Lifeboat Situations In D&D - How Does One Avoid Committing An Evil Act?

[hamishspence]

This is of particular relevance when one is a character that gets penalized for committing Evil acts (paladin, paladin of freedom, various PRCs, has at least one exalted feat, etc).

The goal is to find a reasonable metric for such situations, that doesn't wreck the game.

[AMFV]

This is of particular relevance when one is a character that gets penalized for committing Evil acts (paladin, paladin of freedom, various PRCs, has at least one exalted feat, etc).

The goal is to find a reasonable metric for such situations, that doesn't wreck the game.

Why? In real life these situations are complex and even people that believe in absolute morality are very likely to differ in interpretation. In fact in the other thread there are pages on pages on pages of people arguing over the same sentence in text.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

That one in fact, over whether you can "kill somebody" through inaction, whether that would be outside neutral, whether you have responsibility for that sort of thing, at what point the compunctions would overwhelm you.

If we can pages on pages of arguments that have went on for days. I'm sure that in-universe (provided with the same objective information) there would arguments that would go on for years. Just because the alignment system is objective and there is a right answer doesn't mean that anybody short of an Overgod knows what it is. And there is likely to be debate. Exactly like real world philosophies that believe in absolute objective morality, they argue all the time.

[hamishspence]

Why? In real life these situations are complex and even people that believe in absolute morality are very likely to differ in interpretation.

Mostly because, in games, these situations crop up now and again - and having a baseline to work with - may cut short the debates.

If a DM causes a Paladin to Fall for recommending the drawing of straws, and participating - is that DM being unreasonable?

[AMFV]

Mostly because, in games, these situations crop up now and again - and having a baseline to work with - may cut short the debates.

If a DM causes a Paladin to Fall for recommending the drawing of straws, and participating - is that DM being unreasonable?

Nope, but Paladins are held to a higher standard anyway, and this sort of situation would require adherence to the tenants of their faith. But I imagine that a Paladin would need to atone for that, since again they are held to the highest standard.

Edit: Also the differing interpretations is why I think it might be interesting to have an all-Paladin game with different orders, since that would be really fascinating I imagine.

[hamishspence]

How about a servant of The Forces of True Neutrality (as exemplified by the Rilmani, or gods like Silvanus and Obad-Hai) who is under an obligation to refrain from Good and Evil acts?

[AMFV]

How about a servant of The Forces of True Neutrality (as exemplified by the Rilmani, or gods like Silvanus and Obad-Hai) who is under an obligation to refrain from Good and Evil acts?

They're in trouble if there is no way to violate that obligation. If they only have to balance out they're fine, all they have to do is cosmically keep an even keel. Also even neutral Gods don't demand that their priests never commit a non-neutral act.

[Mando Knight]

I would say that if there was a situation where you were in a group of people had to choose one of your own to die (and otherwise all members of the group are equally vital to the group's survival as a whole), the Good solution would be to volunteer yourself. Agreeing/proposing to select the victim randomly or by rationally calculating the "optimal" choice would be Neutral. Getting it over with by gutting the guy next to you is an obvious Evil choice.

How about a servant of The Forces of True Neutrality (as exemplified by the Rilmani, or gods like Silvanus and Obad-Hai) who is under an obligation to refrain from Good and Evil acts?

What makes a Good man turn Neutral?

[hamishspence]

Also even neutral Gods don't demand that their priests never commit a non-neutral act.

May depend on the deity.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

I would say that if there was a situation where you were in a group of people had to choose one of your own to die (and otherwise all members of the group are equally vital to the group's survival as a whole), the Good solution would be to volunteer yourself. Agreeing/proposing to select the victim randomly or by rationally calculating the "optimal" choice would be Neutral. Getting it over with by gutting the guy next to you is an obvious Evil choice.

The trope might be called:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ColdEquation

[Mando Knight]

The trope might be called:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ColdEquation

The calculation that states one must die may be cold, but colder still is the one that dooms them all.

[AMFV]

May depend on the deity.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Well in a scenario like that they're going to have a moral crises, since there is not an option that conforms to their particular set of ideals.

[hamishspence]

The calculation that states one must die may be cold, but colder still is the one that dooms them all.

Indeed. Imagine that the sinking ship was only carrying paladins (on a mission to another country). All refuse to get on the lifeboat since "by doing so they'd take a seat that another could have used". All die.

Is each refusal a good act? Or a Senseless Sacrifice that actually shows disrespect for life?

[AMFV]

Indeed. Imagine that the sinking ship was only carrying paladins (on a mission to another country). All refuse to get on the lifeboat since "by doing so they'd take a seat that another could have used". All die.

Is each refusal a good act? Or a Senseless Sacrifice that actually shows disrespect for life?

That's not the same case, and that would be a senseless sacrifice, they would have the most junior members of the order (or however their system dictates since it would have a method for this) board the lifeboats till there was no room left, once there was no room left then they'd set off. The seniors would voluntarily lay down their lives, which allows the juniors not to have the same degree of responsibility, since nobody is being denied a chance to board the lifeboats (although I imagine they'd still be wracked with guilt).

[hamishspence]

they would have the most junior members of the order (or however their system dictates since it would have a method for this) board the lifeboats till there was no room left, once there was no room left then they'd set off.

The problem is that each junior member would be deciding "I'll volunteer not to board - so someone else can".

[AMFV]

The problem is that each junior member would be deciding "I'll volunteer not to board - so someone else can".

They don't get to, because it's lawful. They can object, but I think that they might even be forcibly placed on the boats, and I don't think there's a problem with that. Chaotic wise the best method would probably be the aforementioned lots. Since that's equal fairness for everybody instead of seniority, or whatever other method a lawful individual might have.

[hamishspence]

So - if you're ordered to save your own life - then even if "saving your own life" will result in another person dying - it's not Evil?

[AMFV]

So - if you're ordered to save your own life - then even if "saving your own life" will result in another person dying - it's not Evil?

You're not acting in your own interests, that's what defines the good evil split. Also as you've pointed out they aren't being ordered to do something that results in somebody dying, since the static state for the paladin boat is that nobody boards. But to save their own lives.

[Amphetryon]

There is no reason the drawing of lots is Chaotic rather than Lawful that I can see within the Alignments as detailed in the RAW.

A person ordering another person to die is - per metrics established elsewhere on the boards today - fundamentally murdering that person via an Evil act; a Paladin who gave such an order would therefore fall and, in falling, lose the rank and right to give such an order to her former junior Paladins.

[AMFV]

There is no reason the drawing of lots is Chaotic rather than Lawful that I can see within the Alignments as detailed in the RAW.

A person ordering another person to die is - per metrics established elsewhere on the boards today - fundamentally murdering that person via an Evil act; a Paladin who gave such an order would therefore fall and, in falling, lose the rank and right to give such an order to her former junior Paladins.

Not so, and that's presupposing things about the order, firstly that they've not discussed this scenario. And as I've pointed out the static state for the Paladins is nobody boards, so you can order somebody not to commit suicide, which isn't evil.

And yes, drawing lots could be lawful also, I just assumed that the Paladins would have a more structured system in place for that sort of thing.

[hamishspence]

The good/evil split isn't just to do with selfishness.

A completely altruistic act can be an Evil one (murdering one stranger in order to save the life of another stranger).

Conversely, a selfishly motivated act can be a nonevil one (although going by BoED it can't normally be a Good one).

[AMFV]

The good/evil split isn't just to do with selfishness.

A completely altruistic act can be an Evil one (murdering one stranger in order to save the life of another stranger).

Conversely, a selfishly motivated act can be a nonevil one (although going by BoED it can't normally be a Good one).

Yes, a selfish act that doesn't cause direct harm is neutral, it's pretty much textbook neutral. I'm not sure if I agree that altruism can be evil though. That scenario doesn't really have much meat to it, what's the remainder of it.

Also for the Paladin scenario, they don't have direct responsibility, since if they didn't board the lifeboat, nobody would, so it's not a they live and somebody else dies scenario, it's an everybody would die, but they are being forced to live.

[hamishspence]

I'm not sure if I agree that altruism can be evil though. That scenario doesn't really have much meat to it, what's the remainder of it.

It's a generic one - any case where saving a person requires the destruction of another person.

One is being altruistic toward the saved person.

[AMFV]

It's a generic one - any case where saving a person requires the destruction of another person.

One is being altruistic toward the saved person.

No... Altruism involves self sacrifice. There is no self-sacrifice there in that scenario. I'm not even what that would constitute, I cannot imagine a scenario that fits that criteria, that's why I asked, because I think there is no scenario where you murder an innocent or somebody else dies are the only options.

[hamishspence]

Two identical twins are in hospital - one of a minor complaint, one with a badly damaged heart. There are no anti rejection drugs - the only kind of transplant that will work is one from such a twin.

The "self-sacrifice" bit comes from the fact that the doctor knows that if they do it - they will be caught, tried, and convicted - they have no experience of concealing such an action.

[AMFV]

Two identical twins are in hospital - one of a minor complaint, one with a badly damaged heart. There are no anti rejection drugs - the only kind of transplant that will work is one from such a twin.

The "self-sacrifice" bit comes from the fact that the doctor knows that if they do it - they will be caught, tried, and convicted - they have no experience of concealing such an action.

That's not even a little bit altruistic. At best you'd wind up with a moral wash, however I would suggest that the arrogance in making such a decision should be weighted in, since pride is a factor here. That would make it at least slightly self-serving, ergo evil. Otherwise why would spare one and not the other (an argument could be made for chaos if it's random, or lawful if there's a matter of law at stake). But if neither is the case, then it'd be evil.

[hamishspence]

Lets say the doctor - not being proud - tells the healthy twin of the possibility.

The healthy twin, after a bit of agonising, decides "I won't sacrifice my life to save his - my interest comes first".

Has he committed an evil act?

[Jacob.Tyr]

This brings me back to SOSC class, good times...

I'm of the opinion that, in the case of the lifeboat situation, the only good act one can commit is to refuse to board it them self. Most of the time no one should decide death for others and claim themselves to be Good. You can try to be fair and wind up neutral, or you can just gut the guy next to you and ensure that there is room and be evil, but you can't make the decision for someone else to die and be "Good".

If it was a group of Paladins I think the only outcome would be them actually forcing each other into the lifeboat, winding up with an outcome where only the weakest paladins are in the boat despite fighting against this outcome.

But that is just my viewpoint on the situation, and I have heard good arguments for other ways to structure the moral situation. You might be Pragmatic Good, and choose the most good option, judging who gets to go based on some sort of value of worth that I'm personally not willing to make myself.

NOTE: I am assuming that this is just a matter of space for X on the lifeboats, X+n people on the boat where n is a positive integer. One of my favorite variants, however, is where you add in bad weather and change up the physical characteristics of the people. Lets say the life boat can carry 10 of the 20 people on your boat, the weather is terrible, and unless you put the 8 strongest/best at sailing/etc people on the life boat it will almost assuredly go down.

What if those 8 were paladins, and everyone on the boat is innocent and good? Do they condemn 10 people to die to save themselves and 2 others? Should they let 10 innocent people risk the sea, despite the fact that 20 people die then?

[Manly Man]

One thing that I've always loved about playing with folks who are exceptionally imaginative is that, when presented with two options that both lead to being ultimately evil acts, they either come up with a third option, or make one.

For example, I remember reading a /tg/ thread (please bear with me, it was actually pretty good) about having a good mind flayer, and the most likely class it would be for being good-aligned was a Paladin. They were presented with the problem of a baby tiefling that was going to be used in a ritual to summon an evil god, and was to choose between either killing the baby, or letting it live and allow the ritual to continue.

Staying in-character with how the crazy minds of most aberrations work, even the lawful ones, the mind flayer decided to set himself on fire and run into the room while the ritual was being performed, so as to disrupt it and then let the party dispatch the enemies while he put the fire out and escaped with the infant. The ritual was ruined (and I believe it was one of those 'when the planets align' sort of rituals), the baby was saved, and all's well that ends well.

That's the kind of role-playing I just love to see in most games, and I actually lean in their favor a little more than usual if they come up with such creative answers to what are otherwise lose-lose problems.

[AMFV]

Lets say the doctor - not being proud - tells the healthy twin of the possibility.

The healthy twin, after a bit of agonising, decides "I won't sacrifice my life to save his - my interest comes first".

Has he committed an evil act?

A minor evil act yes. At least by the definitions in the rules. I would say it's not major, certainly not egregious but it is evil as per the rules, provided of course that the sick twin is innocent of wrongdoing and deserves to live. Since Neutral people do not kill innocents and by inaction he is allowing him to die. Now as to whether I'd think it's right or wrong real world. I'm not going to address that, but suffice it to say that I would call it very minor.

[Amphetryon]

A Paladin on a battlefield is handed a Heavy Crossbow, that's been enchanted with True Strike, by his CO, and is ordered to shoot an unarmored Longbow user who appears to be drawing a bead on the Paladin. If he shoots, he will be committing murder and placing his own life over that of another person - posited as an Evil act. If he does not shoot, he may be guilty of needless Self Sacrifice (nothing says the Longbow is as likely to hit as the enchanted Heavy Crossbow) as well as directly ignoring a direct order (though previous arguments about the validity of any such order apply).

Please describe the Paladin's legitimate response that does not contradict currently established metrics on Good/Evil and prevents the Paladin from Falling.

[Jacob.Tyr]

A minor evil act yes. At least by the definitions in the rules. I would say it's not major, certainly not egregious but it is evil as per the rules, provided of course that the sick twin is innocent of wrongdoing and deserves to live. Since Neutral people do not kill innocents and by inaction he is allowing him to die. Now as to whether I'd think it's right or wrong real world. I'm not going to address that, but suffice it to say that I would call it very minor.

I would say the doctor has committed and evil act by presenting this situation, and that not willingly killing yourself to save someone else is definitely neutral. As per above

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Yeah, neutral people have commitments to others via personal relationships. But I would argue that this often precludes making "sacrifices to protect or help others" and I'm pretty sure RAW is on my side.