PDA

View Full Version : Kobayashi Maru



Staven
2008-10-12, 02:19 PM
...Or, "No-win situation." I'm currently playing a paladin/grayguard. We are nearing the end of the campaign (if I had to guess, it's lasted about 15 sessions thus far) and the BBEG looms. At least once, my character has had some character development dealing with falling. He has never done so (but came close once). Now, I've been thinking: multiple times, I've heard of Catch 22 situations where whatever choice a paladin makes, he can have no choice but to fall. Maybe my creativity has fallen short, maybe I'm not that sadistic, or maybe I'm just not thinking too hard, but I can't imagine a situation like that. Can you?

monty
2008-10-12, 02:24 PM
If it comes down to it, you could take the generic Kobayashi Maru solution, which in this case would probably be something along the lines of
stealing the DM's notes and changing them.

DarknessLord
2008-10-12, 02:29 PM
You're also a grayguard, meaning it's a lot harder to make you fall, so long as you act in the "greater good", no?
But for regular paladins, it can be something as simple as, you have to kill the innocent child to save the world, no, you can't take a third option. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption)

Vva70
2008-10-12, 02:45 PM
You can only have a true fall-regardless situation as a paladin if the DM decides to abandon all logic and make the paladin responsible for the result of his choice, rather than his intent and the morality of his actions. Evil actions will cause a fall, regardless of intent, and evil intent will cause a fall, regardless of action. Evil resulting from good intentions and non-evil actions should not cause a fall. Thus, a paladin in a game governed by a sensible DM (sensible by my standards anyway :smallsmile:) will always have a right choice that won't cause a fall, even if it's not a very good choice (good as in chance of success, not as in the alignment).

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-12, 06:26 PM
A true no-win scenario based on pure good and evil is hard to come by, and generally the result of DM screwage. Something like the following, where falling would only happen if you let her live, being claimed to be no-win.Epic Daemonlord possesses your little sister and is casting a spell that will take 2 rounds to open a portal and release Asmodous into the world. You're level 5, and have to either kill her or let them in. And the demon has offered to let her live in paradise(you will of course be tortured for a thousand years) if you let him do it.The real issue is the code. The code says
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Put someone with that code in Germany in the late '30s. Hitler was Legitimate Authority, he said no one could leave. So leaving is out. He said helping the Jewish was illegal. So helping them is out. But the code says you must help them. Yeah...The Paladin is essentially going to fall no matter what after a month of that. And it wouldn't even be his fault, the code and the situation meant it is impossible for someone to make an real decision that doesn't break it.

Cubey
2008-10-12, 06:35 PM
Kobayashi Maru scenarios are interesting if performed well, and very annoying and giving the impression that the DM is a jerk if done poorly. Unfortunately, the latter kind happens far more often. And even if you can make it good, make sure beforehand that the players are okay with such a scenario. Otherwise you end up with characters depowered or otherwise abused for the sake of scenario that only the game master enjoys.

Scenario above: it was said many times in similar threads, if met with authority that is perceived as injust and evil (and 30s Germany's rule was evil, unambiguously), the Paladin can and should act against such authorities. Also, to respect does not mean to obey. Also, Godwin's Law.

Zeful
2008-10-12, 06:48 PM
Epic Daemonlord possesses your little sister and is casting a spell that will take 2 rounds to open a portal and release Asmodous into the world. You're level 5, and have to either kill her or let them in. And the demon has offered to let her live in paradise(you will of course be tortured for a thousand years) if you let him do it.

Option 3: Bludgeon your sister up the head, dealing non-lethal damage (the possession obviously didn't make her stronger if you could kill her). Tie her up, gag her and open a gate to your patron god's plane. Hand her over to the god directly. Problem solved.

There are always more options than Stab the Baby/Doom Mortal Existance.

chiasaur11
2008-10-12, 06:53 PM
Option 3: Bludgeon your sister up the head, dealing non-lethal damage (the possession obviously didn't make her stronger if you could kill her). Tie her up, gag her and open a gate to your patron god's plane. Hand her over to the god directly. Problem solved.

There are always more options than Stab the Baby/Doom Mortal Existance.

That very problem is exactly why you should always carry bullets soaked in pope backwash.

Person_Man
2008-10-12, 07:11 PM
Depends on your god and your code.

For example, you might value duty, life, and justice. It would be easy to set up a situation where those conflicted - the high priest orders you to execute a man who's been found guilty of murder, but you know that he's innocent even though you can't prove it. Do you follow duty and do as you are ordered? Or do you escape with the man, protecting his life? And which one would serve justice, protecting a system which creates order for thousands, or protecting one man that is innocent?

If you're smart, you'd create a hierarchical code, where one has precedent over the others. It should also be sufficiently detailed that if there is a conflict, there's a pre-determined (and church approved) method for sorting it out. Paladin's only fall if they're sloppy or overly prideful in their beliefs.

Vva70
2008-10-12, 07:52 PM
Paladins and "no-win" situations are like a lot like terrorists making demands. By threatening to do something horrible if you don't do what they want, they put the initiative on you. That in no way puts the responsibility for their actions on you. If you don't meet their demands, and they carry out their threat, it's still their fault, not yours.

Likewise, a paladin caught in between two horrible results, set up in such a manner that at least one will come into effect, should not be held divinely responsible for such an inevitable result to occur. He should, however, be expected to choose a course of action that, regardless of result, is both good and honorable. And if he fails to prevent the bad result, he should probably feel guilt. But he shouldn't fall just because someone else did something that he couldn't stop while remaining good and honorable.

Another problem with these dilemmas is that they almost inevitably assume metagame knowledge from the paladin. How is the paladin to know that "there is no third option?" Did his god tell him? Then why couldn't he just ask his god what the right choice was? If the paladin simply hasn't found a third option yet, he has no way to know that it doesn't exist. If the DM tells the player there is no third option, the paladin still doesn't know that.


Also, Godwin's Law.

Trying to avoid Godwin's Law only applies to inappropriate references to the Nazis, and in all fairness, I think that Sstoopidtallkid used it in an appropriate manner. That said, your other two points about his position were spot on. :smallsmile:

Cubey
2008-10-12, 08:08 PM
There is also a difference between real (real for you, or real for your character) Kobayashi Marus, where thinking outside the box to pick the third, best option is a great course of action; and obviously false Kobayashi Marus (like a "what would you do?" question on a forum or an artificial simulation) that are clearly meant to act as tests of character. In the first situation, taking the third option means you are resourceful and clever. In the second, it means you're a wuss who is afraid to make difficult decisions even without real life consequences.

Yes, I am aware that the original Kobayashi Maru was a "false" type.

Flickerdart
2008-10-12, 09:02 PM
Yes, I am aware that the original Kobayashi Maru was a "false" type.
Ironically enough, the original could easily be rendered moot if the captain on training chose to leave the ship alone, thereby breaking no laws.

LibraryOgre
2008-10-12, 09:43 PM
The real issue is the code. The code says Put someone with that code in Germany in the late '30s. Hitler was Legitimate Authority, he said no one could leave. So leaving is out. He said helping the Jewish was illegal. So helping them is out. But the code says you must help them. Yeah...The Paladin is essentially going to fall no matter what after a month of that. And it wouldn't even be his fault, the code and the situation meant it is impossible for someone to make an real decision that doesn't break it.

No, it's not. In that case, you tender your resignation (the Lawful way out from under a lord who acts unconscionably), and leave. You do not aid the enemy with your knowledge (because that would violate the trust placed in you while you were a loyal part of the government), but you can aid them materially or as an individual soldier.

For a Paladin, sometimes the preferable alternative to falling is death.

Doomsy
2008-10-12, 10:07 PM
No, it's not. In that case, you tender your resignation (the Lawful way out from under a lord who acts unconscionably), and leave. You do not aid the enemy with your knowledge (because that would violate the trust placed in you while you were a loyal part of the government), but you can aid them materially or as an individual soldier.

For a Paladin, sometimes the preferable alternative to falling is death.

All of this is highly subject to cultural standards. Technically, a real samurai was bound by similar rules in regards to loyalty to authority.

Only the honorable way for them to express disagreement or a conflict of honor was to kill themselves.

I would highly suggest doing that if you are ever with a DM who likes plotting must-fall scenarios. It might be an unnerving surprise to listen to you calmly describe your character killing themselves rather than live in disgrace. Barring that, in the 'must kill baby situation', at least one of the paladins I've played would have probably driven the sword through themselves and the baby at the same time.

I find must-fall scenarios to be pretty tedious for the most part and I am glad that 4E took away the as-written Code and let the player make their own code. It prevents that kind of rail roading. For the record, clerics are expected to follow the tenets of their god and they very rarely take this kind of 'must fall' crap - I think the paladin as a trope and the fact that clerics very rarely have written codes has aided that a lot.

snoopy13a
2008-10-12, 10:53 PM
Ironically enough, the original could easily be rendered moot if the captain on training chose to leave the ship alone, thereby breaking no laws.

There was an old Star Trek book where the characters recounted their experience in the Kobayashi Maru scenario. One of the characters (I believe Sulu) left the ship alone believing that it wasn't worth it to enter the neutral zone.

Surprisingly, it is odd that this isn't the common decision. As detasteful as it may seem, saving a freighter isn't worth the possibility of sparking a war.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-12, 11:06 PM
There was an old Star Trek book where the characters recounted their experience in the Kobayashi Maru scenario. One of the characters (I believe Sulu) left the ship alone believing that it wasn't worth it to enter the neutral zone.

Surprisingly, it is odd that this isn't the common decision. As detasteful as it may seem, saving a freighter isn't worth the possibility of sparking a war.

This account, and more, are detailed on the One True Wiki (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheKobayashiMaru) for your reading pleasure :smallbiggrin:

It was, in fact Sulu, BTW

chiasaur11
2008-10-12, 11:06 PM
There was an old Star Trek book where the characters recounted their experience in the Kobayashi Maru scenario. One of the characters (I believe Sulu) left the ship alone believing that it wasn't worth it to enter the neutral zone.

Surprisingly, it is odd that this isn't the common decision. As distasteful as it may seem, saving a freighter isn't worth the possibility of sparking a war.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was Sulu.

The reason more people don't do it is probably them assuming it can be won. All previous tests could be won, so why not this one?

Staven
2008-10-12, 11:10 PM
So, if the freighter represents the baby, and the klingons represent the oncoming fiendish horde, then it would be preferable to "leave the freighter" than to "enter the neutral zone?" It seems as much, but you are issuing a death sentence to close to...I think it was 60 crew, 80 passengers (I just watched WoK tonight). I think to avoid a fall, it would be nice to admit what you did to the families of the crew, or the parents of the child. Of course, if the parents are dead or were evil or something, then would you just ask your god for forgiveness or what?

Jayngfet
2008-10-12, 11:10 PM
I'd make the action so big morality ceases to matter.

Open a huge portal to the abyss in a good afterlife or open another to you're home country.

I'd take the afterlife myself.

Mewtarthio
2008-10-12, 11:28 PM
...Or, "No-win situation." I'm currently playing a paladin/grayguard. We are nearing the end of the campaign (if I had to guess, it's lasted about 15 sessions thus far) and the BBEG looms. At least once, my character has had some character development dealing with falling. He has never done so (but came close once). Now, I've been thinking: multiple times, I've heard of Catch 22 situations where whatever choice a paladin makes, he can have no choice but to fall. Maybe my creativity has fallen short, maybe I'm not that sadistic, or maybe I'm just not thinking too hard, but I can't imagine a situation like that. Can you?

There's actually two such scenarios in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, both as season finales. Yeah, these things do exist outside thought experiments and games run by incredibly sadistic DMs.

Season 2
First, some background: Vampires in the Buffyverse are uniformly Evil due to their lack of souls (essentially consciences). The one exception is Buffy's beau, Angel, who once killed a young gypsy and wound up cursed with what the gyspies thought would be the most horrible fate imaginable: He got his soul back, forcing him to live with all the evil he'd comitted as a vampire. He later fell in love with Buffy, and the two had sex in Season 2. Unfortunately, the consumation of true love gave him perfect happiness, thereby defeating the curse and causing him to turn sadistic and evil again.

Now, on to the scenario: Angel's grown sick of the world and decided to end it all--the world, that is. He's acquired a petrified demon name Acathla, who's been impaled with a sword. The way this works is that, if the sword is removed from Acathla, he creates a vortex that causes the entire universe to implode into Hell. The guy who first petrified Acathla blessed a second sword as a contingency plan. Angel's blood can activate both sword: He is the only one who can pull the sword from the stone demon, and the vortex can only be sealed if he gets stabbed with the second sword, which sends him to Hell instead of the world.

You can probably guess what happens next: Buffy has the second sword, and Angel pulls out the first sword, giving the show an excuse to have a swordfight in its finale. After Buffy disarms Angel, however, her witch friend, Willow, who has no idea that Acathla's already been awakened, manages to redo the old gypsy curse. Angel is restored to the side of good, with no memory of what he's done in the meantime. And then the vortex opens. The choice: Kill a good guy who loves Buffy in cold blood, or let the entire world die. Buffy opts for the former, in case you're wondering.

Season 5:
Buffy now has a sister, Dawn, who is, in fact, the human incarnation of a mystical force called "The Key" that can open certain portals that really shouldn't be opened. Namely, Dawn's blood opens a portal to Hell, as you can probably guess. If actually used, however, The Key has the nasty side effect of destroying the barriers between worlds, causing the entire multiverse to run together into some sort of soupy mass of chaos.

Enter Glory the Hellgoddess. Glory ruled one of the Hells (conveniently, the same one that The Key unlocks) and got trapped here in our world. She wants to get back, and apparently nobody told her that her current plan involves ending reality (and her own world, as well). Glory is effectively invincible, so killing her is out of the question. The only way to ensure that she is stopped would be to kill Dawn, which nobody wants to do.

The finale ups the ante even further: If the portal is opened, it will only remain open so long as Dawn's blood continues to flow. Translation: If the portal opens, the end of all existence can still be averted if Dawn is killed quickly enough. Suprise, suprise: Dawn gets captured, the portal opens, and the evil cultists who completed the ritual was careful to make nice, shallow cuts so that she wouldn't bleed to death on her own. Buffy's choice: Kill her innocent sister in cold blood, or let the world end (again).

In case you haven't figured it out by now, the writers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer really enjoy tormenting poor Buffy.

Incidentally, Buffy actually chooses the latter option, and even takes it a step futher: Not only will she not kill Dawn herself, she'll kill anyone who tries to do the job for her. The only thing that keeps the world from ending is this really weird scene where Buffy figures out that Dawn is her clone or something and she can sacrifice herself instead of her sister to close the portal.

There's also The Sarah Connor Chronicles, in which the "heroes" have to kill an innocent computer programmer (last name: Good) because he's going to invent SkyNet in the future, but that series offends me as a CS major, so I'd rather not think about it. The writers certainly didn't: I mean, really, a freaking chess computer? And did they completely overlook that big scene in Terminator II: You know, the one in which they most explicitly did not kill Miles Dyson? :smallyuk:

Roland St. Jude
2008-10-12, 11:35 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Godwin or no Godwin, please don't discuss real world politics.

Learnedguy
2008-10-12, 11:49 PM
You're also a grayguard, meaning it's a lot harder to make you fall, so long as you act in the "greater good", no?
But for regular paladins, it can be something as simple as, you have to kill the innocent child to save the world, no, you can't take a third option. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption)

Gentlemen, there is always a third option. It involves swords and bashing and manliness.

DO THE IMPOSSIBLE, BREAK THE UNBREAKABLE, ROW ROW, FIGHT THE POWER!!!!

chiasaur11
2008-10-12, 11:53 PM
Gentlemen, there is always a third option. It involves swords and bashing and manliness.

DO THE IMPOSSIBLE, BREAK THE UNBREAKABLE, ROW ROW, FIGHT THE POWER!!!!

Being named "James T. Kirk" also tends to do the job.

Man does NOT believe in no no-win scenarios, and has the DIABOLICAL ACTING TALENT to back that sort of thinking up.

Mal Reynolds follows in his grand tradition of heroic captains taking a third option, but usually the third option would make a Paladin fall even harder.

snoopy13a
2008-10-12, 11:59 PM
Couldn't it be argued that in some of these "no-win" situations that neither choice would cause a paladin to fall?

Also, many actions could lead to innocent people suffering. For example, suppose a bandit supports his family through his crime. If a paladin rescues an innocent person the bandit is trying to rob by killing him, then the bandit's family could starve causing innocents to suffer anyway.

Gavin Sage
2008-10-13, 12:48 AM
Morally speaking there really is no no-win situation. Even if you are an exalted saint with vows of total pacisfism you have moral options. If your valid moral vow prevents action, then whatever you don't do because of it is fufilling the obligation. You are not the sinning by failing to prevent the end of the world because you are a total pacifist.

And Paladins are not that even that restricted. Your king is evil and corrupt, you do not have to obey their evil orders, as implicit is being LG is in being both. Possessed child is about to summon one of the Nine to the phyiscal plane and you have no time, killing the child is completely justified. Heck at that level resurrection is a legit option. Though NOT doing so would be completely justified too, because you are not responsible for the sins of another.

Jerthanis
2008-10-13, 01:18 AM
Interestingly enough, I sort of view Paladin morality debates as their own Kobayashi Maru situation... You lose by participating at all. Unfortunately, they're no fun if you don't participate.

Eh, Regardless, I think the degre of action in terms of Falling and the results should be discussed with your DM beforehand. Keep communication as open as possible and you're more likely to tell the story you want with the least unexpected complications that you don't want to deal with cropping up. This hopefully will prevent No-win situations...

But if you're interested in forcing a moral no-win situation on your character, to explore THOSE stories, I remember reading a recent Marvel Comic where a Mutant manifested his power as "Melt to death all living beings within about a mile of him"... he was a truly innocent person dealt a hideously bad hand that, through no fault of his own, caused death wherever he went. I'm sure there's a way to modify that situation into a true no-win situation with a little thought.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-13, 07:39 AM
T
First, some background: Vampires in the Buffyverse are uniformly Evil due to their lack of souls (essentially consciences). The one exception is Buffy's beau, Angel,

Don't forget later in the series Spike gains his own soul back. Not a curse like Angel (Angelus) but his real soul.

hamishspence
2008-10-13, 07:55 AM
Depends how seriously you regard Not Acting. Some people say Murder by Inaction is evil, some don't, and say you are responsible only for your own actions, and letting bad things happen is not an evil act (it might be morally distasteful, but not evil)

If you hold by Direct Consequences Only, saving a CN person, maybe even an Evil one, who goes on to wreak havoc, is not an evil act. You can't be held responsible for his deeds, only your own.

UglyPanda
2008-10-13, 10:56 AM
But if you're interested in forcing a moral no-win situation on your character, to explore THOSE stories, I remember reading a recent Marvel Comic where a Mutant manifested his power as "Melt to death all living beings within about a mile of him"... he was a truly innocent person dealt a hideously bad hand that, through no fault of his own, caused death wherever he went. I'm sure there's a way to modify that situation into a true no-win situation with a little thought.
Ultimate X-Men. Wolverine euthanized him. I don't think that story really applies here.

May I ask why you would want to fall? Couldn't there be some other way for quick character development, like setting a carriage full of nuns on fire?
I actually think that a better plot would be that the paladin doesn't fall, no matter how many times he gets brainwashed or how many babies have epic level demonic magic, or whatever. He's just walking the planet, with this insane amount of guilt on his chest, but he knows that his god still supports him, and it frightens him. What sort of person would have had to do these atrocities in the name of good? Then again, that's just me and I've rarely seen paladins played well who weren't goofballs.

hamishspence
2008-10-13, 11:01 AM
Sounds a lot like 4th ed to me.

Would importing the 4th ed non-fall system be an interesting concept? Giving the person these awful choices, but giving them no clue what the "right" choice was, and let the choices build up?

Staven
2008-10-13, 11:05 AM
I am actually reminded of an old episode of the Original Series of Star Trek, Conscience of the King. The backstory of the episode is that a governor of a colony facing famine ordered the deaths of more than half of the inhabitants to keep the rest from starving. Now, let's retrofit the situation about a thousand years or so. A paladin, king of a small nation, is faced with a choice: after a large war, the nation has fallen under famine. Food is very scarce, but if the kingdom was smaller, the situation would be resolved; no one would starve. But he would have to make the kingdom smaller. And there is no third option, let's say. It's an island nation, for instance, and no one is willing to help. Would that constitute a fall?

UglyPanda
2008-10-13, 11:09 AM
He could force the excess population to leave. He doesn't necessarily have to kill them.

hamishspence
2008-10-13, 11:13 AM
Depends how its done. Paladin gathers the population, proclaims the situation, and declares that they, themselves, must choose, by lot, who is to die, and, because murder is evil, those who choose to die must suicide of their own volition.

How would that sound? Gives the people opportunity to be self-sacrificing, while avoiding any committing of murder.

And Kodos was considered especially evil, because he used the opportunity, to choose those to die based on eugenic principles. Added to that the fact that had he waited a little longer the rescue crew would have turned up, his name has become mud.

EDIT: Island, far from anywhere, famine, no chance of getting excess population to safety.

Vva70
2008-10-13, 12:35 PM
Depends how seriously you regard Not Acting. Some people say Murder by Inaction is evil, some don't, and say you are responsible only for your own actions, and letting bad things happen is not an evil act (it might be morally distasteful, but not evil)

If you hold by Direct Consequences Only, saving a CN person, maybe even an Evil one, who goes on to wreak havoc, is not an evil act. You can't be held responsible for his deeds, only your own.

The thing about "murder by inaction" is that it quickly generates yet another fuzzy line in paladin conduct. Namely "when does something become the paladin's responsibility?"

But even that isn't the flaw in the guaranteed-fall scenarios. They don't just hold the paladin responsible to act; they make him responsible for success or failure. And that's just ridiculous. If a paladin is caught in a situation between evil actions on one side, and a horrible result on the other side, he should do everything in his power to deter the horrible result without committing evil actions. Even if the only thing he can think to do is pray for divine aid and brace for the worst. Even if the DM says "there's literally nothing non-evil you can do to help" (because after all, the paladin can't be certain of that in-game). If you're counting "murder by inaction," the only way it should apply is if the paladin ignores the situation entirely. A paladin who tries something that ends up not working shouldn't fall. Paladins don't fall just because they weren't successful.

And no, if a paladin rescues a person from thugs and that person goes on to do evil stuff, he shouldn't fall for that. Because paladins aren't supposed to be omniscient. If the person pinged the paladin's evildar, then the paladin may hope to redeem said person, using the rescue to earn the person's respect. Regardless, the paladin does not and cannot know what any individual will do in the future.

Person_Man
2008-10-13, 02:44 PM
I am actually reminded of an old episode of the Original Series of Star Trek, Conscience of the King. The backstory of the episode is that a governor of a colony facing famine ordered the deaths of more than half of the inhabitants to keep the rest from starving. Now, let's retrofit the situation about a thousand years or so. A paladin, king of a small nation, is faced with a choice: after a large war, the nation has fallen under famine. Food is very scarce, but if the kingdom was smaller, the situation would be resolved; no one would starve. But he would have to make the kingdom smaller. And there is no third option, let's say. It's an island nation, for instance, and no one is willing to help. Would that constitute a fall?

Send off half the population on a crusade against the nearest Evil nation. Even if that nation is half way across the planet and your people are poorly equipped, it solves the famine problem, and theoretically has a chance of taking out some Evil enemies (or starting yet another Battlestar Galactica-ish rip off story).

hamishspence
2008-10-13, 02:48 PM
Food is scarce, + its an island nation. Big question is, do they have enough food to get a small group to the mainland? And would leaving people to starve, taking most of remaining food, be Evil?

If paladin can get off, without committing evil acts to get the boat, food, and people aboard the boat, only issue is whether its a case of "abandoning people who are in need"

Maroon
2008-10-13, 03:40 PM
I am actually reminded of an old episode of the Original Series of Star Trek, Conscience of the King. The backstory of the episode is that a governor of a colony facing famine ordered the deaths of more than half of the inhabitants to keep the rest from starving. Now, let's retrofit the situation about a thousand years or so. A paladin, king of a small nation, is faced with a choice: after a large war, the nation has fallen under famine. Food is very scarce, but if the kingdom was smaller, the situation would be resolved; no one would starve. But he would have to make the kingdom smaller. And there is no third option, let's say. It's an island nation, for instance, and no one is willing to help. Would that constitute a fall?
An island nation after a disastrous war, under famine? That's some serious scorched earth we're talking about. They probably already lost half of the population in the war, how much smaller can it get? The best thing to do would be to pull an Aeneas (or a Moses, if that's more your style) and stuff everyone onto a bunch of ships and set sail for greener pastures, preferably non-desert-island, one-coconut-palm ones like the current one seems to be.

You can keep piling up increasingly unlikely misfortunes, but you'd have a be either an extremely devious or an excessively spiteful DM to keep that up (read: having to resort to acid-breathing sharks). Point is, there's always at least one way out to be found by at least one observant player, whether you like it or not. Yes, even from that.

hamishspence
2008-10-13, 03:48 PM
Pairing of war and famine is a bit odd. Possible logical answer:

War virtually eliminated adult male population. Remaining population is children, elderly, or low-str.

As a result, farming is very difficult: at medieval level, needs strong, able-bodied people.

So, pathetic harvest, people are on last reserve food that was stocked away for emergencies.

Thats both logical, and lets out any idea of going on crusade.

Triaxx
2008-10-13, 05:53 PM
@Mewthario: What didn't you ever watch Tron? :smallbiggrin:

@hamishspence: Women are more than capable of farming. It's all a matter of knowing how to drive the plows, which the elders are perfectly capable of teaching.

chiasaur11
2008-10-13, 10:05 PM
An island nation after a disastrous war, under famine? That's some serious scorched earth we're talking about. They probably already lost half of the population in the war, how much smaller can it get? The best thing to do would be to pull an Aeneas (or a Moses, if that's more your style) and stuff everyone onto a bunch of ships and set sail for greener pastures, preferably non-desert-island, one-coconut-palm ones like the current one seems to be.

You can keep piling up increasingly unlikely misfortunes, but you'd have a be either an extremely devious or an excessively spiteful DM to keep that up (read: having to resort to acid-breathing sharks). Point is, there's always at least one way out to be found by at least one observant player, whether you like it or not. Yes, even from that.

We all know acid breathing sharks go down to a paladin easily.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-14, 04:51 AM
War virtually eliminated adult male population. Remaining population is children, elderly, or low-str.

As a result, farming is very difficult: at medieval level, needs strong, able-bodied people.

Such as, oh I don't know, strong, able-bodied adult females. You don't seriously think that women didn't do farmwork in medieval times, now did you?

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 07:36 AM
Good point, this is D&D. Should have said able bodied adult population. Understrength men, and women, struggle with the more difficult bits of farming- at least according to various fantasy novels. Even ones with women in the army suggest that the Str difference really matters for things like harvests.

Aquillion
2008-10-14, 07:55 AM
The thing is that the Paladin code only has a few absolute, go-directly-to-fallsville, do-not-pass-go, no-exceptions rules:


A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct...
The 'grossly' is important. Some sadistic DMs will read the whole code, then have you fall instantly for any violation against any part of it. This is their prerogative, but it's not the RAW. Figuring out exactly what is a 'gross' violation is harder...

Going by the definitely-make-you-fall parts, though...

Any magical alignment change will make a Paladin fall. Yes, this is not fair, but it's the simplest way. There's lots of things that will do it on a failed will save (Mindrape comes to mind.) While technically there is a chance of not falling, there is no "choice" the Paladin can make to avoid falling once someone has begun attempting to cast Mindrape on them; it's entirely up to the dice (and the person casting the spell, I guess. But chances are someone trying to mindrape your paladin does not have their best interests at heart.)

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:02 AM
again "willfully commits" is countered later, in atonement spell description, to "commits" But its easier to atone for non-willful evil acts: ones committed in ignorance or under compulsion.

In 3.0, was even more restrictive: Fall permanently for willful evil, fall temporarily for evil thats not willful.

in 2nd ed, even worse: fall for any Chaotic act or non-willful evil act, permanently for any willful evil act.

only1doug
2008-10-14, 08:11 AM
If i am ever playing a Paladin and faced with classic dilemma:
Kill innocent or world is destroyed;

I know my response: protect the innocent in question to the best of my ability, while praying for divine guidance (3rd option). If my deity tells me the innocent MUST die then i know that the BBEG is fogging my mind with wrongful guidance.
I would NEVER kill the innocent. if this ruins the campaign because the world is destroyed then so be it, a Paladin must do what is right.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:15 AM
That is, pretty much, what the 3.5 ed D&D source Exalted Deeds states.

Now, there are things to be annoyed at in it: ravages, overpowered spells, feats, prestige classes. But on the definitions side, it does fit well with what you say.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-14, 08:16 AM
If i am ever playing a Paladin and faced with classic dilemma:
Kill innocent or world is destroyed;

I know my response: protect the innocent in question to the best of my ability, while praying for divine guidance (3rd option). If my deity tells me the innocent MUST die then i know that the BBEG is fogging my mind with wrongful guidance.
I would NEVER kill the innocent. if this ruins the campaign because the world is destroyed then so be it, a Paladin must do what is right.And you'd let the world be destroyed? I just can't see how that's 'right' at all. If you don't want to kill the kid, that's fine, but be prepared to have to justify letting every other child in the setting die.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:19 AM
that presupposes the assumption: they have a claim on you. a claim that you must live for them, die for them, if necessary, sacrifice your own morality, self-respect, even soul for them.

Something to think carefully on.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-14, 08:23 AM
that presupposes the assumption: they have a claim on you. a claim that you must live for them, die for them, if necessary, sacrifice your own morality, self-respect, even soul for them.

Something to think carefully on.That's implied by Paladin, I thought. No other class has the requirements of that one.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:28 AM
In Exalted Deeds, any class can gain similar requirements.

However, conversely, it states no amount of altruistic motivation can make an evil act not evil. It might be judged by the players to be necessary in that situation. It might not even cause a change of alignment. But it would cause a Fall, or a loss of Exalted feats.

Unlike in 3.0, it is possible to regain paladinhood. Even if act was willful.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-14, 08:33 AM
In Exalted Deeds, any class can gain similar requirements.

However, conversely, it states no amount of altruistic motivation can make an evil act not evil. It might be judged by the players to be necessary in that situation. It might not even cause a change of alignment. But it would cause a Fall, or a loss of Exalted feats.Don't get so caught up in Good and Evil that you forget about Right and Wrong. You have to choose between 2 futures. One of them has millions dead, including innocent children, the other has one child dead and you unable to sleep at night. I'm sorry, but as a Paladin you are supposed to make the world a better place.

KnightDisciple
2008-10-14, 08:42 AM
Good point, this is D&D. Should have said able bodied adult population. Understrength men, and women, struggle with the more difficult bits of farming- at least according to various fantasy novels. Even ones with women in the army suggest that the Str difference really matters for things like harvests.

Have them go fishing?

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:45 AM
Terry Pratchett used that phrase concerning Granny Weatherwax.

David Gemmell, by contrast, argued that any small concession to evil will inevitably lead to larger, large, larger concessions.

What makes lives en-masse more important than lives singly?

Classic example is of two people: you must choose to kill one if the other is to survive. In effect, by making that choice at all, you are violating one person's right to life.

Yet, when many lives are weighed against one, people come down on the side of the many, saying the One has a duty to accept being killed to save the many.

So, what is the magic number at which killing someone innocent is OK to save others? 2? 10? 100? 100000? The entire species?

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 08:51 AM
yes, island nation doesn't work all that well. Small nation surrounded by big desert, better. Or, for that matter, closed system space station with a major disaster in food production systems.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-14, 09:00 AM
Classic example is of two people: you must choose to kill one if the other is to survive. In effect, by making that choice at all, you are violating one person's right to life.

Yet, when many lives are weighed against one, people come down on the side of the many, saying the One has a duty to accept being killed to save the many.

So, what is the magic number at which killing someone innocent is OK to save others? 2? 10? 100? 100000? The entire species?But when dealing with a large number, some peoples' rights will be violated no matter what you do. The only thing you can do is pick the option that sucks the least. I'm not saying killing the child is the right thing to do, I'm saying letting the world end is the wrong thing to do.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 09:07 AM
But people keep fusing the two together, stating that a deed cannot be both right and wrong at the same time.

Or, saying that choosing the lesser of two evils is by definition a Good act, that cannot make a paladin fall.

which can be tricky to resolve.

As DM, i'd have paladin fall, then give them relatively easy atonement. Which would involve ressurrecting said dead child. That is, assuming there really was no third way.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 09:15 AM
mind you, decisions imposed from outside may be different from those with no-one attempting to coerce you.

The Gemmell example was Army at the gates, offering mercy, if they prove their willingness to obey the army leader, by killing a child on the gates of the city. They refused, city was sacked with no survivors.

Now, even if you knew for a fact that army and leader were Always Truthful LE, it seems very unpalatable choice.

The DG answer was that submission to evil makes you its collaborators.

EDIT: there was a big survey I read about on the difference between Choosing People to Die and Murdering people to Save others.

Example of 1st: Deadly disease, limited amounts of vaccine, whatever decision you make involves Choosing People To Die.
Example of 2nd: Killing a healthy person, using their organs to save 10 dying people.

only1doug
2008-10-14, 09:48 AM
And you'd let the world be destroyed? I just can't see how that's 'right' at all. If you don't want to kill the kid, that's fine, but be prepared to have to justify letting every other child in the setting die.

No, I'd refuse to murder an Innocent.
Any "proof" that the world will be destroyed is probably fabricated by the BBEG to push me into breaking.
If the world is destroyed then maybe it is better that way. When playing a paladin i will NEVER harm an innocent regardless of the cost to me or others.

I am not causing the deaths of every innocent in the setting, i am protecting the innocent in front of me.
If every Innocent dies due to the BBEG's plan then i may have failed to protect them but i still didnt directly hurt them, that was the BBEG.

Thats how i would play a Paladin, every time. Game ends due to World destroyed because my Paladin stuck to his oath? So be it.


Don't get so caught up in Good and Evil that you forget about Right and Wrong. You have to choose between 2 futures. One of them has millions dead, including innocent children, the other has one child dead and you unable to sleep at night. I'm sorry, but as a Paladin you are supposed to make the world a better place.

you can't make the world a better place by acting in an evil fashion, you can only do so by doing the very best you can.

This scenario also presupposes absolute certain foreknowledge that killing the innocent is the only way to save the world. As a player i would never allow my Paladin to behave in such a fashion, Paladins are shining examples of pure and good - given absolute proof that the only future is through an evil act they should disbelieve the proof, it has been faked in some way.

this is my take on Paladins, yours obviously differs.

only1doug
2008-10-14, 09:56 AM
Terry Pratchett used that phrase concerning Granny Weatherwax.

David Gemmell, by contrast, argued that any small concession to evil will inevitably lead to larger, large, larger concessions.

What makes lives en-masse more important than lives singly?

Classic example is of two people: you must choose to kill one if the other is to survive. In effect, by making that choice at all, you are violating one person's right to life.

Yet, when many lives are weighed against one, people come down on the side of the many, saying the One has a duty to accept being killed to save the many.

So, what is the magic number at which killing someone innocent is OK to save others? 2? 10? 100? 100000? The entire species?

This is exactly the point, I follow Gemel's model of right and wrong. One person is too many to sacrifice.


mind you, decisions imposed from outside may be different from those with no-one attempting to coerce you.

The Gemmell example was Army at the gates, offering mercy, if they prove their willingness to obey the army leader, by killing a child on the gates of the city. They refused, city was sacked with no survivors.

Now, even if you knew for a fact that army and leader were Always Truthful LE, it seems very unpalatable choice.

The DG answer was that submission to evil makes you its collaborators.



This isn't the only example, its a favorite of Gemel's

In Winter warriors: the 3 kings are to be sacrificed to bring the demon world, Stag, lion and lamb. The stag (old king) and Lion (warrior king) have already been killed and only the lamb (newborn baby) remains.
One of the Heroes almost decides to kill the baby so that he can't be sacrificed, thus saving the world right?
Wrong, the baby's death would be enough to trigger the coming of the demon world, it would just work better if the sacrifice is done properly

Vva70
2008-10-14, 10:57 AM
No, I'd refuse to murder an Innocent.
Any "proof" that the world will be destroyed is probably fabricated by the BBEG to push me into breaking.
If the world is destroyed then maybe it is better that way. When playing a paladin i will NEVER harm an innocent regardless of the cost to me or others.

I am not causing the deaths of every innocent in the setting, i am protecting the innocent in front of me.
If every Innocent dies due to the BBEG's plan then i may have failed to protect them but i still didnt directly hurt them, that was the BBEG.

Thats how i would play a Paladin, every time. Game ends due to World destroyed because my Paladin stuck to his oath? So be it.



you can't make the world a better place by acting in an evil fashion, you can only do so by doing the very best you can.

This scenario also presupposes absolute certain foreknowledge that killing the innocent is the only way to save the world. As a player i would never allow my Paladin to behave in such a fashion, Paladins are shining examples of pure and good - given absolute proof that the only future is through an evil act they should disbelieve the proof, it has been faked in some way.

this is my take on Paladins, yours obviously differs.

You have summed up my feelings on this scenario perfectly. :smallbiggrin:

Vva70
2008-10-14, 11:09 AM
again "willfully commits" is countered later, in atonement spell description, to "commits" But its easier to atone for non-willful evil acts: ones committed in ignorance or under compulsion.

The relevant portion of Atonement:


Restore Class

A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.

I think it's pretty clear that this isn't supposed to expand, clarify, or otherwise modify the falling rule. It's just a reference to that rule. As such, paladins fall according to the rule in their class description, which does include the word "willfully."

Now, it does mention unwitting or compulsory evil acts in the main description:


This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.

But note that this part of the description only says that the spell "removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds." It does not, at this point, reference lost class abilities. And it seems to me that a paladin who unwittingly commits an evil act, or is forced to under magical compulsion, should want to atone, even if he didn't lose any class features.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 11:13 AM
"The burden of evil acts" plus "lost paladin features due to committing an evil act" go well together.

I suppose you could rule that the word "Willfully" overrides the later bit in Atonement spell, but it does stretch text a lot.

EDIT: and saying "and non-willfully as well" doesn't contradict the Willfully bit. After all, they DO fall for committing a willful evil act. By contrast, adding after Restore Class "Unless it was involuntary or in ignorance" directly contradicts the rest of the text in Atonement spell.

LibraryOgre
2008-10-14, 12:18 PM
All of this is highly subject to cultural standards. Technically, a real samurai was bound by similar rules in regards to loyalty to authority.

Only the honorable way for them to express disagreement or a conflict of honor was to kill themselves.


True. I was just addressing the Nazi Germany example, however.

I really agree that "must fall" scenarios are obnoxious, because they frequently represent a DM with a limited moral and ethical imagination... they can't see how things can be solved any way but their own, disregard third options, and play all Paladin morality as being implacable, instead of being a character who is concerned with life, and willing to pay penance for misdeeds.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 12:22 PM
Another problem is some people keep insisting he shouldn't have to pay any sort of penance at all.

Exalted Deeds does say: Do not create Must fall situations. There should always be a right option, even if its painful for the paladin.

I might extrapolate from this to "if, for one reason or another, paladin falls, there should always be opportunity for redemption." Again mentioned.

Vva70
2008-10-14, 12:30 PM
"The burden of evil acts" plus "lost paladin features due to committing an evil act" go well together.

I suppose you could rule that the word "Willfully" overrides the later bit in Atonement spell, but it does stretch text a lot.

EDIT: and saying "and non-willfully as well" doesn't contradict the Willfully bit. After all, they DO fall for committing a willful evil act. By contrast, adding after Restore Class "Unless it was involuntary or in ignorance" directly contradicts the rest of the text in Atonement spell.

Okay, let's take a look at the whole thing in full context. Prepare for monolith quotation!


This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.

Atonement may be cast for one of several purposes, depending on the version selected.

Reverse Magical Alignment Change
If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no cost in experience points.

Restore Class
A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.

Restore Cleric or Druid Spell Powers
A cleric or druid who has lost the ability to cast spells by incurring the anger of his or her deity may regain that ability by seeking atonement from another cleric of the same deity or another druid. If the transgression was intentional, the casting cleric loses 500 XP for his intercession. If the transgression was unintentional, he does not lose XP.

Redemption or Temptation
You may cast this spell upon a creature of an opposing alignment in order to offer it a chance to change its alignment to match yours. The prospective subject must be present for the entire casting process. Upon completion of the spell, the subject freely chooses whether it retains its original alignment or acquiesces to your offer and changes to your alignment. No duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment. This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.

Though the spell description refers to evil acts, atonement can also be used on any creature that has performed acts against its alignment, whether those acts are evil, good, chaotic, or lawful.

Note: Normally, changing alignment is up to the player. This use of atonement simply offers a believable way for a character to change his or her alignment drastically, suddenly, and definitively.

Material Component
Burning incense.

Focus
In addition to your holy symbol or normal divine focus, you need a set of prayer beads (or other prayer device, such as a prayer wheel or prayer book) worth at least 500 gp.

XP Cost
When cast for the benefit of a creature whose guilt was the result of deliberate acts, the cost to you is 500 XP per casting (see above).

It is clear that the atonement spell is much broader than "restores lost paladin abilities." Only one portion of the spell directly references paladins, and it does not address the issue of willfulness. The main description is not related specifically to paladins.

Furthermore, the cleric and druid section specifically separates intentional and unintentional actions. The paladin section does not. Might the reason for this lack of separation be because paladins only fall for willful actions?

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 12:36 PM
it does repeat things. Main one, to me, seemed generic "evil acts" Paladin bit seemed generic "evil acts"

I suppose it could be interpreted the other way. Effectively demanding extra text: Insert Willful before Evil acts.

Vva70
2008-10-14, 12:44 PM
it does repeat things. Main one, to me, seemed generic "evil acts" Paladin bit seemed generic "evil acts"

I suppose it could be interpreted the other way. Effectively demanding extra text: Insert Willful before Evil acts.

Well, it's true that it sounds a bit generic the way it's worded there, but that's because the text of the Atonement spell isn't setting out to create the mechanics by which paladins fall. Considering they did that in the paladin class section, that would be a little redundant, no? :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 12:47 PM
It might be a holdover from 3.0, where both counted, and whether an act was willful or not, really mattered a lot.

Since Atonement text is setting out exactly how paladins recover from falls, its not entirely redundant.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 12:51 PM
It also raises question: are 3.5 clerics penalized more heavily than paladins? After all, they are all divine casters. Cleric's powers come from deity, druid's from Nature, Paladin's from "the forces of law andd good"

Telonius
2008-10-14, 01:06 PM
Regarding the Paladin's actions during the famine ... the Paladin might starve first, and ask for volunteers to join him.

hamishspence
2008-10-14, 01:09 PM
fits. Spock is the classic example: expends his life to save the group.

Now, lets say there was a minor-character NPC on ship, and Kirk ordered him into the reactor to save the others. Giving that order, or pushing him through and yelling: Fix, Now!, is a lot like example of killing the few, to save the many.

Aquillion
2008-10-14, 09:58 PM
again "willfully commits" is countered later, in atonement spell description, to "commits" But its easier to atone for non-willful evil acts: ones committed in ignorance or under compulsion.Nope. Atonement covers more than just a Paladin's fall (it covers any misdeeds for any class, and can restore class features to a variety of other classes, like druids and clercs), and a Paladin can fall for many different reasons (some of which could be willful or unwillful -- say, a gross unwillful violation of their code of conduct, or an unwillful change to a non lawful-good alignment.)

But the automatic no-exceptions falling for an evil act plainly, per RAW, only kicks in for willful acts.

Gavin Sage
2008-10-14, 10:07 PM
It also raises question: are 3.5 clerics penalized more heavily than paladins? After all, they are all divine casters. Cleric's powers come from deity, druid's from Nature, Paladin's from "the forces of law andd good"

Given that a Cleric without spells doesn't doesn't even have a full BAB then yes they are penalized more.

However its much much harder to get a cleric to fall given vague codes of conduct when it comes to most deities in my recollection. Maybe a bit easier then with a Druid. You have to be a very capricous DM to even start I'd think.

(How dare your Seldarine cleric heal the orc barbarian you were travelling with!)

only1doug
2008-10-15, 07:06 AM
But a cleric who's forced alignment change causes his god to cut him off of spells can convert to the worship of a different god and is instantly restored to full casting ability.

hamishspence
2008-10-15, 12:37 PM
"plainly"? It looked to me like a 50-50 call, that DMs trying to follow RAW could point to either bit of text for a justification.

However, thats just how the text in the book appeared to me.

Exactly why would "falling for a gross unwillful violation of code of conduct" be RAW, but:

"falling for an unwillful act of evil" not be RAW?

Doesn't Exalted Deeds say: For a paladin who wishes to Not Fall, Good is the highest priority?

(True, its a sourcebook, but it seems to me to make more sense, than saying that being magically forced to commit a major Code violation matters more than being magically forced to commit an act of evil)

hamishspence
2008-10-15, 01:27 PM
The logic behind disapproving of sacrificing the one for the many, works, I think, like this. Tel me if logic breaks.

Murder, in D&D, is usually considered evil.
When more than 1 person commit the same person, we condemn them equally. So if 5 people work together to kill 1, we don't say: You have committed 1/5th of a murder, we say: you have each committed murder.

Scale that up to lotsa people: to save themselves, they must all press a button, and when all have done so, the child is dead.

So, we don't say: you are all only a fraction guilty, we say- Each and every one of you has committed murder.

Now, what paladin is doing, is committing that murder on their behalf, without their permission.

And suddenly, that makes it OK?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-15, 01:34 PM
The logic behind disapproving of sacrificing the one for the many, works, I think, like this. Tel me if logic breaks.

Murder, in D&D, is usually considered evil.
When more than 1 person commit the same person, we condemn them equally. So if 5 people work together to kill 1, we don't say: You have committed 1/5th of a murder, we say: you have each committed murder.

Scale that up to lotsa people: to save themselves, they must all press a button, and when all have done so, the child is dead.

So, we don't say: you are all only a fraction guilty, we say- Each and every one of you has committed murder.

Now, what paladin is doing, is committing that murder on their behalf, without their permission.

And suddenly, that makes it OK?But him not doing it would mean he's killing thousands. How is that worse? Yes, he should strive for no one dead, but if he can't, if no matter what someone will die, unless he can make it him, he should attempt to save as many as possible.

I also object to your calling killing a child to save yourself murder. If it's the only way, that's an acceptable decision.

hamishspence
2008-10-15, 01:39 PM
there is often considered a difference between a crime of commission, and a crime of ommission. "Letting thousands die" might not be the same as "killing thousands"

Classic example is person in space capsule with another, knows unless he kills the other, air will run out for both.

He attacks the other, without warning, and kills him.

How, exactly, is this not murder? Killing in self-defence is not the same thing as "Killing to survive"

EDIT.
Might be interesting to know how counterpart to this, the "men in a lifeboat" situation, tends to be resolved. I have read books about this sort of thing happening. What hapened when person arrived at civilization? Did the other passengers accuse them? Were they Prosecuted? For murder or manslaughter?

RPGuru1331
2008-10-15, 01:44 PM
I also object to your calling killing a child to save yourself murder. If it's the only way, that's an acceptable decision.

Your rights don't allow you to impugn on those of others, generally. That's the idea behind robbery being a crime; By this logic, "I have a right to the pursuit of wealth; Therefore, I can take someone else's wealth, provided it is then used to add to my own. That they have a right to their own wealth is secondary to my right to wealth"


Might be interesting to know how counterpart to this, the "men in a lifeboat" situation, tends to be resolved. I have read books about this sort of thing happening. What hapened when person arrived at civilization? Did the other passengers accuse them? Were they Prosecuted? For murder or manslaughter?
The only one I could think of involved 3 men making a deal that whoever loses a dice roll or something gets eaten by the other two. Dude who loses revokes his permission for the deal, but is eaten anyway, then charged for Murder 1. The brits eventually exonerated the killers, but not until /after/ their execution.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-15, 02:19 PM
there is often considered a difference between a crime of commission, and a crime of ommission. "Letting thousands die" might not be the same as "killing thousands"Not in method, but in result. Whether or not it was your hand that killed them, they are still dead, and you had an opportunity to stop it. That doesn't seem right to me.

Vva70
2008-10-15, 04:28 PM
Not in method, but in result. Whether or not it was your hand that killed them, they are still dead, and you had an opportunity to stop it. That doesn't seem right to me.

The issue I take with it is that you're putting the moral weight of the death of the thousands on the head of the paladin, when it should go to whoever/whatever caused the deaths. Furthermore, how could the paladin be sure the commission of evil act A would stop it? And how did the paladin know, for a fact, that this was the only way?

Maybe if the paladin was omniscient, there might be an excuse. However, as a mere mortal, the existence of the slightest doubt about the outcome means that the commission of a known evil act is not justified.

hamishspence
2008-10-15, 04:38 PM
When one claims that, to survive, anything is OK, one is, effectively, saying that aggressor and victim are equal.

Two men in a boat.

One attacks the other since there is only enough water for 1.
He wins.

Or

One attacks the other. Defender fights to save his own life.
He wins.

Why say they are equal?

EDIT: also, some misfortunes are not subject to moral responsibility. A storm, meteor, period of bad weather, all can put people in life-threatening situations and it is nobody's fault.

TimeWizard
2008-10-16, 02:30 AM
fits. Spock is the classic example: expends his life to save the group.

Now, lets say there was a minor-character NPC on ship, and Kirk ordered him into the reactor to save the others. Giving that order, or pushing him through and yelling: Fix, Now!, is a lot like example of killing the few, to save the many.

There`s an episode of TNG where the starfleet officer test is to save the ship during an engine malfunction. The answer is to order a mechanic fix it at the cost of his/her own life. The test is about doing what you have to do. It actually is The Only Way (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsTheOnlyWay).

Also, as much as this subject has been debated, re-debated, killed, resureccted, killed, argued, forgotten and re-found again, everyone grows tired of hypothetical "but what if" situations. Typically, someone remarks then "No Good DM..." then someone invokes Straw DM Fallacy, which is a bit like Staw Man Fallacy, except they have no idea how philosophy works. This then angers someone and railroading occurs, the thread ends and someone who actually was reading makes a new thread about it and the sad cycle repeats. I pray for the acceptance, by the general rpg population, of 4th edition; which was actually invented by professionals to stop rational fun-loving gamers (such as you or I) from enduring this drudgery of divine repercussions.

hamishspence
2008-10-16, 08:04 AM
You know, even in an alignment-less game, you could still have people arguing over the "Right" vs "Wrong" thing to do.

Giving the Order is one thing. Perhaps not quite as bad as actually pushing someone through airlock and saying: "You are dead already: save us all before you keel over!"

EDIT: 4th ed alignment, while scaled down, may lead to issues.

Paladin of Bahamut player: "My paladin sets fire to the plague-village, killing everyone in it, to protect the country"
DM: "OK. You are now Evil. This has no effect on your abilities. Additionally, expect angels of your deity to come after you sometime in the near future."

Player will be arguing, even if has statblock and powers have not changed.

This would fit with a DM who has gone from 2nd ed to 4th ed with little change in his views on alignment.

only1doug
2008-10-16, 08:56 AM
Not in method, but in result. Whether or not it was your hand that killed them, they are still dead, and you had an opportunity to stop it. That doesn't seem right to me.

The trouble with this arguement is that we are discussing a Character class from a Heroic RPG.

In a Heroic system the assumption is that Good will defeat Evil.

The Paladin is the shining example of a Hero, thats why if he breaks his code he can no longer be a Paladin.

In a Heroic game there must always be a route for the Paladin to uphold good without having to commit evil acts (or it isn't a heroic game and you shouldn't be holding paladins to such a strict code).

You are enforcing a situation that shouldn't exist therefore the Paladin should assume that the situation as presented is wrong, someone has snuck a lie in somewhere to make the paladin break his code. The Paladin should absolutely NOT kill an innocent, they should defend them to the death. Thats what Paladin's do, they defend the innocent.

If you wish to force the paladins to kill the innocent then have the decency to admit from the outset that you are playing a "Dark" game and not a "Heroic" game and warn any player intending to play a Paladin that sometimes they will have to jump into moral sewers.

Diamondeye
2008-10-16, 10:32 AM
You know, it seems to me there's a flaw in most of these types of scenarios (maybe more than one, but this one glares at me)

Take the demon with the baby you have to kill to prevent the demonic hordes from coming through the gate and overwhelming the whole world.

Why is the demon giving you the chance to stop this at all?

Ok, maybe he's not. If you have to defeat the demon before you can decide to kill the kid, what's the guarantee you'd be able to do it in time anyhow, other than the metagame realization that the DM won't let the hordes pour in until after the fight. Alternatively, maybe he's just lying about it, and killing the kid actually will have no effet and he just wants to see you fall, and the kid die in addition to getting his buddies through the gate.

But let's say he's not lying, and the killing the kid WILL shut the gate. Ok, why is he letting you have the chance to shut the gate? He's more interested in causing the fall of one paladin than in overrunning the world with demons? Riiigghhht.

Well, maybe he wants the kid dead for some even more nefarious reason. I can't imagine very many, but let's say that killing the kid not only shuts the portal here, it reopens it in the middle of Asmodeus's palace in Hell, and this is part of the plan for the demons to win the blood war, or at least score an enormous victory in pursuit of it, and he'd rather do that than overrun the Prime Material plane.

Well, why doesn't he kill the baby himself? He can't? All right, why is he screwing around trying to get a paladin to do it on short notice? Get an evil character to do it for a big fee. It really strains disbelief that this demon is willing to risk the failure of a plan to score big in the Blood War, or maybe to risk allowing the PMP to be overrun by a horde controlled by his Abyssal rival, or something, just to nail this one paladin and/or this baby.

Basically, the scenario assumes that the demon is either A) accepting the risk of his entire plan being flushed down the latrine if the paladin doesn't kill the baby (if he really needed it die) or if he does kill the baby (if the demon needed it to live) or B) lying about the whole thing, but that the Paladin shouldn't suspect that a demon (Chaotic Evil) is lying through his fangs about killing the baby actually shutting the portal.

If the Paladin just says "I don't believe that killing the baby actually will shut the portal; he's a demon and therefore can't be trusted, so I'm going to leave, assemble an army/warn the king/get Elminster and the 7 sisters to deal with this nincompoop/kill the demon, then slaughter his freinds as they come through" the whole scenario is negated. Essentially the demon has to either assume an incredible amount of risk to his own plan for no apparent reason, or the Paladin has to take him at his word, for no apparent reason, to get to the dilemma in the first place.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-16, 10:48 AM
The trouble with this arguement is that we are discussing a Character class from a Heroic RPG.

In a Heroic system the assumption is that Good will defeat Evil.

The Paladin is the shining example of a Hero, thats why if he breaks his code he can no longer be a Paladin.

In a Heroic game there must always be a route for the Paladin to uphold good without having to commit evil acts (or it isn't a heroic game and you shouldn't be holding paladins to such a strict code).

You are enforcing a situation that shouldn't exist therefore the Paladin should assume that the situation as presented is wrong, someone has snuck a lie in somewhere to make the paladin break his code. The Paladin should absolutely NOT kill an innocent, they should defend them to the death. Thats what Paladin's do, they defend the innocent.

If you wish to force the paladins to kill the innocent then have the decency to admit from the outset that you are playing a "Dark" game and not a "Heroic" game and warn any player intending to play a Paladin that sometimes they will have to jump into moral sewers.

A very wise stance.
http://ffrpg.republika.pl/approve.PNG

(Well, I don't think if paladins losing their powers for breaking their code are necessary even in very heroic/idealistic games, especially since other classes, who don't risk anything like that, can still be as heroic, but the rest is true.)

monty
2008-10-16, 11:37 AM
There`s an episode of TNG where the starfleet officer test is to save the ship during an engine malfunction. The answer is to order a mechanic fix it at the cost of his/her own life. The test is about doing what you have to do. It actually is The Only Way (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsTheOnlyWay).

You could always reprogram the simulation.

Aevylmar
2008-10-16, 12:22 PM
Diamondeye,

As I understand your position, you make two possibly false assumptions.

First is that it's just that easy; for all we know, the child is at the bottom of a dungeon filled with demons and cultists - From his point of view, the safest place for the portal-opening demon to be, and the situation assumes that you've just fought your way through them to reach him.

Second, that you got the information on how to close the portal from the demon, instead of from Knowledge (The Planes), a trusted ally, a divination spell, or something similar.

hamishspence
2008-10-16, 01:34 PM
Vva70: I have a possible reason why the inconsistancy between paladin entry and atonement spell.

That inconsistancy was in 3.0.

In 3.0 paladin entry, every word is the same, Willfully and Willingly are the words used, and suggestion that paladin can get powers back if they atone.

Yet, in the Atonement entry, it states explicitly that paladin can only get powers back for unwilling, or compelled, evil act, and can never get powers back for willful ones.

Could it be, that after that, they changed atonement entry in 3.5, but didn't bother to change Paladin entry, since it was no longer contradicted by atonement entry.

As in, saying you fall for willful evil acts, and, you can get you powers back if you atone. Without bothering to state that you can only ever get powers back, if evil acts were not willful.

3.0 Atonement spell said, under Restore Class, can atone for unwilling acts, but not willing, and explicitly, that paladins fall for unwilling acts of evil.

3.5 atonement spell said, casting spell for atoning for unwilling evil acts, costs no XP, for willing evil acts, costs XP. and paladin can use Restore class, for simply "Evil acts"

Does 3.5 writing actually make more sense than 3.0? Or are you saying simply that Paladin entry text always overrides Atonement spell text, even when it looks like a copy-paste from 3.0, which wasn't well written for the situation anyway?

WychWeird
2008-10-16, 02:12 PM
As a late comer to this discussion, here's another viewpoint - should a Paladin's moral code be something akin to Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics?


A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Wikipedia Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics)
These laws could form the basis of a Paladin's code although this gave me issues when I started thinking about re-writing them: What would you replace 'human being' with in the first law? Sentient creature? (Do evil creatures count?) How about 'The inhabitants (and allies?) of Empire X'? To me, it quickly becomes difficult to define an acceptable code.

Further, I would see that as long as the Paladin tries his best to save everyone then I would say he has kept to the principles of Paladinhood; in the child v village situation he should try to save the child first and foremost as there may be time to do something to minimise the potential destruction to the village. (I think I'm largely agreeing with only1doug and Tengu here!)

This is one interesting thread!

TimeWizard
2008-10-17, 03:44 AM
I`m actually a big fan of Asimov`s laws as a basis for Paladin Code. Some things:

Replace "May not" with "Shall not" or "Should not". Humans aren`t robots, we have moral grey areas. Also, I beleive strongly in Rule Zero, which states that Rules one, two, and three may be broken in the name of a higher good. Also, the penalty for failing should be some kind of Rp thing, Paladin`s aren`t exactly overpowered that they need an excuse to get weaker anyway.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-17, 06:44 AM
As a late comer to this discussion, here's another viewpoint - should a Paladin's moral code be something akin to Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics?

These laws could form the basis of a Paladin's code although this gave me issues when I started thinking about re-writing them: What would you replace 'human being' with in the first law? Sentient creature? (Do evil creatures count?) How about 'The inhabitants (and allies?) of Empire X'? To me, it quickly becomes difficult to define an acceptable code.

Further, I would see that as long as the Paladin tries his best to save everyone then I would say he has kept to the principles of Paladinhood; in the child v village situation he should try to save the child first and foremost as there may be time to do something to minimise the potential destruction to the village. (I think I'm largely agreeing with only1doug and Tengu here!)

This is one interesting thread!

Okay we have this:

A Paladin may not injure a innocent sapient being [evil does not = innocent] or, through inaction, allow a innocent sapient being being to come to harm.
A Paladin must obey orders given to it by innocent sapient beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A Paladin must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I like that code.

only1doug
2008-10-17, 06:53 AM
As a late comer to this discussion, here's another viewpoint - should a Paladin's moral code be something akin to Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics?

These laws could form the basis of a Paladin's code although this gave me issues when I started thinking about re-writing them: What would you replace 'human being' with in the first law? Sentient creature? (Do evil creatures count?) How about 'The inhabitants (and allies?) of Empire X'? To me, it quickly becomes difficult to define an acceptable code.

Further, I would see that as long as the Paladin tries his best to save everyone then I would say he has kept to the principles of Paladinhood; in the child v village situation he should try to save the child first and foremost as there may be time to do something to minimise the potential destruction to the village. (I think I'm largely agreeing with only1doug and Tengu here!)

This is one interesting thread!

Hmm, I'll have a crack at doug's laws of Paladinhood then


from SRD

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.


1. A Paladin may not commit an evil act.
2. A Paladin must not, through inaction, allow a commit an evil act to be committed unless the required action would break the First Law.
2. A Paladin must respect legitimate authority and act with honour, except where such respect would conflict with the First Law or Second Law.
3. A Paladin must help those in need as long as such help does not conflict with the First, Second Law or Third Law.
4. A Paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents as long as such punishment does not conflict with the First, Second, Third or Forth Law.

now the trouble with this list is that it isn't written into the rules; Sstoopidtallkid would have a different list which alamagamates the first and second laws and has the Paladin choose which part to break.

Anyways, thanks for listening

And Tengu: thanks for the official seal of approval. I like being agreed with :P

Blackfang108
2008-10-17, 09:10 AM
You're also a grayguard, meaning it's a lot harder to make you fall, so long as you act in the "greater good", no?
But for regular paladins, it can be something as simple as, you have to kill the innocent child to save the world, no, you can't take a third option. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption)

You can ALWAYS take a third option.

It just isn't always obvious.

In regards to the above post: He cheats.

monty
2008-10-17, 10:04 AM
In regards to the above post: He cheats.

Yes, I believe I brought that up in the...first reply to the thread.

hamishspence
2008-10-17, 03:13 PM
"in the name of a higher good" is a bit of a cop-out: how high does the Good have to be, to justify the paladin breaking his own rules?

Though, phrasing laws in order, with a Number 1 law, and later numbers that must be followed, as long as following them doesn't break Law Numbber 1, might be a very good idea.

"No first use of force/aggression" was an interesting principle by one writer: you may use force in self defence, defence of another being menaced, but not use force first. Depending on how reliable evidence is, force against someone who is clearly beginning to initiate force, is OK: the mugger who accosts you, begins to move in, but before they are more than a few inches in, they are disabled.

Other writers have followed this: Timothy Zahn's Chiss exemplify the No First Strike principle (except Thrawn who was kicked out for continuing to violate this)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-17, 04:39 PM
1. A Paladin may not commit an evil act.
2. A Paladin must not, through inaction, allow a commit an evil act to be committed unless the required action would break the First Law.
3. A Paladin must respect legitimate authority and act with honour, except where such respect would conflict with the First Law or Second Law.
4. A Paladin must help those in need as long as such help does not conflict with the First, Second Law or Third Law.
5. A Paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents as long as such punishment does not conflict with the First, Second, Third or Forth Law.

now the trouble with this list is that it isn't written into the rules; Sstoopidtallkid would have a different list which alamagamates the first and second laws and has the Paladin choose which part to break.I'd probably, yes, change the first to to "1. A Paladin may not commit an evil act, or, through inaction, allow a commit an evil act to be committed." It puts the burden of responsibility on their shoulders. I'd also swap "respect legitimate authority" and "help those in need". The lives of those that need help is more important to being good than obeying the King, IMHO. A Paladin is Good and lawful, not Lawful and good. The list would probably end up looking like:1. A Paladin may not commit an evil act, or, through inaction, allow an evil act to be committed.
2. A Paladin must help those in need as long as such help does not conflict with the First Law.
3. A Paladin must respect legitimate authority and act with honour, except where such respect would conflict with the First Law or Second Law.
4. A Paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents as long as such punishment does not conflict with the First, Second, or Third Law.

Vva70
2008-10-17, 07:10 PM
I'd probably, yes, change the first to to "1. A Paladin may not commit an evil act, or, through inaction, allow a commit an evil act to be committed." It puts the burden of responsibility on their shoulders.

Any improvement to the paladin code really ought to try and make it more clear that guaranteed-fall scenarios don't exist. Phrasing it like that makes it seem easy to create such a circumstance (granted I would still say that such circumstances are impossible, since a paladin can always take good action against evil, even if that action is unlikely to succeed). Unless you think that guaranteed-fall scenarios are a good thing?

Agrippa
2008-10-17, 07:54 PM
A very wise stance.
http://ffrpg.republika.pl/approve.PNG

(Well, I don't think if paladins losing their powers for breaking their code are necessary even in very heroic/idealistic games, especially since other classes, who don't risk anything like that, can still be as heroic, but the rest is true.)

True, other classes can be just as idealistic as paladins, but paladins must be idealistic. In my opinion paladins draw their powers not from a god or goddess but from their own idealism, morality and determination. When a paladin falls no god or goddess takes their power away from him or her. Instead, a paladin falls because he or she turned his or her back on their idealism and morality. The spell atonement removes the stain upon the fallen paladin's soul allowing him or her to regain his or her paladinhood.

P.S. In certain campaigns you may substitute the standard matieral and focus components with a high-speed punch to the penitent paladin's face. Followed by a pep talk of course.

WychWeird
2008-10-18, 12:15 PM
Any improvement to the paladin code really ought to try and make it more clear that guaranteed-fall scenarios don't exist. Phrasing it like that makes it seem easy to create such a circumstance (granted I would still say that such circumstances are impossible, since a paladin can always take good action against evil, even if that action is unlikely to succeed). Unless you think that guaranteed-fall scenarios are a good thing?
I think that feeds back into the DM guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76474) in that DM's shouldn't try to create a Kobayashi Maru situation through the story development unless it's integral to the story itself. I think that drawing up and agreeing a Paladin Code before play would help to eliminate a number of potential situations.

KnightDisciple
2008-10-18, 12:45 PM
...
1. A Paladin may not commit an evil act.
2. A Paladin must not, through inaction, allow a commit an evil act to be committed unless the required action would break the First Law.
2. A Paladin must respect legitimate authority and act with honour, except where such respect would conflict with the First Law or Second Law.
3. A Paladin must help those in need as long as such help does not conflict with the First, Second Law or Third Law.
4. A Paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents as long as such punishment does not conflict with the First, Second, Third or Forth Law.
...

I'd have it like this.

1. A Paladin may not commit an evil act.
2. A Paladin must not, through inaction, allow an evil act to be committed unless the required action would break the First Law.
3. A Paladin must help those in need as long as such help does not conflict with the First Law or Second Law.
4. A Paladin must respect legitimate authority and act with honour, except where such respect would conflict with the First, Second Law or Third Law.
5. A Paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents as long as such punishment does not conflict with the First, Second, Third or Forth Law.

I view the charge to help and protect the innocent as more important than local laws. Now, you can do things such that you largely work "within the system", but still.
Incidentally, I believe there is always a third option.

WychWeird
2008-10-19, 04:25 AM
That Code works for me :)

I think we forget that it's the Paladin's actions that are scrutinised, not any other party.

I think a more simple Kobayashi Maru situation is where a party is fighting it's way to the final confrontation - before they get there, a known evil adversary surrenders to the Paladin (it could be a stalling tactic, it could be genuine) - what are the Paladin's options?

I can think of a few:

Paladin is the judge, jury and executioner - Judge Dredd style? He considers the crime and administers the punishment
Paladin kills bad guy, after all, he's evil, right?
Party wishes to kill the bad guy as he's in the way - is the Paladin expected to defend someone who surrenders?
Paladin ties the bad guy up and leaves him behind (what if something else happens to him? He's now defenceless....)
Paladin insists on taking back to the local law enforcement agency
Party kills bad guy behind Paladin's back, Paladin must serve justice, after all the guy was defenceless and in the Paladin's protective custody

There is more than the 3rd option in these cases but it sets the Paladin into a moral dilemma caused by his code - but at the end of the day he must stand by and justify his actions according to his code.

Aquillion
2008-10-19, 10:27 PM
I'd have it like this.

1. A Paladin may not commit an evil act.
2. A Paladin must not, through inaction, allow an evil act to be committed unless the required action would break the First Law.
3. A Paladin must help those in need as long as such help does not conflict with the First Law or Second Law.
4. A Paladin must respect legitimate authority and act with honour, except where such respect would conflict with the First, Second Law or Third Law.
5. A Paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents as long as such punishment does not conflict with the First, Second, Third or Forth Law.

I view the charge to help and protect the innocent as more important than local laws. Now, you can do things such that you largely work "within the system", but still.
Incidentally, I believe there is always a third option.One thing all these codes omit is that the Paladin code also recognizes a difference of degree in violations. Committing an evil act is considered much, much worse than committing a chaotic act, acting without mercy (but non-evilly), or simply associating with evil.

A Paladin who commits an unequivocally evil act will fall immediately, without exception and regardless of other mitigating circumstances. A Paladin who commits a chaotic act (even an unequivocally chaotic act, without justification) will not, necessarily; this is true for all their other rules as well. The only rule that can never be broken is "do no evil."

The Paladin code is harsh enough as it is. I don't understand the people who want to houserule it as even harsher than that.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 10:34 PM
You're also a grayguard, meaning it's a lot harder to make you fall, so long as you act in the "greater good", no?
But for regular paladins, it can be something as simple as, you have to kill the innocent child to save the world, no, you can't take a third option. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption)

I thought the correct soution to that problem was to commit seppeku as you can't fall if you are dead.

WychWeird
2008-10-20, 06:12 AM
I thought the correct soution to that problem was to commit seppeku as you can't fall if you are dead.
Based on the Codes proposed above you would fail due to inaction in the face of an evil act.

In that situation, doing something is better than nothing - the Paladin is not committing the evil act, whatever he decides is a judgement call and either will fill him with remorse and potentially a self-imposed atonement (rebuilding the village, compensating the parents, etc)

only1doug
2008-10-20, 06:23 AM
I'd have it like this.

1. A Paladin may not commit an evil act.
2. A Paladin must not, through inaction, allow an evil act to be committed unless the required action would break the First Law.
3. A Paladin must help those in need as long as such help does not conflict with the First Law or Second Law.
4. A Paladin must respect legitimate authority and act with honour, except where such respect would conflict with the First, Second Law or Third Law.
5. A Paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents as long as such punishment does not conflict with the First, Second, Third or Forth Law.

I view the charge to help and protect the innocent as more important than local laws. Now, you can do things such that you largely work "within the system", but still.
Incidentally, I believe there is always a third option.

I don't disagree that helping the innocent is important for a paladin, but the SRD wording of the paladins oath:


posted by SRD
help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)

makes it clear that the Paladin's help should not be chaotic (ie break laws) while helping those in need, unless the laws are evil in which case the paladin doesn't have to view them as legitimate authority and there is no problem.