his fingers extended and curled...



CL. THE OTHER HAND MAKES THE AP.

*Mandatory 10 characters

[Quietus]

do i get a cookie if i say yes?

Absolutely, long as you're good with either chocolate chip or oatmeal raisin.

[Doresain]

Absolutely, long as you're good with either chocolate chip or oatmeal raisin.

sig away my friend, sig away

[filmore]

By that logic, it's also disloyal for him to sleep, eat, or rest until his duty's done. The paladin may be exhausted, starving, and unable to protect himself or his charge from bandits or monsters, but at least he'll be loyal!

That's kinda how I view Paladins. If a Paladin's goal is lost, I'd expect him to lament having to stop to sleep.

[hamishspence]

Kirk???? Paladin????

Lets review the Code: No lyin' cheatin' or stealin'

Kirk has done all three in his career. Spock has also done dubious things. Yet Spock, and Picard, are much closer to the archetype than Kirk. There is a srong tendency toward self-sacrifice, defence of innocents, and general heroism in most Star Trek major characters. Some are more sticklers of the rules, and are LG. Some (Paris) are very chaotic, but still brave and loyal.

Kirk might stretch to LG, with Good more strong than law, but he is no paladin. Even Spock has told the occasional lie. His most visibly evil act is what looks a lot like mental torture of Valeris to get info in Undiscovered Country. At least, when he presses for more info, which she cannot supply, it looks agonizing for her.

So, hardly anyone in Trek is pure paladin. Yet most are Good, with the rare evil act being an aberration in a career focussed heavily on doing Good.

[hamishspence]

Paladins are not supposed to turn away those in need. And, unless the situation is REALLY dire, it is unlikely that the fate of the world rests on one paladin.

in Arthurian tales, the Knights are generally not in trouble if they pause on their quests to aid the needy. However a wise paladin looks at what they can and cannot do, and tries to get side-quests done as fast as they can. If they can palm the needy person off on the King, without risking their safety, or that of the person they are calling on behalf of, they will.

Paladin might say to the person who has said "oh, my husband is locked up in Durance Vile by a wicked knight" "Heres a note. Take it to Camelot and the king will rally a whole bunch of men to aid you. One man cannot do it alone. Army can"

If time is of the essence, Then, the paladin will have more reason to turn aside from his quest, as long as side quest is not dangerously long.

[daggaz]

In my opinion: Both courses of action are compatible with a LG alignment, and worthy of a paladin. He'll recognise the quandry, and I'd expect him to give it a lot of thought and act, in the end, in what he considers to be the course that allows him to do the most good.

This is not a question of principle, it's a question of judgement. While I'd hope that Paladins have good judgement, I consider alignment to be primarily about motivation.

QFT. Who else is sick of dead-end railroads of alignment absolutism? In a situation where there is no right answer, neither can there be a wrong answer. Think about it, please.

[Hopeless]

Let me propose a scenario involving a Paladin named Roj

Roj comes from a kingdom in dire need of a cure for a disease. He has been ordered to travel to a nearby kingdom to retrieve the only cleric in the realm who can cure the disease. But, this cleric is old and weak, and every minute wasted is another closer to death, and every minute wasted is another citizen dead.

Now lets say the Roj comes across a group of trolls harassing a random farm. Does Roj forsake his mission to help the farm? Does he continue with his orders knowing the lives of a few dozen people can be saved by not stopping, thus getting the cure home that much sooner?

What if it's just a kobold with an attitude? What about a demon with greater aspects beyond the farm? What about an entire village in trouble?

At what point is it OK for Roj to forsake his kingdom in an effort to do good?

And would that make him N/G instead of L/G?

Personally I'd say these are events intended to test his integrity and the worthiness of his mission to save his homeland, deliberately ignoring the plight of others on his quest is a sign of unworthiness these sub quests are there to prove to his god that he is not only worthy but his people are worth saving.
So he isn't forsaking his mission unless the dm is deliberately railroading him, but I'm not the person playing that character nor running the game.
Consider the story of Lord Soth or whatever his name is from dragonlance nd use that as a guide.

[Hawriel]

this is why I hate alinment threads. Most peaple treat morality and duty as absolutes and always conflict. Oh and in the case of this thread hippy multi culteralism.

Your own country men always, I repeat, ALWAYS come first. I dont care if its a make believe RPing or real life. It does not matter if its a single person, a family, community or a large country. Any decision has to have this in mind. How will effect me? My family? My community? And so on. I in no way say sacrafice is wrong or should never happen. How many of you have help a friend or a stranger when doing so would cause you hardship? I have, whether it was scraping by on mony or being late to a class or work. Helping a friend is different from helping a stranger. You have mutual trust and obligation to a friend, not to a stranger. Its not wrong to refuse help to a stranger, unless its motivated by cruilty. If you say it is think about this, how many times have you walked by Santa ringing his bell and not put mony in the bucket? How many times have you tossed out donation requests from Unisef in the mail? Or turn it this way. Is the doctor who saves one injured person over another evil? what if that second person would have cost to much resorces or time. Others might have died while the doctor was saving one person. This happens all the time. Doctors, judges, police, soldiers, generals and presidents make these decisions every day, and almost alwasy come down to what is my duty to this person, to my community or country.

back to the hypothetical of Roj. If Roj stopped to help and got back in time he was damn lucky, and should be punished for failing his duty to his peaple. If Roj was delayed to much he failed and must be punished. If Roj stops and gets himself killed or is to injured to finish his duty...well he failed on all counts. Any thing that would impede Roj from his mission is automaticly not his problem.

[Neon Knight]

Consider the story of Lord Soth or whatever his name is from dragonlance nd use that as a guide.

It's been sometime since I read the tale of Lord Soth, but I though his sin was unfaithfulness to his wife. Something about a very attractive elf woman. There was also some politics involved. I'm fuzzy on the details.

EDIT: Having read a wiki summary, it seems that he found this elf woman while out questing. I suppose there is some correlation, but infidelity seems like a more obvious no-no than, say, riding on to try to save disease ridden people from horrible ends.

[Hawriel]

Soth betrayed his oath and killed his wife in a vengeful rage. His wife was an elven princes. She I believe was innosent of the adultry Soth killed her for. Part of his curse is to relive the murder of his wife.