Paladins "punish those that harm or threaten innocents" but what counts?

[hamishspence]

This is inspired by arguments that to be a good paladin you must be willing to commit acts that lead to innocents being harmed- and the counterargument that this does not actually qualify as "harming innocents"

Some examples:

You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

In all these cases, innocents die as a result of your actions. But do any count as "harming or threatening the innocent" which, as a paladin, you must punish?

If so, then it would seem a paladin has to punish themselves for every serious decision- even if none qualify as strictly evil acts- which is a bit harsh.

[faceroll]

1. Your actions aren't causing harm. They are trying to mitigate the disaster a mad druid or a plague god stirred up. You aren't killing the peasants that aren't receiving food; you're saving the ones you feed.

2. Send volunteers. Volunteer yourself. SPARTAAAA!!!

3. This is D&D. You can be more creative. First, you're a paladin. You should be using both hands on a melee weapon. They only get a +2 cover bonus with their human shields, and you should be dealing non-lethal damage just incase (maybe get a merciful weapon).

If you're firing into melee, you're using precise shot and/or improved precise shot, so are at no risk of shooting allies and may even get to ignore the cover they grant.

And that's not even touching on using diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, or magic.

4. Use a merciful weapon. If they can be dominated, they're not innately immune to being bludgeoned unconscious. May need some master specialist abjurer dispels to strip them of any buffs that grant it, though.

5. Simple. You give them your food. Your god will provide.


In my opinion, a Paladin should always try and take the most just route, even if it is doomed to failure. Lawful Good might mean tilting windmills or hopeless battles. Leave the utilitarian bean counting to neutral good.

[ScionOfBlades]

Ways around everything:

You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

During a famine you feed the poor first, then the rich. The noble thing to do is feed those who can't feed themselves. The rich can either move or choose to aid the poor as well. So even if some die, you've tried your hardest (a good act)


You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

You ask for volunteers to raise to heights of bravery and noble ends. A good act. Sending them yourself is evil.


You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

Non lethal damage. Paladins best friend. There's also a magical weapon property that causes a weapon to deal non lethal damage. (Mercy?) Mercy + Great Axe= Save the human shields.

You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

Same here.

You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

You don't defend your goods. You give them your food, willingly.

EDIT: Slightly Swordsage'd

[Jacque]

Ways around everything:

you've tried your hardest (a good act)

If 'tried your hardest' is enough, then there's no point in discussing this. Every example the OP uses already more or less provides the solution of trying your hardest.

[faceroll]

If 'tried your hardest' is enough, then there's no point in discussing this. Every example the OP uses already more or less provides the solution of trying your hardest.

I think the OP is trying to subvert what "harm innocents" means.

Say there's an evil guy killin' dudes. You could either go and try to kill him, but maybe die trying, or you could go kill boars in the forest until you have enough levels on him that the encounter is trivial. You could probably preform some statistical analysis to determine the threshold of boar killing vs. heroic deeds such that you minimize total theoretical commoner deaths (accounting for those you could save in the short run vs. those that die if you fail). But I don't think that's what a paladin is about.

It's kind of like the argument that is sometimes advanced against the "goodness" of VoP on these boards. Keeping loot from your adventures so you can go on even more adventures is missing the point. It smacks of the sort of justification that the corrupt use to continue on their path to damnation.

[hamishspence]

You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

You don't defend your goods. You give them your food, willingly.

Why? Self-sacrifice is normally a good act- but that doesn't mean failure to sacrifice yourself qualifies as "harming the innocent".

And if a third party were to come upon the same situation, what would they be obliged to do?

Do nothing- and an innocent person is killed by a robber, through starvation.
Do something- and the robber's children die of starvation.



The point to be made is that "harming the innocent" is a slightly different thing from "committing an act that leads to the death of innocents".

Unless you choose to take the view that only harming innocents "for profit or pleasure" is automatically evil- and harming innocents for other reasons is not.

But the paladin's code doesn't make that distinction when it comes to behaviour that the paladin must punish- it simply says "those who harm or threaten innocents" and doesn't specify reasons.

You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

You ask for volunteers to raise to heights of bravery and noble ends. A good act. Sending them yourself is evil.

Sometimes there isn't time to "ask for volunteers"- the battle may already be engaged- and you simply have to send a signal order to one unit to enter the dangerous situation.

As to the "always use merciful weapons when battling innocents"- it's worth remember that they are not cheap, and a low level paladin may not have access to them. Plus, if they don't attack at range (which can't be done nonlethally without a merciful weapon) they may have a high chance of losing.

[hamishspence]

In the "human shields" case, one solution (I think used in real life) is for the moral responsibility for any injury to the human shield, being placed on the person using them.

For example, if criminals use human shields- and some of the human shields die in the resulting fight, even though the cops are the ones who actually shot them, the criminals are the ones held responsible for the deaths and charged with murder- even though they did not personally kill them.

In this case "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" might mean "punish those who are morally responsible for harm coming to innocents"

[ToySoldierCPlus]

So far, I agree with what's been posted.

Situation 1: You save as many as you can. One of the first lessons any would-be hero (especially a paladin) needs to learn is that it is not always possible to save them all. Sometimes, you need to cut your losses and save as many as you can. If you can save 50%, you do it. 60%, even better. But you don't have to feel bad because you don't have the resources to feed everyone. You do the best you can with the resources you have.

Situation 2: I second the volunteers option, and cite the song "The General" by Dispatch, as an example of what a paladin should do in this situation. If he can find no willing volunteers, he goes himself. If, for some reason, such as he is the king of his nation, not just a general in the army, he can't go on the suicide run, or he doesn't have time to find volunteers for it (which he should, in almost all cases) he may have to make the order, but it should not be a decision made lightly.

Situation 3: Assuming the villain has one person in his square held as a literal shield, and several others forming a wall around him, so no-one can get to him without harming some innocent, then yes, non-lethal damage is the way to go. If that is not an option, such as if the paladin is forced to engage from range and doesn't have a merciful bow, then he does his best to not hit the hostages, or he has someone who is a better shot than he is make the shot, and he remembers that he is not the one who placed an innocent in harm's way, and is not morally responsible for any unavoidable harm.

Situation 4: As above, assuming that the paladin can't do anything to get the mind-controlled out of the way. He may want to stop to lay on hands for each of them once they go down, if he can't deal non-lethal for whatever reason.

Situation 5: Share the food, as much as he can. Even a paladin has a right to survival, so he doesn't have to give up all of his food, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. My great uncle once did something like that. Gave his coat to a fellow prisoner in the dead of winter. He didn't survive. Two weeks later the camp was liberated. The other guy lived because of my great-uncle's sacrifice. A paladin would do the same thing, though they wouldn't be obligated to.

[MightyTim]

I think most of these boil down to the fact that as a paladin, your goal is to take the path of action which leads to the least amount of innocent suffering.

For the first example, it's basically analogous to a triage situation. You help (feed) everyone that you can help. Trying to minimize losses does not equal causing harm.

In the second example, if all you're worried about is "your actions cause some innocents to die" then you don't have any place being a general in a battle in the first place. Barring divine intervention, any action you take as a general is going to lead to someone dying, whether you want it to or not. In the specific example, you can't be sure that sending the order will result in the death of everyone on the squad, but you can be sure that it is the best way to end the battle.

For the third example, well meh. It would be a lot more interesting moral dilemma if the bad guys were, say, strapping bombs to innocent people and using them a weapons. As it stands, they're just taking a defensive measure, and you always have the option of not attacking until the situation is more favorable.

For the last two, one of the main qualities of being a paladin is selflessness. You give the thief your food so they can feed their family and then do what you can to survive. You don't take an offensive action against the dominated innocents and go straight for the mage.

[Godless_Paladin]

I think most of these boil down to the fact that as a paladin, your goal is to take the path of action which leads to the least amount of innocent suffering.

Of course, you can't actually omnisciently know what this path will be.

In the second example, if all you're worried about is "your actions cause some innocents to die" then you don't have any place being a general in a battle in the first place. Barring divine intervention, any action you take as a general is going to lead to someone dying, whether you want it to or not.

Damn straight.

In the specific example, you can't be sure that sending the order will result in the death of everyone on the squad, but you can be sure that it is the best way to end the battle.

You can't actually be sure. There are all kinds of unforeseen circumstances that can creep up on a battlefield, and whatever you chose to do could in fact be just about the worst choice you could have made.

And a paladin that isn't intellectually dishonest or shortsighted will realize that actions have both positive and negative outcomes. The thing is, the negative side racks up higher and higher as she gets more actual responsibility, simply because consequences are more wide-ranging, and making higher level decisions in society will necessarily cause tragic results for some. Something as simple as changing the king's tax code can shift the group of people who get stricken with crippling poverty.

But this shouldn't scare off the paladin from her duties or make her fall. A hero doesn't sit on their hands. A hero doesn't shirk responsibility. A hero doesn't pass the buck of decision-making to a substitute. A hero doesn't pretend that her hands are clean if she didn't personally behead somebody, bur rather just turned the prisoner over to the king's courts and a headsman did it instead.

A hero gets out there and does what she thinks is right to the best of her abilities.

[hamishspence]

For the last two, one of the main qualities of being a paladin is selflessness. You give the thief your food so they can feed their family and then do what you can to survive.

Here. we're talking about a situation where there is so little food that if the paladin gives his up, or lets himself be robbed, he is almost certain to die, barring miracles

Are the paladins "morally obliged" to be the first to die in any starvation situation- to the point of being required to let others rob them?

I think that might be taking "selflessness" as a Good requirement, a bit too far.

You don't take an offensive action against the dominated innocents and go straight for the mage.

And what if the mage is not on the battlefield at the time- has stayed away and simply sent an army of dominated innocents led by his minions?

If you're heavily outnumbered, and low level, and you have many soldiers beside you, giving the order to use non-lethal damage can lose you the battle- and allow more innocents to be harmed.

The "you don't bear moral responsibility for killing dominated enemies, when it's the only way to win, and choosing to lose would be morally unacceptable", view I think makes more sense.

[MightyTim]

You can't actually be sure. There are all kinds of unforeseen circumstances that can creep up on a battlefield, and whatever you chose to do could in fact be just about the worst choice you could have made.

True, and I'm sure this conversation has been had before, I think what's most important is the intent, rather than the outcome. You can't really be faulted if the truly best course of action required knowledge which you had no way of knowing. Say in the example above you believe that making the diversion will be a decisive end to the battle. It's possible that it will be. But if the opposing force had a spy within your leadership camp and was able to warn them about the feint. The opposing general is able to counter your maneuver by not falling for your bluff and you lose the battle. Obviously the best thing would have been to not make the move, but you couldn't have known that in the first place.

It's not a perfect example, but the point I want to make is that it's virtually impossible to know which course of action minimizes innocent death, but you still have to act on what knowledge you have. It seems to me to be very un-paladin-like to say "I don't know which way is best, so I won't do anything at all."

[Godless_Paladin]

True, and I'm sure this conversation has been had before, I think what's most important is the intent, rather than the outcome. You can't really be faulted if the truly best course of action required knowledge which you had no way of knowing.

Often, people do have a way of finding out things, but don't find out anyways. This seriously happens all the time. Sometimes the difference can be as slight as just taking an extra second to look. But that extra second could have cost you your life.

"You couldn't have possibly done better" is a really unrealistic standard. Hindsight may be 20/20, but we're talking about paladins here. They're in do or die situations all the time.

[MightyTim]

The "you don't bear moral responsibility for killing dominated enemies, when it's the only way to win, and choosing to lose would be morally unacceptable", view I think makes more sense.

I don't disagree that if people die in that situation, you aren't the one to blame, I just want to make sure there is a distinction that we're exhausting all other options first. If in the example, the paladin started killing these people right away, and afterward explained that he shouldn't be morally responsible, that sounds to me dangerously close to him trying to excuse his actions.

[MightyTim]

Often, people do have a way of finding out things, but don't find out anyways. Like, seriously, this happens all the time.

"You couldn't have possibly done better" is a really unrealistic standard. Hindsight may be 20/20, but we're talking about paladins here. They're in do or die situations all the time.

That's the thing about these questions. It may be fun to discuss, but it's so situationally dependent that you can't make a blanket statement.

[Godless_Paladin]

I just want to make sure there is a distinction that we're exhausting all other options first.

This goes further with the unrealistic expectations. Exhausting all other options first just doesn't work out in reality. Often those other options have an opportunity cost, and you can't just try everything to see if it works.

Consider the City Nuke question in the thread the OP is basing his examples on. One option would have been to merely threaten the other side by revealing that you have the bomb and were prepared to use it. The possible consequences of that could be... not being able to deliver the bomb.

That's the thing about these questions. It may be fun to discuss, but it's so situationally dependent that you can't make a blanket statement.

I disagree. You can make generalizations.

They just can't be things like "well, you have to exhaust all other options first, and you're only excused if it was impossible for you to have known better" and so on and so forth. Because those are not realistic standards, even for someone held as a paragon of law and good.

[Lord_Gareth]

How far is a Paladin required to go in order to punish those that harm or threaten the innocent? If he sees someone murder a shopkeeper in cold blood, is he required to hound the killer to the ends of the multiverse? Is he required to commit any action necessary to execute that punishment, or does the Code require that he stick to a semblance of justice instead of vengeance?

[The Big Dice]

You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

Guilt, angst, emo agonizing over hard choices. These are all part and parcel of what it means to be a Paladin. While choosing between two evils is still choosing evil, a Paladin sometimes has to decide who lives and who dies. Sometimes it becomes nothing more than a numbers game.

You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

War means hard choices have to be made. Sending your own men into certain death isn't easy. You have to make sure their deaths have meaning and that only volunteers take part in the mission.

You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

Find another way. Adventuring parties can be very good at bypassing defenses like human shields. Killing innocents because they are being used as defences by one who would exploit them is becoming as bad your enemy. So don't do it.

You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

Use minimum necessary force. Kill only when you have no other option, the rest of the time, when you're up against mind controlled innocents, use subdual damage.

You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

This is a good one. Yay for moral dilemmas!

Put the parent to work doing unpleasant tasks that need to be done but that nobody really wants. Like digging latrines and filling in the old ones. Desperate people don't need to be killed for acting in a desperate way, and their punishment should be something that serves the community at large.

The thing with playing a Paladin is, tough choices and moral dilemmas should come with the Smites and the mount. Sometimes that means there's no right or wrong answer, which is even better.

Paladins can range from near fascism in their tyrannical interpretation of what's lawful and good, all the way to being incredibly liberal and tolerant of flaws in other people. The difference really comes down to, do they hold other people to the same standard that they hold themselves to?

[gbprime]

You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to many innocents surviving.

Not saving EVERYONE isn't something you get punished for. It just leads to angst, or a possible plot line involving a powerful person whose relative died, both of which build character. =)

You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

That's a non-sequitor. There are no "innocent troops". Unless you conscripted them and are sending them out with spears to their backs, they're doing their part for this war the same as you. They have a job to do and they're here by choice. Yes, yours is a tough choice, and it may wrack your conscience later, but the lives of thousands and the entire war depend on this.

You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

Unacceptable. You're a Paladin. You'll lead that fight personally so you can circumvent those human shields, no matter the cost. And if some should fall, you'll be on hand to personally and instantly smite those who cowered behind them.

You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

Justice provides a way. Magic Circle vs Evil. For a few minutes, they cannot be controlled. You then escort them to a prison cell where they can wait for the mage to be killed, or walk right through them and assault the mage.

You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

You're a Paladin, you share what you have, and then go search for more food for yourself.

[hamishspence]

That's a non-sequitor. There are no "innocent troops". Unless you conscripted them and are sending them out with spears to their backs, they're doing their part for this war the same as you.

Innocent in a moral sense- they are lower-level paladins- who have never committed evil acts.

To say that a Good person who does not do evil is not innocent, seems like an odd definition of innocent.

You're a Paladin, you share what you have, and then go search for more food for yourself.

In this case (thanks to carefully eking out what you have), you are a point or so of nonlethal starvation damage (which cannot be healed without food) away from unconsciousness. The nearby area is already stripped bare- the winter has some time to go. You've already been eating the minimum food to survive- if you stop at this point, you will almost certainly die.

"share what you have" does not extend to "give away all you have, to a robber who is threatening to take it by force."

Paladins are supposed to be self-sacrificing, but not to the point of being suicidal, when they have already given all they can spare to survive.

Something as simple as changing the king's tax code can shift the group of people who get stricken with crippling poverty.

But this shouldn't scare off the paladin from her duties or make her fall. A hero doesn't sit on their hands. A hero doesn't shirk responsibility.

Thing is though- in the context of "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" this leads to a conundrum.

If "making a decision that lead to the deaths of some particular innocents" can ever be a morally correct act- then there is the issue:

Either it's equivalent to "harming or threatening innocents" or it's not equivalent.

If it is, then it follows that the paladin's code demands that they punish people who have made morally correct decisions. A bit absurd.

If it's not equivalent, then that means you can do something that leads to innocents dying, maybe even killing them yourself (or morally equivalent to that) and yet, not have "harmed or threatened innocents"- morally speaking.

Also a bit odd.

[Tankadin]

Innocent in a moral sense- they are lower-level paladins- who have never committed evil acts.

Then they're probably insisting that they be the ones to go out and save the day/war. They are, after all, paladins.

In this case (thanks to carefully eking out what you have), you are a point or so of nonlethal starvation damage (which cannot be healed without food) away from unconsciousness. The nearby area is already stripped bare- the winter has some time to go. You've already been eating the minimum food to survive- if you stop at this point, you will almost certainly die.

"share what you have" does not extend to "give away all you have, to a robber who is threatening to take it by force."

Paladins are supposed to be self-sacrificing, but not to the point of being suicidal, when they have already given all they can spare to survive.

How did the situation come to this? Was there a severe famine before winter set in? Why didn't the paladin go on a quest to find food/resources for his charges?

[gbprime]

Innocent in a moral sense- they are lower-level paladins- who have never committed evil acts.

To say that a Good person who does not do evil is not innocent, seems like an odd definition of innocent.

Not really. You're using the context of war. An "innocent" in this definition is a non-combative person who is not here by choice. A Paladin is not an "innocent", he is a devout soldier in a war against evil. As their commander, you cannot be expected to shelter your soldiers from harm. They're soldiers, not conscripts, use them for the good of others.

In this case (thanks to carefully eking out what you have), you are a point or so of nonlethal starvation damage (which cannot be healed without food) away from unconsciousness. The nearby area is already stripped bare- the winter has some time to go. You've already been eating the minimum food to survive- if you stop at this point, you will almost certainly die.

"share what you have" does not extend to "give away all you have, to a robber who is threatening to take it by force."

Paladins are supposed to be self-sacrificing, but not to the point of being suicidal, when they have already given all they can spare to survive.

My answer is still the same. You did your duty, you did what you had to do, but the greater good is now asking you to do even more. Give them what food they need, eat a bit yourself, and set out to find more. You're devout, so have faith. You will find what you need. The result may not be comfortable, but tests of faith rarely are.

[hamishspence]

Not really. You're using the context of war. An "innocent" in this definition is a non-combative person who is not here by choice. A Paladin is not an "innocent", he is a devout soldier in a war against evil.

I'm using the basic context of "a paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

I don't think that means that "harming or threatening paladins" does not qualify for this. To say that harming a paladin is not an act that a paladin should feel deserves punishment, seems a bit absurd.

[Starbuck_II]

Innocent in a moral sense- they are lower-level paladins- who have never committed evil acts.

To say that a Good person who does not do evil is not innocent, seems like an odd definition of innocent.

Wait so evil is never innocent?

[gbprime]

I'm using the basic context of "a paladin must punish those who harm or threaten innocents"

I don't think that means that "harming or threatening paladins" does not qualify for this. To say that harming a paladin is not an act that a paladin should feel deserves punishment, seems a bit absurd.

The flip side of that is you saying that you cannot ask your soldiers to fight when the chips are down. If there is no other way, if the lives of thousands depend on this, then you give the order. If you cannot, then either go do it yourself, or give command over to someone who is willing to make the tough choices.

[hamishspence]

The flip side of that is you saying that you cannot ask your soldiers to fight when the chips are down. If there is no other way, if the lives of thousands depend on this, then you give the order. If you cannot, then either go do it yourself, or give command over to someone who is willing to make the tough choices.

Or, ordering a soldier to go to their death, does not actually qualify as "harming or threatening innocents"- the act which a paladin is obliged to punish.

[gbprime]

Or, ordering a soldier to go to their death, does not actually qualify as "harming or threatening innocents"- the act which a paladin is obliged to punish.

The sin, and thus the atonement, is in the WHY of it. Everything has a justification. Otherwise, a Paladin could never take a life.

[dsmiles]

Some examples:

You are in charge of resource allocation during a famine. Your actions lead to some innocents dying (whereas others are saved)

There was nothing more you could do. At that point it become more "how many can I save" and less "how many will die becaus of my actions." Sure, you'll suffer from guilt, as would most people put in this situation, you'll probably just feel it more sharply, and go atone, even though it's not required.

You are a general in a defensive war- who sees that the only way to win the battle and save your people, is to send a squad of innocent troopers to certain death, in order to lure the enemy into your trap.

The answer here is to give a rousing "St Crispin's Day" speech, and hope you get some volunteers. If there isn't enough time, you have to pursue "the good of the many over the needs of the few". Again, not requiring atonement, but you probably will anyways.

You are facing someone who uses human shields in battle- the only way to survive and to protect people from the aggressors, is to open fire and kill the innocent along with the aggressors.

You have to weigh the options carefully here. This is a "how many will I save" vs. "how many will die" struggle. But again, the "good of the many" prevails.

You are faced with a dominated force of innocents controlled by an evil mage. You have no way of dispelling the effect- the only way to protect yourself and others is to kill these innocents.

Need more data. Define "others," please. If, by "others" you mean your adventuring party, no killing of innocents. If you mean "many multitudes of innocents," do what you have to do, and shed a thousand tears for each innocent slain to save 10 or 100 or 1000 others. Again, you will probably atone afterwards, and perhaps get all emo for a while, but the greater goo must be served.

You are, during a harsh winter, confronted with someone trying to rob your food store (which is only just enough to keep you alive). You recogize them know they are a parent, and if you defend your goods, their innocent children will die.

This is self sacrifice time, if I ever saw it. No god could deny you entrance into some Lawful Good afterlife if you gave up your food stores to save these people. Paladins need to think of longer term consequences. "Will my death save these people and their children, and their children's children (and so on, and so forth)?" is a perfectly valid question here. If yes, save them, and suffer yourself. If not, disarm them, and share your food as you make your way to the next town. If some of them die, this was outside of your ability to affect the situation.

Just my opinions, mind you. To me it boils down to "the good of the many over the needs of the few." It always has, for every Paladin I've ever played.

[Tankadin]

Or, ordering a soldier to go to their death, does not actually qualify as "harming or threatening innocents"- the act which a paladin is obliged to punish.

The paladin could, however, attempt to punish the parties that started the war, especially if those parties caused all kinds of harm to innocents and other protected people. Nuremburg comes to mind.

[Engine]

I answer just to say:

You're a Paladin. For you there's no "only way". If you get stuck with the "only way" nonsense you're not doing your job or your DM is not a good one.