Baby murder-Village saving

[Scarey Nerd]

This is just a small question that we've been discussing in our D&D group, concerning alignment. This is a scenario that I presented, and I'd like to know the opinions of my fellow Playgrounders in regards to the issue:

A cult of some kind has decided to try and massacre an entire village by storing their evil power within a baby. A Paladin adventurer is placed in this situation with a heart-breaking decision: Kill the baby and save the village, or spare the infant and let the village die (In this hypothetical situation, there are no other ways to circumvent this).

In my opinion, as Evil is a metaphysical thing in D&D, and there are distinct acts of Good and Evil, if the Paladin were to kill the baby, they would Fall. Yes, the intention is good, and doing so accomplishes a Good act, but the fact remains that they've put their sword through a child.

What do you guys think? (And I apologise for the length).

[2xMachina]

So...

PALADIN!!! YOU FALL!!! is the gist if it?

[IM@work]

So there is no other way presented? If there was killing the baby would be evil...
If he tries and fails then kills the baby I think that it'd be okay...

Probably the best thing to do is not determine between good/evil act but have it be "neutral" and have the character decide whether what they did was evil. Maybe the DM doesn't think it was evil, but what the player decides is more important...

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I think that this is the reason that the Paladin's Code is one of the single worst design decisions made by WotC in the history of ever. The situation you described is a 100% assured fall for a Paladin: you can't kill the infant, you can't let the village die, and you can't walk away from the problem. Neither can you stand by and let an ally kill the infant, nor can you encourage others to do the job for you. It's just a lose-lose situation.

If I ever DMed a game without changing the Paladin's Code (note: I haven't), this would not cause a Paladin to fall, provided they thought that the action they were undertaking was that which would be the greatest good. A well-played character would be haunted by this situation, and there's no reason to also penalize him mechanically for being placed (by the DM) in a situation where he can't do anything but fall.

[PId6]

He would fall if he kills the baby, but he would not shift alignments nor would it be a significant fall. A simple Atonement spell should restore his paladinhood.

[Snake-Aes]

Either you interpret the babykilling as an act of mercy(it's already wrested out of its life anyway) or as the kind of stuff that a paladin would do with tears in his eyes, fall, accept it and seek to repent.

[onthetown]

I think a true Paladin would risk the Fall to save the village. Lawful Good characters, especially Paladins, don't tend to be selfish to the point of nonaction just so that they can keep their status. If the Paladin values the lives of the villagers, they will risk their status and even their own life to spare them.

On another note, are you trying to make their character Fall or was this something you had planned before you knew he was playing a Paladin?

[RndmNumGen]

I don't think killing the baby would be an Evil act. Yes, killing a normal baby is evil, but you're talking about one life versus dozens(hundreds?) here. I would put the baby's death on the cultists, not on the paladin.

[Maerok]

I think a true Paladin would risk the Fall to save the village. Lawful Good characters, especially Paladins, don't tend to be selfish to the point of nonaction just so that they can keep their status.

QFT

True Good doesn't give a damn about losing class features to some whacked out DM's 'Where-is-your-god-now?' obsession.

Evil characters would be the ones to hold on to their own power for their own sake.

[Umael]

So...

PALADIN!!! YOU FALL!!! is the gist if it?

Sounds like it to me.

Which means the DM is being a jerk and the campaign should get heavily modified immediately and/or ended, and/or the rest of the group should quit letting the current DM be a DM and/or the rest of the group should kick the DM out.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I am beginning to believe that moral LOSE-LOSE choices have no intrinsic value and only the semblence of value otherwise.

[Scarey Nerd]

Sounds like it to me.

Which means the DM is being a jerk and the campaign should get heavily modified immediately and/or ended, and/or the rest of the group should quit letting the current DM be a DM and/or the rest of the group should kick the DM out.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I am beginning to believe that moral LOSE-LOSE choices have no intrinsic value and only the semblence of value otherwise.

Please remember, this is an extreme hypothetical circumstance, one that I came up with in a discussion about whether Good and Evil are determined by one's intentions or their deeds.

[Snake-Aes]

Sounds like it to me.

Which means the DM is being a jerk and the campaign should get heavily modified immediately and/or ended, and/or the rest of the group should quit letting the current DM be a DM and/or the rest of the group should kick the DM out.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I am beginning to believe that moral LOSE-LOSE choices have no intrinsic value and only the semblence of value otherwise.

They do have their value if they don't cripple the player for too long. Some are genuinely interested in the conflicts of following a code that is almost impossible to pull off.

[onthetown]

Please remember, this is an extreme hypothetical circumstance, one that I came up with in a discussion about whether Good and Evil are determined by one's intentions or their deeds.

That would have been one hell of a discussion. Either way, I stick by my previous post. A true Paladin would take the Fall to do Good.

[2xMachina]

Me, I'd take the hit, and go CE Paladin. And start murdering your plot important NPC's.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Please remember, this is an extreme hypothetical circumstance, one that I came up with in a discussion about whether Good and Evil are determined by one's intentions or their deeds.

Here's the problem with that discussion in the world of D&D.

In D&D, there exist concepts of Good and Evil: the Socratic forms of them, if you will. There is something that is indisputedly Good, and something indisputedly Evil.

In real life, and in mortal circumstances, this isn't the case. In our culture, for example, it is evil to steal. In ancient Sparta, young children were actually given less food to get them to steal, as it taught them self-sufficiency and the ability to be canny and stealthy. The only reason they were punished if they were caught was because they weren't skilled enough to not get caught.

D&D can't function with both existing. Undead and necromancy is Evil. But what if we raise someone as a Ghoul or Ghost so they can protect their children, who would otherwise be orphans? Ghouls and Ghosts are sentient, so why would this necessarily be bad? If in our country soldiers can bequeath their bodies to the nation, to be raised in case of dire emergency, why is it evil to honor their requests with our legions of skeletal warriors?

Basically, any time you try to run an ideal form through a moral reality, something somewhere breaks. It just doesn't work.

The conclusions? Good and Evil are man-made constructs. Remove sentience from the universe and no action can be good or evil. If a single human lives in isolation, he cannot do anything good or anything evil: only what is good for himself or bad for himself, and mankind never willingly does anything it knows is the worst choice for itself. We're just not programed that way.

Good and Evil only exist when enough people unite to "judge" actions. That's really all there is to it.

[Scarey Nerd]

That would have been one hell of a discussion. Either way, I stick by my previous post. A true Paladin would take the Fall to do Good.

When we sit down and discuss something, we get right down to the nitty-gritty I remember having a 2 hour discussion, ranging across the board from Time Travel, to life on other planets, to the afterlife, to the existance of a God, etc etc.

But that's a small derailment, and I'll get back on track: I agree that a Paladin played properly would take the fall gladly, if it meant saving the lives of hundreds. AtwasAwamps' Paladin sprang to mind, as his Noble Death showed that particular character as the epitomy of a Paladin.

[onthetown]

snip

Not to mention that alignment varies depending on society. Modern North American society tells us that killing somebody is an evil act, but there could be a society somewhere in the world where killing somebody is considered good or isn't cared about.

[Caliphbubba]

does the baby ping on the Detect Evil meter? if so, then killing it is a good act I would think if it is causing impending doom.

I mean, who's to say the baby isn't really a shapechanged demon after all? Silly paladin doesn't know the difference. All he knows is the baby is evil, and if it doesn't die the rest of the village will. seems cut and dried to me.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

When we sit down and discuss something, we get right down to the nitty-gritty.

You wanted nitty-gritty? Look at my post just above yours. Breaking out the old philosophy major here.

[Scarey Nerd]

You wanted nitty-gritty? Look at my post just above yours. Breaking out the old philosophy major here.

I've just seen it, I love your thinking

[Maerok]

Please remember, this is an extreme hypothetical circumstance, one that I came up with in a discussion about whether Good and Evil are determined by one's intentions or their deeds.

Well is this a utilitarianist (kill the baby to save more people) or deontologist (ends don't justify means) paladin? What does their order or god expect of them? Context, context, context. When you try to introduce a situation like this in a cultural vacuum it loses a lot.

[Dogmantra]

Clearly in this instance, the Paladin needs to set up a situation for the cultists where they'll get caught, tried and executed if they don't use the superweapon. Said superweapon can only be fuelled by the happiness of orphans who have been given a new loving home (with puppies). Either way, the cultists won't bother the village anymore because they'll be dead or good and therefore incapable of doing evil, respectively.

[mucat]

This is a particularly heavy-handed version of what I've always called the moral Kobayashi-Maru scenario: whatever you choose, including trying to walk away from the choice, you're damned.

When these things happen in fiction, it's usually so the hero can outwit fate and find a third, non-horrendous path. When there really is no way out, then you've got a very dark story on your hand...and unless the author (or the DM, in this case) is quite skilled, often a ludicrously bad story.

In this case, the situation seems too contrived and heavy-handed to make a good story. Impel the paladin to explore his motivations and loyalties in more subtle ways first. If you are going to spring a tragic no-win situation on him, make it a climactic point in the campaign, and have the situation flow naturally from past events (and ideally, from past choices the paladin has made.)

If he paints himself gradually into a corner through the best of intentions, realizes that every path now leads to disaster, and then must risk his soul to find a solution, it's a great story. If he shows up in a town where an arbitrary no-win dilemma is already underway, it's not.

[Zeta Kai]

I always find it interesting that people seem to have a vested interest in making the party's paladin fall, thereby crippling their character, but destroying a wizard's spellbook is considered bad form.

[Scarey Nerd]

This is a particularly heavy-handed version of what I've always called the moral Kobayashi-Maru scenario: whatever you choose, including trying to walk away from the choice, you're damned.

When these things happen in fiction, it's usually so the hero can outwit the situation and find a third, non-horrendous path. When there really is no way out, then you've got a very dark story on your hand...and unless the author (or the DM, in this case) is quite skilled, often a ludicrously bad story.

In this case, the situation is too contrived and heavy-handed to make a good story. Impel the paladin to explore his motivations and possibly conflicting loyalties in more subtle ways first. If you are going to spring a tragic no-win situation on him, make it a climactic point in the campaign, and have the situation flow naturally from past events (and ideally, from past choices the paladin has made.)

If he paints himself gradually into a corner through the best of intentions, realizes that every path now leads to disaster, and then must risk his soul to find a solution, it's a great story. If he shows up in a town where an arbitrary no-win dilemma is already underway, it's not.

Again, I remind you that this is in no way meant to be in a campaign or anything, it's just a hypothetical scenario designed to prove a point about alignments. Granted it is a tad extreme, but.

[Psyx]

True Good doesn't give a damn about losing class features to some whacked out DM's 'Where-is-your-god-now?' obsession.

Evil characters would be the ones to hold on to their own power for their own sake.

^
Decent people don't think 'but if I kill the baby, then I'd loose my job', and have that stay their hand. That's selfish.

Anyone forcing the Paladin to fall after giving them that kind of choice is just being a bit of a jerk, really. It's not like Paladins are brokenly good, so why do so many GMs feel the need to make Paladin's life a complete misery.

I'm guessing that all that evil in the baby would set off the evil-o-meter at the regulation 60' anyway. So the paladin stays his hand constantly in this circumstance, where the laws of the world dictate that such a creature is very probably a shapechanger anyway?

[PapaNachos]

He could always just take the baby with him, preferably to someone in his church more capable of deciding.

[Optimystik]

The Paladin has a moral obligation to make as much an effort as is reasonable to find a way to both save the child and stop the cult. If he cannot, then he will have to take the fall. To quote Hinjo, "they wouldn't have an Atonement spell if it didn't need to be used in once awhile."

(Or he could just run his options by his Phylactery of Faithfulness )

[Snake-Aes]

I always find it interesting that people seem to have a vested interest in making the party's paladin fall, thereby crippling their character, but destroying a wizard's spellbook is considered bad form.

Context, mr Zeta, context.
The only 'destroy the spellbook!' thing we saw here lately was arbitrary and random and much likely asspulled. That is bad form.
But having the wizard actually worry about his spellbook? I don't see why. He shouldn't carry it around in the first place so if he gets his book sundered, it's his own retardation's fault.
But the paladin falling? The Code is much easier to break just by applying any smidgen of morality bigger than "durh, it pings, kill kill".
Regardless, your "people love to make the paladin fall" bit is just as applicable as "burn the wi...spellbook!". Just look at how many more people here instantly went into "dm, you're a jerk". And how many are yet to come.

[mucat]

Again, I remind you that this is in no way meant to be in a campaign or anything, it's just a hypothetical scenario designed to prove a point about alignments. Granted it is a tad extreme, but.

Fair enough...but alignment isn't a real-world philosophical concept; it's part of a game. So alignment questions are only relevant when you think about how they would play out in an actual game.