Moral quandry

[Pinjata]

This one is hard, because it is so irrelvant in a setting, where people are besieged by orcs/demons/undead, but as it turned out, players are oblivious to that and have again fished out something that is supposed to make setting "just a tad lively-er".

There is a village in which there is a poor family of a single father and three kids aged 16, 9 and 7. Father is a drunk, more or less coming home only here and then, basically a beggar that does not share his spoils with the family. Kids are getting some education in a local temple and irregular meals in temple kitchen, but are often starving. Local cleric (no magical powers) wants to help the kids, but villagers push him away, stating "they take care of their own". Which - they do not. Eventually oldest girl gets pregnant, has a child, who dies at birth. No one knows how the child died (none of the villagers "noticed" the pregnancy), but it is obvious the entire village has failed the children and the family.

Then PCs popped up in the village and prodded this story (girl was still arrested by village Sheriff due to suspicions of possible faul play regarding newborn. Much medieval "detective work" was had). As they engaged the Cleric, he was spitting verbal hellfire upon the villagers and this produced a major argument between the PCs (one of them being Paladin of Pelor) regarding what to do.

So, playground - what should the party do? The thing is, this is low-magic and low-funds setting. Adventurers are not really rich, even if great combatants. They can not just pour gold into this household. As for potential punishment ... Well, what is your take on this?

thanks

[goto124]

Er...

what's the code of the Paladin of Pelor?

[Jornophelanthas]

Are you the DM here?

If so, there is nothing the players "should" do from your point of view, because you don't take their decisions for them.

All that matters is whether their actions have any consequences, most notably on their alignments and the paladin's code of conduct. Some example guidelines (adjust for your own use as you see fit):
- Simply walking away is a very neutral act that should count against a good alignment. It is also very likely a breach of the paladin's code. This also applies if the players try to help, fail, and give up leaving matters the same or worse than before.
- Doing anything to improve the children's situation with some degree of success before leaving will be in line with good alignment and the paladin's code. This does not have to be a big thing, but it should leave the children with at least a little more hope for the future, and not in immediate danger or distress. It could be a minor nudge towards good (or neutral) alignment for neutral (or evil) characters.
- The players attempting to benefit (materially) from the situation is a neutral act. It would probably not interfere with true altruistic behaviour by other players.
- The players attempting to benefit from the situation at the expense of the children is an evil act, and an obvious breach of the paladin's code.
- The players dealing out overly severe punishments to the villagers (e.g. killing, mutilating, burning houses) quickly degrades into an evil act, and an obvious breach of the paladin's code.
- Taking matters into their own hands also runs the risk of being a chaotic act (and should count against lawful alignments) if they go against the laws of the land (e.g attacking villagers in the street with little to no provocation, breaking the girl out of jail, significant property damage to the sheriff's office).
(But it is a different matter if the local sheriff is bigoted or corrupt; this could turn such actions neutral - and removing a corrupt official from power can even be a lawful act on its own.)

You seem to be worried that the players have little wealth to share, but doing good (if that is indeed what they want to do), does not have to cost money. They could also confront others (e.g. the drunk father, the uncaring sheriff, other selfish villagers, the baby's father whom they need to identify first, or even the well-meaning but possibly spineless cleric) to coerce them to do more for the children. Paladins tend to negotiate through force and inspiration, after all. They are warriors first, healers a distant second, and diplomats an even more distant third. And throwing money at a problem so that it will go away is a bit of a ham-fisted way to solve a roleplaying problem, anyway.

[Pinjata]

Basically, I do not want to mess up. As we finished the session, there was a vivid discussion between dumping the looted cash to the poor family, skewering the priest and smashing some heads in over the village to "make a point".

Thanks for in-depth analysis!

[Comet]

Just relax and let the group squirm and suffer with indecision, that's what moral quandries are for

[Jornophelanthas]

Yes, whatever you do, do not tell the players what to do.

(Although giving the paladin an "Are you sure you're going to (let them) do that?" warning if something is against his code would be fair, especially if this player is relatively inexperienced.)

[Segev]

Well, the first thing to do is to find where the infant corpse is buried, and desecrate the ground. Then desecrate the house these kids live in. The party necromancer should take the eldest daughter as an apprentice, and wait for the other kids to die of starvation.

Hopefully at least one (if not all three) of the now-dead kids will rise as slaymates (given how they died from such gross betrayals from their guardians), which the necromancer can command undead into being his friends. Convince the apprentice and her family to travel with the party.

Now the apprentice-girl and the party necromancer can prepare spells with up to 3 levels of metamagic for free, at least in their chosen school. The kids are better off, even as undead, suffering no more pain and hunger, and they are far more valued and, if your necromancer is smart, better treated than they were in life. And they're with their big sister, who is a valued asset and addition to the party. As the necromancer's apprentice, she, too, is much better fed than before. And will be able to care for herself when her training is done!

[Aletheides]

If I were one of the PCs, I'd start with the most immediate problem, and go from there: Help find out the truth behind the dead baby. Who was the father, and why hasn't he stepped up to help the would-be mother of his child? Was there foul play, or a tragedy stemming from bad living conditions? From there, the group could move on to finding out WHY things in that family are the way they are, and see if there's any way they can help...or not help, as the situation warrants.

If no answers are forthcoming...well, a paladin shouldn't be okay with a possibly-innocent person suffering if there's no proof she did anything wrong. Letting a guilty person go free is bad, but punishing an innocent person is worse.

In closing, can I mention that I'm a horrible, horrible person for laughing the first time I read this? The setting is so dirtygrimdark, that I envisioned some shabby, dirt-encrusted dude wheeling a cart through the village, calling, "Bring out yer deeead!! Bring out yer deeeead!!"

[OldTrees1]

Often in situations like this there are degrees of "ought". This is quite important since Paladins strive to preform the morally superogatory over the morally permissible when possible.

Issues to address: (in no order)
1) The dead baby's cause of death
2) The sheriff's treatment of the girl
3) The village's treatment of the children
4) The father's treatment of the children

The group was uninvolved prior and exist in a world with more problems than they can solve. Thus it is morally permissible for them to pass this issue over in order to pursue another issue. This is the lowest standard the party could hold themselves to.

The highest standard they could hold themselves to is implementing a perfect solution to these 4 problems. With a minute of thought it sounds like an example would be to enact justice in the case of the dead baby (after discovering the cause and wisely identifying what would be just) instead of the sheriff and to convince the village to accept the priest's kindness.


If I were playing a Paladin in this situation, I would
1) Convince the sheriff that, as a Paladin with access to the advantages a higher level party has, I would be an ideal judge and investigator with respect to the dead baby. As such I would request the case, including the suspect, be transferred to my care.
2) Then I would talk with the girl, the family, and inspect the body with the rest of the party. Together we would find out the cause of death and why that cause occurred.
3) Then, having the facts in hand, I would either clear the girl or decide on a suitable atonement.
4) Then leveraging this case (either way is evidence), I would argue that the girl and her family should have the Cleric as a guardian. If the girl was innocent, then the girl needs the village & the cleric as guardians. If the girl was guilty, then the atonement would be best served under the cleric.

[Quertus]

This one is hard, because it is so irrelvant in a setting, where people are besieged by orcs/demons/undead, but as it turned out, players are oblivious to that and have again fished out something that is supposed to make setting "just a tad lively-er".

There is a village in which there is a poor family of a single father and three kids aged 16, 9 and 7. Father is a drunk, more or less coming home only here and then, basically a beggar that does not share his spoils with the family. Kids are getting some education in a local temple and irregular meals in temple kitchen, but are often starving. Local cleric (no magical powers) wants to help the kids, but villagers push him away, stating "they take care of their own". Which - they do not. Eventually oldest girl gets pregnant, has a child, who dies at birth. No one knows how the child died (none of the villagers "noticed" the pregnancy), but it is obvious the entire village has failed the children and the family.

Then PCs popped up in the village and prodded this story (girl was still arrested by village Sheriff due to suspicions of possible faul play regarding newborn. Much medieval "detective work" was had). As they engaged the Cleric, he was spitting verbal hellfire upon the villagers and this produced a major argument between the PCs (one of them being Paladin of Pelor) regarding what to do.

So, playground - what should the party do? The thing is, this is low-magic and low-funds setting. Adventurers are not really rich, even if great combatants. They can not just pour gold into this household. As for potential punishment ... Well, what is your take on this?

thanks

A few random thoughts I haven't seen in this thread...

If the sheriff is feeding the girl well, then she is better off in jail.

If the child was not the product of a consensual union, then the girl is better off in jail... unless the sheriff is the father.

If the child is the result of the girl trading sex for food... then the party has to decide how they feel about that... and realize that her younger siblings likely aren't in a position to pick up the slack while she is in jail.

If the girl was doing anything to get food, her younger siblings likely aren't in a position to pick up the slack while she is in jail.

Thus, my first action would likely be to investigate the girl's treatment / captor; my second would be to ensure her siblings are taken care of. Perhaps I would hire them on for coppers, or for create food and water, to run errands, while teaching them wilderness lore and interrogating... I mean, while talking to them about the situation.

If there is any evidence that someone would be willing to silence the girl, then someone (or ones) would need to be posted at the jail at all times.

Perhaps the most curious quandary is what to do if the child was the priest's.

[veti]

I'm a bit confused about the standing of the local cleric. It seems his priorities are in the right place, but he can't do anything about it. Why not?

He's apparently an outsider ("not one of their own"), and has no magical powers... what exactly does he do? What benefit does he provide to the community?

Whatever it is, I'd suggest he just stop doing it until the villagers agree to pick up the slack in their system and actually follow through on this "looking after their own" schtick.

If he doesn't actually do anything for them - then his negotiating position is that much weaker, but on the other hand, he can just up sticks and walk away without consequences. If the prospect of that doesn't worry the villagers at all, then he should announce that he's asking his bishop to send a (select bloodthirsty disciplinarian order) cleric here for a spell.

Incidentally, this kind of situation is exactly why the paladin's prime stat is supposed to be CHA. He should be able to hector and harangue the villagers into such a state of cowed shame that they voluntarily agree to mend their ways, live better thereafter, and the pub will henceforth serve nothing stronger than goat's milk...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Unless there's a mechanical reason to make a decision about how the alignment of their actions reads, don't overthink this. The whole situation is such an unreadable shade of gray that I probably wouldn't trigger any alignment contingent mechanic even if one of the players does have one unless they were really swinging for the fences, i.e. someone just decides to murder everyone and raze the villiage.

[Pinjata]

Holy heck, a lot of answers. And detailed ones! The next session is still a few days away, but I'll answer a few questions asked by people here.

In closing, can I mention that I'm a horrible, horrible person for laughing the first time I read this? The setting is so dirtygrimdark, that I envisioned some shabby, dirt-encrusted dude wheeling a cart through the village, calling, "Bring out yer deeead!! Bring out yer deeeead!!"

Its a true story from ireland in 80' except temple kitchen = social support and temple school = ordinary school.

I'm a bit confused about the standing of the local cleric. It seems his priorities are in the right place, but he can't do anything about it. Why not?

He's apparently an outsider ("not one of their own"), and has no magical powers... what exactly does he do? What benefit does he provide to the community?

He was sent here by church of Mouqol (lesser god of trade, negotiation, ventures, appraisal and reciprocity). Sort of took over the emty temple as previous priest of Heironeus died. Guy leads the weekly masses, but that's about it. He is forbidden to "stir things too much" in the village or he'll be recalled. Village is a very very remote trading stop and thus clergy of Mouqol took the religious part over.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Assuming the "oldest girl" is the 16 year old, maybe she solves the dilema by deciding to leave the village (possibly she thinks the PCs are glamorous and exciting, or she's had enough of her father and circumstances have opened her eyes to it, or she wants to leave so as not to be reminded every single day about her dead baby). So the PCs could have to escort her and her siblings to the nearest town - she's almost certainly old enough to work in a tavern and earn some money for all three of them, or maybe all three could enter domestic service for some noble family.

Perhaps the events give their father the kick he needs to sober up, or the rest of the village take action, possibly pushed by the PCs.

But short of one of the PCs marrying their father, or adopting the children, I don't see what other actions they could take themselves. Dumping money onto the family would probably wind up with the father squandering the money and possibly drinking himself to death, or making the rest of the village jealous of them.

[Kyberwulf]

There isn't any grey in this. The PCs are not under any Moral Obligation to do anything. They are neither elected nor appointed by an official power to do anything. Sticking their nose into any situation is a bad course of action with willing to commit to seeing it through to the end is also Morally wrong.

[Segev]

But short of one of the PCs marrying their father, or adopting the children, I don't see what other actions they could take themselves. Dumping money onto the family would probably wind up with the father squandering the money and possibly drinking himself to death, or making the rest of the village jealous of them.

They don't have to adopt the kids or take on a parental role; they could instead take them on as apprentices. Especially the 16-year-old; she's actually a little old for it.

But necromancers have a lot of time ahead of them, so that's not too big of a deal, and slaymates don't require upkeep.

[OldTrees1]

There isn't any grey in this. The PCs are not under any Moral Obligation to do anything. They are neither elected nor appointed by an official power to do anything. Sticking their nose into any situation is a bad course of action with willing to commit to seeing it through to the end is also Morally wrong.

Huh? So in this thread we have at least 3 drastically opposed perspectives.
It is morally permissible thru morally superogatory (my stance)
It is morally impermissible thru morally superogatory (unreadable shade of gray)
It is morally impermissible (your stance)

My stance also presumed the PCs were not under any moral obligation to do anything, however I saw a perfect solution reached through diplomacy to be morally superogative path.

I presume from your phrasing that the reason you consider it morally impermissible is that the PCs don't have any justified authority. Thus forcing an outcome would be morally impermissible because it would be unjustified authority. If I am correct, would you expand on your position and also touch on non force options? If I am incorrect about what your position is, would you please correct me.

[Jornophelanthas]

There isn't any grey in this. The PCs are not under any Moral Obligation to do anything. They are neither elected nor appointed by an official power to do anything. Sticking their nose into any situation is a bad course of action with willing to commit to seeing it through to the end is also Morally wrong.

This is only true as long as lawful neutral is the only possible moral stance.
And it is not, because there is a paladin in the party.

[Quertus]

Its a true story from ireland in 80' except temple kitchen = social support and temple school = ordinary school.

Yeah, I was afraid it was something like that. Which makes me even sadder for my next response.

There isn't any grey in this. The PCs are not under any Moral Obligation to do anything. They are neither elected nor appointed by an official power to do anything. Sticking their nose into any situation is a bad course of action with willing to commit to seeing it through to the end is also Morally wrong.

Huh? So in this thread we have at least 3 drastically opposed perspectives.
It is morally permissible thru morally superogatory (my stance)
It is morally impermissible thru morally superogatory (unreadable shade of gray)
It is morally impermissible (your stance)

My stance also presumed the PCs were not under any moral obligation to do anything, however I saw a perfect solution reached through diplomacy to be morally superogative path.

I presume from your phrasing that the reason you consider it morally impermissible is that the PCs don't have any justified authority. Thus forcing an outcome would be morally impermissible because it would be unjustified authority. If I am correct, would you expand on your position and also touch on non force options? If I am incorrect about what your position is, would you please correct me.

Honestly, contrary to my previous post, if I ignored the "we're the PCs, it's the plot, we're supposed to do something" impetus, and roleplayed my characters correctly, many of them would take this non-interference stance.

We have no official authority here. Those with official authority over the matter are already looking into it. There is nothing more for us to do here.

In fact, for us to take any action is to undermine the the official authorities, and to make it more difficult for them to resolve this matter.

So, barring evidence of gross incompetence or malice on the part of those with official authority / the mandate of heaven, there is a moral obligation to not get involved.

Is how many of my characters would look at it.

[Segev]

We have no official authority here. Those with official authority over the matter are already looking into it. There is nothing more for us to do here.

In fact, for us to take any action is to undermine the the official authorities, and to make it more difficult for them to resolve this matter.

So, barring evidence of gross incompetence or malice on the part of those with official authority / the mandate of heaven, there is a moral obligation to not get involved.

Is how many of my characters would look at it.

That...sounds contradictory to how the story was presented in the first place. Initially, it was presented as "the authorities are stonewalling any effort by the priest or others to help" and "the town is unreasonably dedicated to keeping those kids in squalor." There was no indication of authorities who were willing and able to do anything to help them; in fact, the one authority figure (the priest) who sort-of tried got told off of it by more direct figures in power in the town and was ordered by his distant superiors not to make waves and to leave it be.

At least, that's what you seem to have presented in the initial tale, to me. I may be misreading something in it. But it certainly didn't sound like "the authorities were investigating" nor like there was anything the PCs' intervention would "undermine" that was in any way desirable to leave to its own devices.

[goto124]

For the sake of discussing the topic, we could assume the moral quandry presented is the entire premise of the campaign. Meaning the players have to deal with the issue somehow.

[veti]

He was sent here by church of Mouqol (lesser god of trade, negotiation, ventures, appraisal and reciprocity). Sort of took over the emty temple as previous priest of Heironeus died. Guy leads the weekly masses, but that's about it. He is forbidden to "stir things too much" in the village or he'll be recalled. Village is a very very remote trading stop and thus clergy of Mouqol took the religious part over.

He's a priest of a god of negotiation? Holy heck, if he can't figure out how to change at least some people's minds then he should be in another line of business. Right now it sounds like he's not really trying.

For instance, he could offer services such as adjudicating trade disputes, appraising goods, auditing and certifying tradespeople who want to do business beyond the local community... Services like that would be valuable, and would give him some actual standing in the village. Then he'd be in a position to throw his weight around a bit more when this kind of ugliness comes up.

In the meantime... if I were in the PCs' position, the outcome I'd aim for would be something like this:

• The three kids get to live together in their own home. The eldest does whatever work she can, but the rest of the community - directly or via the church - expects to be funding some support for them for the foreseeable future.
• The father may or may not continue to live there. Let the kids make that call.

And I would enforce these rules using the only means I have: intimidation. Put a blessing on the house. Put an anonymous, and vague, curse on the anonymous father of the child - something bad will happen to him before too long anyway, so let's take credit for it. Tell everyone loudly that we'll be back, and if we don't like what we find, we will come loaded and ready to smite.

Then, without advertising the fact, ask the priest to write a letter occasionally. Say, once a week at first, trailing off to monthly or quarterly when things have settled down. Use these as a guide for when to revisit the dump and put on a show of being spookily omniscient. Basically, put the Fear of PCs into these hicks.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

How do I say "Yeah, that" without saying "Yeah, that"?

The only change to that I think of would be for the party to operate out of the village for a period of time, say a month, to make sure people are doing the right things.

[Kyberwulf]

You only have authority if people give you authority. The people have spoken, he has none. This coupled with the fact. If the priest wants any respect. He as an outsider, can't allow other outsiders in to distribute justice. He will have to get in their and get his hands dirty. Now, even with a Paladin in the party. Despite what he wants to do. He has to respect the law. As crappy as it is, and he would have to bite at his bit. The father is not actively hurting his kids. He is Neglectful for sure. However, in this time period, or rather the time period this is suppose to reflect. Life was cheap. These kind of stories happened all the time. All over the place. What are the PCs suppose to do, go from town to town saving all the children from crap dads? This would quickly turn into Social Services & Government Officials. They would have to go from town to town taking kids away from parents they deem unworthy.

Now on the subject of trying to Paladin the situation.
Not knowing in of the local laws or customs. He doesn't have any legs to stand on. Like I said. The father is a loser. But they are his kids and nobody really has a thing to say about it. Unless this government has some form of Social Service where this case can be reported. He can try to appeal to the community. They however seem fine with the situation.. or will be until all the outsiders stop trying to interfere. Which most small communities will do. This is the biggest problem for the Paladin. He would have to change their minds about the way they accept things. This would be the hardest and longest thing to do. Again, not knowing the laws. He can't get after the Sheriff. He could be just as tied as the Priest and the Paladin about the situation. The father could be well inside the law. He seems okay, he took the death of the infant serious. Being a Paladin doesn't give you Carte Blance. He can't go inside any given situation and just mow down offenders to his moralities. He has rules to follow. Going around and making people do what he things is right, isn't a part of his alignment. That is a tenant of Chaotic good.

The most the Paladin can do. Is go around, talk to people. Try talk some sense into them. Write to whatever proper Authorities there are and hope for the best. They pray and hope for the best, and that everything will work out in the end. Because that is ALSO a precept of Paladinhood. Faith. He would have to have faith in people.

[endur]

The one comment I would add.

Depending on the country and the authority in this kingdom, it is possible that Paladins have special authority. It is possible that the ruler has essentially declared all Paladins (or paladins from a particular knightly order) to be the equivalent of Marshals in the country (or the equivalent of Judge Dredd). In this situation, the paladin character might have authority and responsibility to act.

[Segev]

Error: Paladins have no obligation, inherently, to respect local law. They have to maintain a Lawful alignment, but this is not necessarily the same thing. They must adhere to a code of conduct, and they must be reliable and steadfast, and they generally should be men of their word with attention to detail of meaning both overt and implied (but they can actually use connotation over denotation if it makes the difference between a Good and not-Good act; they're not LN).

A Paladin absolutely could declare the whole town worthy of condemnation for their willful mistreatment of these children, and act accordingly to rectify the situation. Even going so far as to impose his own law and leadership, if he felt it warranted. He would have to be consistent and Lawful about how he enforced his edicts, but he absolutely could do so.



I still think the best solution is to take measures to ensure that the kids rise as Slaymates after the betrayal by the guardians (the townsfolk and their father) leads to their demise, and take the oldest daughter as an apprentice to the party Necromancer. Because Slaymates are awesome and Leadership is also pretty darned cool.

[OldTrees1]

Error: Paladins have no obligation, inherently, to respect local law. They have to maintain a Lawful alignment, but this is not necessarily the same thing. They must adhere to a code of conduct, and they must be reliable and steadfast, and they generally should be men of their word with attention to detail of meaning both overt and implied (but they can actually use connotation over denotation if it makes the difference between a Good and not-Good act; they're not LN).

Error: D&D has 3 alignment axes (2 L-C axes). Someone using the other L-C axis is not an error.

However this does not detract from your conclusion. Even in the Laws L-C axis, local law can be trumped.

[Kyberwulf]

Dude that sound like Lawful Evil.
Taking peoples choice. Their free will.

[Segev]

Dude that sound like Lawful Evil.
Taking peoples choice. Their free will.

Taking away their choice to abuse and harm innocents? No, that's Good in general. Heck, even Chaotic Good will do it.

[Pyrous]

Taking away their choice to abuse and harm innocents? No, that's Good in general. Heck, even Chaotic Good will do it.

Especially Chaotic Good, because the villagers are claiming tradition.