[Alignment] Conflicts of Rights

[hamishspence]

You see me arguing in favor of killing people in response to famine?

No- it's more directed at this post:

This is exactly what we're polling in this thread.
How evil is it if a bunch of people are stranded somewhere and they need to stretch the food rations and decide to kill some to reduce the number of mouths to feed?

Probably not Good, but if it means *some* will survive instead of *all* starving to death, then at least Neutral?

which suggests that killing people in response to famine, might be Neutral rather than Evil behaviour.

Though that might be predicated on the assumption that it's the starving people themselves who do the killing.

When the "right to life" of different people comes into conflict- at what point does it become "justified" to violate the right to life of others? And when is killing an innocent person not a violation of their right to life?

[Godless_Paladin]

When the "right to life" of different people comes into conflict- at what point does it become "justified" to violate the right to life of others? And when is killing an innocent person not a violation of their right to life?

But here's the important thing: There has to be a point where you can violate the right to life of others if you want to have Paladins who are Heroes who get down to business rather than cruel jokes in your campaign world. Paladins have Smite Evil not Hide From Decision Making.

And pretending that moral decisions will always be clear cut is just intellectually dishonest. As I described earlier, even smiting an Evil goblin raider is a morally ambiguous situation where you're clearly and directly causing unrelated innocent people to suffer.

You might not have wanted to leave that goblin raider's mate a widow and make his six children starve to death because the raiders couldn't bring back supplies for the village, but that raider was going to stab that woman over there and you used Smite Evil. And that's a burden that a genuinely conscientious person carries.

But you know what a Paladin doesn't do? They don't just sit there while the town burns because they were too afraid to press the button and hurt someone. They don't huddle in a corner and tell someone else to do it for them to maintain the illusion of keeping their own hands clean.

Atop the first wall at civilization's dawn, a paladin stood vigil.

[hamishspence]

That's the thing though- from some perspectives, it is not a violation of somebody's "right to life" if you kill them when they are committing unjustified attacks on others. Right to life is something that can be forfeited.

A paladin is someone who "punishes those who harm or threaten innocents" in the PHB- that doesn't give them a right to harm or threaten innocents themselves "to save other innocents".

If somebody is a "provider" and they are killed in defense of others- and as a result those they provide for go hungry- that doesn't mean you are "violating their rights" though. They don't automatically have a "right to be fed" which you are violating by killing the one that feeds them.

It may be a case of positive and negative rights- right to life may be classed as a negative one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...ositive_rights

[Godless_Paladin]

That's the think though- from some perspectives, it is not a violation of somebody's "right to life" if you kill them when they are committing unjustified attacks on others. Right to life is something that can be forfeited.

But those little goblin children just starved to death. How did they forfeit their right to life?

A paladin is someone who "punishes those who harm or threaten innocents" in the PHB- that doesn't give them a right to harm or threaten innocents themselves "to save other innocents".

But in the example I just gave, he did harm or threaten the lives of innocents. He denied children a father in a harsh society. He denied them food when it was scarce and the nation is plagued with famine and people fight for the last scrap of food. And so forth.

This is why that "think" is just silly. It goes into the territory of the Paladin shirking responsibility and hiding in a corner because of the reality that meaningful actions have collateral damage. When you're talking about the actions of kings or leaders pushing the button, you're just talking about the fact that as his sword of Smite Evil gets bigger, there's going to be even greater collateral damage done in the process of Smiting Evil.

And there are two choices: Either the Paladin is just blatantly dishonest with himself and pretends that there are never negative consequences to actions as serious (or more) as "killing a goblin raider," or he accepts that his actions will likely cause harm in one way or another to innocents, and deals with it.

And yes, pretending that it doesn't matter because those little goblin babies aren't in the same room with you falls into the first category of being blatantly dishonest with oneself. Those are results of your actions.

We're not even arguing about "ends justify the means" or anything like that. We're talking about the fact that serious actions have serious consequences and if the whole concept of a Paladin isn't a cruel joke, you have to be able to accept that.

[hamishspence]

But those little goblin children just starved to death. How did they forfeit their right to life?

they didn't- but there is a difference.

The fact that a person is a provider, is not considered relevant when determining if someone should be punished for a crime (or stopped with lethal force while committing a crime.)

The starvation is not an intended consequence- and it's not direct either. The first priority is to protect the innocent from attack. If the paladin later becomes aware that now other innocents are starving- they can choose to step in and feed them- but that doesn't mean they are "harming the innocent" by saving other innocents- the starving goblin children are an indirect, unintended consequence.

And yes, pretending that it doesn't matter because those little goblin babies aren't in the same room with you falls into the first category of being blatantly dishonest with oneself. Those are results of your actions.

But not intended results, nor direct results.

To say to a judge "By imprisoning thieves or executing murderers who are also parents, you personally are directly harming their innocent children" is perhaps a little excessive.

[Godless_Paladin]

The starvation is not an intended consequence-

And blowing up civilians is not an intended consequence of dropping the bomb (or not doing so. Either way causes civilians to be blown up in the earlier example scenario). The intended consequence is actually saving civilians.

This is no more direct than reorganizing grain distribution in times of famine. You know that you're going to kill off people in that village if they have less supplies. You also know that you're going to kill off people in that other location if you don't.

Serious decisions have serious consequences, and heroes don't hide from serious decisions.

and it's not direct either.

I'd say this is either intellectual dishonesty or shortsightedness.

{Scrubbed}

[Drakevarg]

but that doesn't mean they are "harming the innocent" by saving other innocents- the starving goblin children are an indirect, unintended consequence.

Indirect != Irrelevent.

[hamishspence]

There are various ways in which the goblin children in question might not starve- the mother might take up with another goblin, for example.

The "drop the bomb" question is a different one, here, innocents are being directly killed by the weapon.

That said, it might be compared to attacking an army that uses human shields- the army cannot be stopped without killing innocents in the process.

and "intellectually dishonest" is being thrown around rather a lot. Is it "intellectually dishonest" to make a distinction between intended consequences and unintended consequences? Between direct results and indirect results? Between the reasonably forseeable, and the less forseeable?

A man shoots another man- murder.
A judge executes the murderer- the murderer's children starve to death since he was the only provider- the judge has not murdered those children though.

Sometimes indirect can be very relevant.

[Godless_Paladin]

{Scrubbed}

That said, it might be compared to attacking an army that uses human shields- the army cannot be stopped without killing innocents in the process.

I compared it to distributing grain, which had very direct consequences on innocents. You seem to have conveniently ignored responding to that.

It presents a situation where, by the Paladin's actions (or inaction), innocents will die. And he is in a position where he chooses who lives and who dies, if not specifically who (same as the bomb. For example, family X might be on vacation).

By the reasoning of some of the people posting in this thread, a paladin cannot be in a position of authority where he covers food distribution, because the direct result of not sending more food to settlement X is that Y% of the population dies off.

This reasoning that the Paladin will fall if placed in any position where he has to make important decisions regarding populations of people just can't be in place if you want to have a setting where paladins aren't a cruel joke.

[Drakevarg]

and "intellectually dishonest" is being thrown around rather a lot. Is it "intellectually dishonest" to make a distinction between intended consequences and unintended consequences? Between direct results and indirect results? Between the reasonably forseeable, and the less forseeable?

Yes.

Otherwise you could intentionally hire the stupidest, most shortsighted man on the planet as a Paladin and have him running around butchering anything that pings his evildar with impunity, because he can't think of the consequences beyond "this person is evil. After I kill him, there will be less evil in the world, and thus is a good thing to do."

[Burner28]

But those little goblin children just starved to death. How did they forfeit their right to life?

Ummm... hello, it was not directly the paladin's fault, it was their father's fault for harming innocent people, and the paladin didn't intent on making the children starve. he intended to protect the innocent people, like the paladin should do, using good means (killing said evil goblin raider that deliberately endangers the life of innocent) for the right reasons(protecting innocent person). I don't see why the paladin has to feel guilty about killing the father- but I do see why said paladin should care about the children starving if he has any knowledge of said children starving. But as the paladin doesn't know, why should he care about some horrible goblin raider's concerns when he is being a complete and utter douche in this case? That's not Lawful Good. That's Stupid Good!

Do not forget that Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Nice.

[kyoryu]

Still, your rant served to summarize things rather clearly and I think it deserves its place int he thread.

It's an excellent argument. And, it points out how one can come to the same conclusion (drop the bomb) via two different processes, and arguably with a different alignment.

The Utilitarian view is one way to get to the logic of "okay to drop the Bomb."

Another way is to argue that groups of people, in aggregate, have the same rights as their individuals. If a group attempts to deny other group their rights, the defending group has the right to defend themselves. That some members of either group do not agree is irrelevant - the group has to be treated in aggregate.

Well, the moral dilemma here is really how willing are you to kill the non-evil citizens of the evil empire. Your magic nuke can't just kill the evil citizens supporting the war.

Of course if the king refuses to drop the bomb, then he effectively sentences his own citizens (majority of whom are non-evil) to die.

Right, so you first have to ask the question of whether groups should be treated as aggregates for purposes of looking at rights (and the right to self-defense). I believe they *must*, as any other answer leads to outcomes that I consider worse.

IOW "just following orders" don't cut it. That is, however, simply my opinion, and one I'm willing to debate.

The fact that you were wrong due to unforeseeable circumstances doesn't make you a bad person. That's a ridiculous standard where fate, rather than the content of a person's character, decides whether you're a good or bad person.

This is an important point. Intent matters - lying is knowingly telling a falsehood. Telling a falsehood unknowingly is just ignorance.

The same act can have varying "alignments" attached to it, depending on the motivations for performing the act, let alone surrounding circumstances.

You might not have wanted to leave that goblin raider's mate a widow and make his six children starve to death because the raiders couldn't bring back supplies for the village, but that raider was going to stab that woman over there and you used Smite Evil. And that's a burden that a genuinely conscientious person carries.

But here's the thing - do people (or goblins) have a 'right' to food? I'd argue that they don't, they have a right to, basically, their bodies and their time. Since food is a product of, among other things, someone's body and time, you can't claim a 'right' to food without stepping on someone else's rights. The outcome of "starving goblin widow" could have been avoided by the raider choosing to, well, not raid. As he chose to infringe upon the rights of others by raiding, he must carry the weight of the consequences.

Now, if people just raided the goblin encampment unprovoked and stole their food, that would absolutely infringe upon their rights, and I'd argue that it is an evil act.

[hamishspence]

The difference is that not everything that "pings the evildar" has done anything that warrants death.

Quite apart from the issue that, if you're going to decide that someone has "forfeited their right to life" you need evidence- and "they detect as evil" is not necessarily enough.

If a murderer has one child- does that mean the judge should not imprison or execute them? How about five? Ten? At what point does "he's a provider" override the principle of "protecting others from a murderer?

[Godless_Paladin]

Ummm... hello, it was not directly the paladin's fault, it was their father's fault for harming innocent people

No it wasn't. The father would have saved the children by harming the innocent people and taking their supplies. You have it exactly backwards.

Another way is to argue that groups of people, in aggregate, have the same rights as their individuals. If a group attempts to deny other group their rights, the defending group has the right to defend themselves. That some members of either group do not agree is irrelevant - the group has to be treated in aggregate.

This is fairly reasonable.

Consider another example, since this is fantasy-land.

Consider there is an Evil monster rampaging across the countryside eating babies or whatever. We'll call the monster Fry, for the sake of reference. Inside many living organisms, there are parasites or symbiotes or whatever that are dependent on that creature's life in order to go on living. Since this is fantasyland, let's say there's a society of small intelligent, and not-at-all Evil creatures living in Fry's bowel or something. These creatures cannot be removed from the host without killing them (they just reproduce in such a way that spread to other hosts... or something). Killing the host will destroy their society entirely in the most direct way possible. Even the most shortsighted or intellectually dishonest person would realize that when you kill a pregnant mother you also are probably killing the baby.

The Paladin is aware of all of this. The giant Fry is going to eat the city. What does the Paladin do?

[Drakevarg]

If a murderer has one child- does that mean the judge should not imprison or execute them? How about five? Ten? At what point does "he's a provider" override the principle of "protecting others from a murderer?

Well, the solution is easy; simply find a new provider for those who needed providing.

That is, if you're intent is to resolve the situation without commiting a single even morally grey act. On the other hand if you're just shooting for Lawful Neutral, just throw the punk to the lions. The kids aren't your problem. But as long as those kids are without help, it's not going to be a righteous deed.

[hamishspence]

No it wasn't. The father would have saved the children by harming the innocent people and taking their supplies. You have it exactly backwards.

The father goblin is only "saving the children" by violating the property rights (and right to life) of others.

"saving innocents" doesn't make theft and murder cease to be immoral.

"redistributing grain" might (if the grain is in fact owned by the people it's being "redistributed" from) become just a glorified version of this - "theft, to feed the needy".

[Drakevarg]

"saving innocents" doesn't make theft and murder cease to be immoral.

Similarly, "saving innocents" doesn't make leaving children to starve cease to be immoral.

The point is that you need to decide what's more important in the immeadiate sense. Given that the children could potentially get a new provider (hell, you could do it yourself if you were feeling particularly charitable), killing the raider is the better choice. But it's not a pure, unambiguously good act.

Consider there is an Evil monster rampaging across the countryside eating babies or whatever. We'll call the monster Fry, for the sake of reference. Inside many living organisms, there are parasites or symbiotes or whatever that are dependent on that creature's life in order to go on living. Since this is fantasyland, let's say there's a society of small intelligent, and not-at-all Evil creatures living in Fry's bowel or something. These creatures cannot be removed from the host without killing them (they just reproduce in such a way that spread to other hosts... or something). Killing the host will destroy their society entirely in the most direct way possible. Even the most shortsighted or intellectually dishonest person would realize that when you kill a pregnant mother you also are probably killing the baby.

The Paladin is aware of all of this. The giant Fry is going to eat the city. What does the Paladin do?

Nonfatally disable the monster, then relocate it very far away from anything even remotely resembling civilization. City lives, creatures inside the monster live. Monster lives off of local wildlife or something. Everyone lives happily ever after except the deer.

[Godless_Paladin]

The father goblin is only "saving the children" by violating the property rights (and right to life) of others.

The Paladin is only "saving the woman" by violating the property rights (and right to life) of the goblin. Because this is an adventurer and he loots the goblin's stuff after he kills him.

And before you say something utterly silly like "Well the goblin started it":
That's shortsightedness. It's trivial to iterate the pattern of reciprocation, both into the past and into the future. For example, the humans pushed the goblin population out of their lands (then screwed over the land with poor farming techniques or whatever else humans did this time to destroy the environment) so that they didn't have the necessary food resources.

Nonfatally disable the monster, then relocate it very far away from anything even remotely resembling civilization. City lives, creatures inside the monster live. Monster lives off of local wildlife or something. Everyone lives happily ever after except the deer.

This is fantasyland. The monster has to eat human souls. Without human souls the monster dies. Now what?

Alternatively, the monster is immune to any available form of nonfatal disabling.

Maybe it's a magic immune creature immune to subdual damage that can walk through walls and dispel magic or something.

You are just automatically assuming that there is some easily available third way that is practical to implement. That is not a rational expectation in a discussion of general moral principles.

"redistributing grain" might (if the grain is in fact owned by the people it's being "redistributed" from) become just a glorified version of this - "theft, to feed the needy".

No. It's in the king's granaries, and he's shipping it out to people. The people from either location do not own the grain. They're dwarven communities of miners or something.

There is no reason to assume that the grain was, at any point, owned by either community. So no, you don't get your cheap cop out. Does the Paladin fall because he's in charge of the granaries?

[Frosty]

Y'know, since adventurers kind of, by convention (hell, almost by Definition), go around killing things and taking their stuff, doesn't it mean adventurers are evil as all heck?

Another way is to argue that groups of people, in aggregate, have the same rights as their individuals. If a group attempts to deny other group their rights, the defending group has the right to defend themselves. That some members of either group do not agree is irrelevant - the group has to be treated in aggregate.

Well, we should *try* to separate the dissenting members if possible, but if not, then they are effectively unavoidable collateral damage.

[Drakevarg]

This is fantasyland. The monster has to eat human souls. Without human souls the monster dies. Now what?

Plane Shift the monster to an Evil-aligned plane, preferably one whose local outsiders have a lower average CR than the monster (so that it's less likely to get killed two minutes in). Let it feast on the tormented souls there. Said souls are not innocent by default; otherwise they wouldn't be on this plane in the first place. (If they would be, find a different plane where this is not the case. There are an infinite supply of them, you should be able to find one that fits the criteria.)

Alternatively, the monster is immune to any available form of nonfatal disabling.

Maybe it's a magic immune creature immune to subdual damage that can walk through walls and dispel magic or something.

Beat it into negative hit points, then stablize it. If it has Diehard, or is a Construct/Undead, transport it without disabling it. Get ghost touch or something and grapple it.

[Godless_Paladin]

Y'know, since adventurers kind of, by convention (hell, almost by Definition), go around killing things and taking their stuff, doesn't it mean adventurers are evil as all heck?

According to some of the arguers here, yes. But that, as I said before, creates a setting where paladins are a cruel joke.

If Paladins are not a cruel joke, you have to have a system where the above is not the case. It's pretty simple.

Plane Shift the monster to an Evil-aligned plane, preferably one whose local outsiders have a lower average CR than the monster (so that it's less likely to get killed two minutes in). Let it feast on the tormented souls there.

Completely ignoring that I said it was possibly magic immune, or that you may not in fact have the Plane Shift spell available to you because you're a Paladin and it's a giant monster staring you in the face right now, and assuming that there actually is an Evil-aligned plane that works like that because this isn't a setting like Eberron or Greek Mythology where everyone goes to the same afterlife...

[Frosty]

Wait, you mean Paladins AREN'T cruel jokes?

[kyoryu]

And before you say something utterly silly like "Well the goblin started it":
That's shortsightedness. It's trivial to iterate the pattern of reciprocation, both into the past and into the future. For example, the humans pushed the goblin population out of their lands (then screwed over the land with poor farming techniques or whatever else humans did this time to destroy the environment) so that they didn't have the necessary food resources.

Yeah, I'm not going to buy that argument. I'm not going to buy into a moral system where any action can be justified so long as you can find an ancestor of the person whose rights you're violating that did something bad to one of your ancestors. I'm not saying you're wrong, or that I don't see (to a certain extent) your point, but frankly I don't see it as being any better of a moral system than the alternative, and in most ways I see it as worse.

More to the point, it is not a moral system based upon individual rights, which seems to be what this topic is about.

That's my opinion, of course. Feel free to disagree.

Y'know, since adventurers kind of, by convention (hell, almost by Definition), go around killing things and taking their stuff, doesn't it mean adventurers are evil as all heck?

Depends. Are the adventurers just raiding random goblin settlements? Then yep, evil. Are they defending settlements from goblin raids? Not evil.

I like the Knights of the Cross in the Dresden Files as the awesomest example of Paladins. Even though these guys are fighting literal demons, they will not kill them except in cases of self-defense. As far as I'm concerned, they're the best examples of Paladins anywhere - they're clearly Lawful Good, are constrained by honor (often in ways that do not work to their tactical advantage) and yet avoid being Lawful Stupid.

Well, we should *try* to separate the dissenting members if possible, but if not, then they are effectively unavoidable collateral damage.

Absolutely. While such an action may be unavoidable or even justifiable, one of the signs of Goodness should be that such decisions do weigh heavily on the conscience of the ones making them. Flippantly making a decision like this without regards to the consequences would clearly be a slip towards Neutral if not Evil.

[Godless_Paladin]

Wait, you mean Paladins AREN'T cruel jokes?

No. The above only occurs if dickish DMs have ridiculous interpretations and make their players fall because their Paladin was put in charge of the nation's granaries in a time that was not a time of plenty and surplus.

Yeah, I'm not going to buy that argument. I'm not going to buy into a moral system where any action can be justified so long as you can find an ancestor of the person whose rights you're violating that did something bad to one of your ancestors.

Exactly. Hence, the refutation. I don't buy into such a system either... it's absurd in the extreme. I was pointing that out before someone repeated that same argument again.

I think you misread me. Read what I said again: I was refuting a claim by showing how it produced silly results, not supporting one.

[Drakevarg]

Completely ignoring that I said it was possibly magic immune

You made that edit after I posted that theory.

You are just automatically assuming that there is some easily available third way that is practical to implement. That is not a rational expectation in a discussion of general moral principles.

Nor is it rational to constantly move the goalposts whenever I implement a method to resolve the scenario in a win-win manner.

If this scenario occured in a campaign, I'd simply beat my DM into a coma with the Player's Handbook.

[Godless_Paladin]

You made that edit after I posted that theory.

You're assuming resources available that aren't necessarily available anyways for the sake of a cop-out argument.

The issue is that "I didn't directly harm an innocent because I didn't hit the innocent with a weapon in my hand" is not a particularly solid position.

[Eldonauran]

Consider there is an Evil monster rampaging across the countryside eating babies or whatever. We'll call the monster Fry, for the sake of reference. Inside many living organisms, there are parasites or symbiotes or whatever that are dependent on that creature's life in order to go on living. Since this is fantasyland, let's say there's a society of small intelligent, and not-at-all Evil creatures living in Fry's bowel or something. These creatures cannot be removed from the host without killing them (they just reproduce in such a way that spread to other hosts... or something). Killing the host will destroy their society entirely in the most direct way possible. Even the most shortsighted or intellectually dishonest person would realize that when you kill a pregnant mother you also are probably killing the baby.

The Paladin is aware of all of this. The giant Fry is going to eat the city. What does the Paladin do?

This is ... getting needlessly complicated.

You really want to know what happens? Player rips his sheet in half, closes his books and walks away from his jerk-off DM because he refuses to take part in an adventure specifically designed to make him fall.

[Frosty]

{Scrubbed}

[Godless_Paladin]

This is ... getting needlessly complicated.

You really want to know what happens? Player rips his sheet in half, closes his books and walks away from his jerk-off DM because he refuses to take part in an adventure specifically designed to make him fall.

{Scrubbed}

It is okay for a paladin to make the choice between dropping the bomb or invading. It is not okay for a Paladin to sit there and do nothing and pretend his hands are clean.

[Drakevarg]

You're assuming resources available that aren't necessarily available anyways for the sake of a cop-out argument.

I'm assuming that we're acting in a standard DnD environment. You need to specify otherwise beforehand, or it's impossible to make a counterarguement.

I'm assuming that this is a balanced CR encounter, and thus the Paladin has access to things you could expect him to have access to when fighting a giant soul-eating monster. If this is not the case, he's boned anyway and might as well just start stabbing uselessly at the thing's ankle before getting swatted like a bug. At least he tried.

The issue is that "I didn't directly harm an innocent because I didn't hit the innocent with a weapon in my hand" is not a particularly solid position.

Thing is, it's not a two-way street. I'm not arguing that the obvious choices are morally pure with either example, the goblin raider OR the soul-eating monster. What I'm saying is that unless you have a douchebag DM who's going to just move the goalposts every time you come up with an idea, there's almost always a third option that allows you to harm ZERO innocents.

With the monster, somehow provide it with a foodsource that harms no one that doesn't deserve it. Like a prision specifically designed for death-row inmates who have been proven guilty in an incredibly through (and probably magical) manner. Or an evil-aligned afterlife.

With the goblin, find his children and get them a new provider, or raise them yourself.