Would A Paladin Deny Food to an Army?

[Palanan]

In this situation, a foreign army has invaded, besieged and captured a small city, and the extended siege has left the army extremely low on provisions.

They are now marching cross-country with the intention of reaching another city, and along the way they are taking whatever food they can find from farmsteads and small towns. At this point they are perilously close to starvation. They have few clerics and cannot feed their numbers with magic. The countryside is already hunted out and there is no game.

The army’s scouts have located a granary which the surrounding countryside relies on as a fallback, and which will be vital for local folk to survive the coming winter—especially given the army’s depredations. To make things worse, the army of the defending realm is burning fields ahead of the invaders to deny them the current harvest.

The paladin knows that most of the invading force is made up of archers and men-at-arms who are simply following their lords’ commands, and apart from taking food they have conducted themselves with restraint.

The paladin owes no allegiance to any of the principals in the conflict, only his own conscience. In this situation, would he destroy the granary, knowing it would mean the starvation and slaughter of thousands of men who are honorably obeying their oaths? Or would he allow them to take it, knowing it might doom many of the local peasantry to starvation in the coming winter? Or would he feel compelled to find some other approach—and if so, what might that be?

[Bacon Elemental]

The paladin owes no allegiance to any of the principals in the conflict, only his own conscience. In this situation, would he destroy the granary, knowing it would mean the starvation and slaughter of thousands of men who are honorably obeying their oaths? Or would he allow them to take it, knowing it might doom many of the local peasantry to starvation in the coming winter? Or would he feel compelled to find some other approach—and if so, what might that be?

I feel the situation is kind of set up confusingly. Surely if the Paladin destroys the granary the peasants will starve anyway?

[Psyren]

He should ask his Phylactery of Faithfulness

Kidding aside, am I missing something? If letting them take the granary would doom the civilians to starvation, surely destroying it would do the same thing? That would make destruction even worse as now he is condemning two groups to starve instead of one.

Seems to me there's a third option here - facilitate negotiations between the army and the citizens to share some of their stockpiled food, and defend it from being confiscated or raided. That would save as many lives as possible on both sides. And while doing so, subtly influence the army (or more aptly, its officers) toward moral rectitude.

I feel the situation is kind of set up confusingly. Surely if the Paladin destroys the granary the peasants will starve anyway?

^Ninja'd

[OldTrees1]

Different Paladins will have different answers.


For example one Paladin might nonlethally prevent the locals from getting in harms way defending the granary. If the locals are willing to stay out of danger, then the Paladin's second object would be negotiating with the army to leave some food for the locals. Then, after the immediate danger is gone, the Paladin would take it upon themselves to help replenish the local food supply.

However another Paladin would take the impossible task of fighting to defend the granary and dissuade the army. They will die, but they believe in the impossible dream and thus would "be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause".

Both types of Paladin are needed at different times. The second will try the impossible because the possible is not good enough. The first will try to make the best of the situation at hand. Together, in great enough numbers, they can make the impossible dream possible.

[Lord Raziere]

This is a grey area thing that could depend on a lot things:

1. which edition? this could determine a lot, because 5e Paladins can be much more flexible with their morality than 3.5

2. the paladin sounds like they value an invading parties lives a lot to be concerned for them even while they are being the aggressor. commendable, but that doesn't mean that the peasants deserve to be raided and starve, now don't they? all things considered if this conflict has no cosmic stuff involved, those invaders kind of deserve to starve and die. if you really want to save the invaders lives, you got to convince them to give up the fight. while holding to an oath is fine, the lord they are obeying has a responsibility to their army in turn and if that lord insists on keeping up the fight, despite the cost in lives which doesn't seem to be worth it, given that its a small city? thats irresponsible. one should at least convince them to go find a town they can take quickly and with less bloodshed rather than insist on the long siege that will prove costly to both sides. sometimes a smaller less costly victory is better than a costly big one, for everyone involved. the small city clearly has a tactical advantage and outplayed the invaders, having scorched earth their way here, so....the counter move is not to siege it, those invaders should go different way to begin with, don't strike where your enemy is strong and all that. I'm sorry but that lord is strategically/logistically incompetent. you can inform the lord of their mistake and recommend they try to fall back or go somewhere else for more supplies but if they don't listen, thats the commanding lords fault, not the paladins, and I would not ping the paladin's alignment for failing to convince that lord then riding away.

[Anymage]

Using paladin falls as if they're somehow an absolute answer to tricky moral dilemmas is presupposing that there is one right answer to trolley style problems. Is it right to cause a significant portion of an invading army as well as your own citizens to starve to death, to save the population of a large city from facing the full privations of war and siege? That's a sticky moral wicket even without putting someone's class features on the line if they misjudge the DM's way of thinking.

As an in-game question, it ultimately depends on the nature of cosmological goodness that empowers paladins. (Never minding that paladins haven't been chained to being LG for two editions now.) As Psyren said, ask the Phylactery of Faithfulness if one exists, since again the question presupposes that there is a right answer and that someone who understands that universe's natural laws can understand how the moral laws of said universe works as well. Alternately, if the paladin absolutely must, it's easier to try skating by on the fact that other people's behavior as the result of your inaction should not render you personally culpable, and lawyer out doing nothing on the grounds that inaction is by definition not taking an action, and is therefore not an evil action.

If the universe is like ours and runs off of shades of gray instead of clear-cut moral answers, introspection and trying to weigh the consequences of said action is likely to count a lot more for the paladin keeping their good guy status than blindly sticking to a presupposed set of rules.

[tyckspoon]

The army’s scouts have located a granary which the surrounding countryside relies on as a fallback, and which will be vital for local folk to survive the coming winter—especially given the army’s depredations. To make things worse, the army of the defending realm is burning fields ahead of the invaders to deny them the current harvest.

...
The paladin owes no allegiance to any of the principals in the conflict, only his own conscience. In this situation, would he destroy the granary, knowing it would mean the starvation and slaughter of thousands of men who are honorably obeying their oaths? Or would he allow them to take it, knowing it might doom many of the local peasantry to starvation in the coming winter? Or would he feel compelled to find some other approach—and if so, what might that be?

Gather whatever local labor force hasn't already fled the approaching army, empty out the granary, and lead the locals in retreat to the next defensible position. The defending population keeps their food and is ready to wait it out if the invaders are dumb enough to try to siege again. (The defending army/the local leaders of whatever population uses this granary for food storage should have already done this, really, as part of the 'scorch the fields and leave the invaders nothing to scavenge' plan.) The invaders, having already exhausted themselves, should realize they do not have the supplies to continue this campaign and give up and go home. Depending on how dumb/stubborn/evil their commanders are a good portion of the invading army may die because of this, but the Paladin is not responsible for their actions. If they don't want to starve to death while marching back home, they can surrender and place themselves at the mercy of their enemies to supply them as prisoners or try to negotiate for enough supplies to leave safely.

.. I want to emphasize this, because I think it's a misunderstanding at the heart of a lot of these 'What would a Paladin do' dilemmas: The Paladin is not responsible for anybody else's actions. He may seek to do whatever he reasonably believes will result in the most good, or failing that cause the least harm, but he is not responsible for the results of somebody else's decisions - the closest he will come is advocating for whatever he believes the best choice is.

The Paladin, in this case, does not bear responsibility for the invading army. They chose to invade. They chose to engage in a siege without having proper supply lines or carrying sufficient supplies with them. And, having exhausted their supplies in a poorly planned siege, they chose to try to continue their campaign. They are now experiencing the natural and inevitable result of this series of bad decisions, and it will probably result in the death of a number of their troops. This is regrettable, and it would be quite natural for a Paladin to feel guilt over not being able to do anything about it.. but the Paladin has no obligation to rescue the invading army from their own poor decisions, especially not coming at the cost of people who aren't an invading army.

[jayem]

In this situation, a foreign army has invaded, besieged and captured a small city, and the extended siege has left the army extremely low on provisions.

They are now marching cross-country with the intention of reaching another city, and along the way they are taking whatever food they can find from farmsteads and small towns. At this point they are perilously close to starvation. They have few clerics and cannot feed their numbers with magic. The countryside is already hunted out and there is no game.

The army’s scouts have located a granary which the surrounding countryside relies on as a fallback, and which will be vital for local folk to survive the coming winter—especially given the army’s depredations. To make things worse, the army of the defending realm is burning fields ahead of the invaders to deny them the current harvest.

The paladin knows that most of the invading force is made up of archers and men-at-arms who are simply following their lordsÂ’ commands, and apart from taking food they have conducted themselves with restraint.

The paladin owes no allegiance to any of the principals in the conflict, only his own conscience. In this situation, would he destroy the granary, knowing it would mean the starvation and slaughter of thousands of men who are honorably obeying their oaths? Or would he allow them to take it, knowing it might doom many of the local peasantry to starvation in the coming winter? Or would he feel compelled to find some other approach—and if so, what might that be?

Obviously it depends on the game, players and GM. I think you could argue lots of things, and if they are sincere...

However...
The way it's set up, it looks like destroying the granary is also dooming the peasantry to starvation. Which is also I think objectively bad, especially if the Paladin has no allegience.
You could argue it's better that the local peasantry die, if it means the wider war stops, but at the least finding some way to preserve the food for the locals seems better than that, if possible.
If that's the thinking staying out the way, might be a legitimate option, or alternatively deciding that the invader is 'wrong' and should suffer at your hands directly.

I do recall a story that might suggest a target for an over the top do-gooder (the original example is alongside more problematic moments, but if you take it in isolation, it's ridiculously pious):
Capture the army, then when the defenders plan to extract revenge while they are vulnerable tell them that's wrong and make them feed the surrendered enemies before returning them home.

From my point of view this "everyone lives" is the more interesting approach than "justice is done", so carrying on with variants of that...

Could you leave a cookie trail back to the invaders homeland (always just enough food to get to the next waypoint but not enough to turn round)? Ideally also finding some way to feed the peasantry.
Could you find some way to scare the invaders into realising they can't win (and so going home is the best option)
Could you claim the granary for yourself, and then find some way to force terms?
Could you have a 7 Samurai moment with the local peasantry (it's their food, not either kings to destroy)

[A whole army of Ninja's]

[Faily]

The Paladin should focus on the noncombatants/peasants first, imo, and see to that they have the food from the granaries and storages.

Apart from that though, I agree with Psyren that a good third option is to facilitate negotiations between the groups, to avoid starvation through the winter for as many as possible. As you said, the Paladin has no ties to either side in the conflict (in any way whatsoever I guess?), so they can take the side of reason and peace.

Seems to me there's a third option here - facilitate negotiations between the army and the citizens to share some of their stockpiled food, and defend it from being confiscated or raided. That would save as many lives as possible on both sides. And while doing so, subtly influence the army (or more aptly, its officers) toward moral rectitude.

Depending on their faith and culture, the answer might differ, but without knowing that I'd default to the Paladin being a champion of good and potentially a good mediator (due to having decent Charisma and Diplomacy).

[SpoonR]

A good paladin makes the army go somewhere else. Make enough of a threat that soldiers desert en masse or something.

A great paladin says “sorry, our granary is empty”, then when the army goes by gets the grain back out of his bags of holding.

Be Midshipman(?) Kirk and force a third option.

[Pauly]

What is the conduct of the invading army? It sounds like their conduct is deliberately designed to maximize civilian death. Are they also slaughtering innocents, stealing everything that isn’t nailed down and raping the womenfolk?

Is re-supplying the army allowing them to inflict more pain, misery and death on a greater group of civilians? Not just the ones who will face starvation if the granary is burnt down, but the ones in the next province.

Can the Paladin do a top level beheading of the command structure and allow the rank and file to return home?

[False God]

Could the paladin simply choose to "do nothing"?

Unless he can single-handedly fight off the army, that won't do him or anyone else much good. He'll cut down a few mooks before being pin-cushioned to death and then the Army will take the grain anyway. Rallying peasants to his side won't make much difference.

Some elaborate trick might work, but the Army is likely to investigate why the once-full silo is now empty, even with only a small scouting force, which could be killed but now there's the issue that the scouting force is missing. Considering the army is in dire need of food, this may be suspicious enough to just send in the troops anyway.
---He'd need to come up with some kind of convincing lie, a disease, a monster, something to get the army to not risk sending anyone in the direction of the Silo.
****Depending on your edition and your DM, such a lie may be a violation of being a paladin. Don't play with DM's who put paladins in these kinds of situations.

He could attempt diplomacy, reason with the army, but considering their current tactics, I think chances of success are slim, depends on the character and the DM really.

Attempting to feed the army in an effort to get them to pass by the silo is certainly an option, but may violate his code depending on the DM. But that paladin needs some deep pockets considering the army already has magical food supplies and it isn't enough. This would likely have to be paired with some diplomacy, to get the army to ignore the silo in exchange for the paladin's supplies.

[OldTrees1]

Could the paladin simply choose to "do nothing"?

Could the Paladin simply choose to "do nothing"? Including not helping the peasants replenish their food supply?

Yes, some Paladins feel the world is too dystopian and thus they have to ration their finite assistance. They might feel the time spent hunting food for these peasants might jeopardize hypothetical others they could be helping. They might conclude that helping in this case is too time intensive to risk it being less efficient than some need they discover tomorrow a day's journey away from the village.

I want to say that doing absolutely nothing is very rare behavior for a Paladin. However I don't know how common this particular type of Paladin PC is.

[Satinavian]

Could the Paladin simply choose to "do nothing"? Including not helping the peasants replenish their food supply?

Yes, some Paladins feel the world is too dystopian and thus they have to ration their finite assistance. They might feel the time spent hunting food for these peasants might jeopardize hypothetical others they could be helping. They might conclude that helping in this case is too time intensive to risk it being less efficient than some need they discover tomorrow a day's journey away from the village.

I want to say that doing absolutely nothing is very rare behavior for a Paladin. However I don't know how common this particular type of Paladin PC is.

Considering that "being paladin" does nothing to make him more able to provide food than any of those already starving peasants whose job literally is "making food", he is likely no help. If he stays, he and possibly his horse might even need more to eat than he himself can contribute.

What he could do is defending the granary. Which is also only an option for some ridicolously strong paladin or one that has enough political clout to give protection that way.

The other thing that people could try is hiding the grain. But... paladins are not particulerly good at that either and the peasents know the area and all possible hiding places. And NPCs should be smart enough to get this idea themself.


So yes, doing nothing and move on might be the best idea. Not because those peasants don't deserve help, but because his skillset is not useful for the problem and he would be more hindrance than help. He could give away his personal supplies before he moves on though.


But maybe in your group a character who likely has neither track nor survival can hunt enough in some completely overhunted area (as it is civilized and likely regularly used already and the invading army also hunts as much as they can and without thoughts about sustainability to make any kind of difference.

[Silly Name]

I fail to see why "destroying the granary" is an option considered in the OP. It benefits absolutely no one.

A Paladin would try, assuming no ill will towards the invading army, to negotiate a solution that leaves nobody starving. If that's impossible, she would likely choose to prioritise the peasants, such as by trying to make the army retreat by parleying with its leaders.

[a_flemish_guy]

there's also the option of having the army pay for their needed provisions, that way the peasants can import grain and fill up the granary again

[Mastikator]

Unless he can stop the army the locals who depend on the granary will die. If he destroys it that will kill the locals but their fate is sealed either way, but it may also kill the army which threatens many others. However if he does destroy the granary he may be seen as culpable for the deaths of the locals and so condemned for it. So the way the situation is set up: is a paladin willing to risk divine condemnation to save a civilization? Ideally? Yes. Practically? No.

[Chauncymancer]

all things considered if this conflict has no cosmic stuff involved, those invaders kind of deserve to starve and die.

I want to point out that, given that the soldiers in this army are either levied draftees or professional soldiers, for them to not invade this country on the command of the kingdom's generals would be, at the very least a Chaotic act, but possibly an Evil one. If a mercenary eats your provisions and then refuses to fight, that's theft.

Alternately, if the paladin absolutely must, it's easier to try skating by on the fact that other people's behavior as the result of your inaction should not render you personally culpable, and lawyer out doing nothing on the grounds that inaction is by definition not taking an action, and is therefore not an evil action.

Choosing to not take action is nevertheless a choice, and so ethically that doesn't get us anywhere.

there's also the option of having the army pay for their needed provisions, that way the peasants can import grain and fill up the granary again

I don't think this is a feasible solution in this situation. Importing seven hundred thousand pounds of grain into a war zone is pretty much a non-starter for a non-magical medieval society. The logistics involved would require one of the two armies to take over the project themselves, not just give the locals some inedible coins.

[Satinavian]

What is the conduct of the invading army? It sounds like their conduct is deliberately designed to maximize civilian death. Are they also slaughtering innocents, stealing everything that isn’t nailed down and raping the womenfolk?

Nope

The paladin knows that most of the invading force is made up of archers and men-at-arms who are simply following their lords’ commands, and apart from taking food they have conducted themselves with restraint.

Just soldiers foraging because they would starve otherwise. As per OP it was not even the original plan for the war, only something that happened when it dragged on longer than planned and longer than the supplies lasted. Even the commanders would have preferred to use their own stuff instead.

[False God]

Could the Paladin simply choose to "do nothing"? Including not helping the peasants replenish their food supply?

Yes, some Paladins feel the world is too dystopian and thus they have to ration their finite assistance. They might feel the time spent hunting food for these peasants might jeopardize hypothetical others they could be helping. They might conclude that helping in this case is too time intensive to risk it being less efficient than some need they discover tomorrow a day's journey away from the village.

I want to say that doing absolutely nothing is very rare behavior for a Paladin. However I don't know how common this particular type of Paladin PC is.

A paladin cannot rationally be obligated to help every person in need. No more than you or I could. And not because of a code of ethics, but simply because it is impractical. There are too many people and too few paladins. A paladin doesn't train to be a farmer, or a home-builder, or a ditch-digger, he might know how, and his sure strength could let him be helpful, but he is still one man. He's no more in a position to harvest grain than the peasants are in a position to fight off the army.

Which was more to the point of my original question and must of my response. Most of his options in this situation are beyond the ken of one man. He may want to help, but have no real avenues for doing so. Diplomacy would probably be his best option, but he's stuck between "Aggressive hungry people." and "weak hungry people". A good argument only goes so far against the power of an empty stomach. Of course this is D&D (or whatever) so it may really be possible for him to convince the army to just go away.

I dunno, it depends a lot on the DM.

[OldTrees1]

A paladin cannot rationally be obligated to help every person in need.

Agreed. Although I have not met a Paladin that cared about what they were obligated to do. I have only met Paladins that had opinions on how they should proceed with the morally supererogatory. Basically the Paladin chooses to demand more of themselves than they were obligated to do. That chosen additional demand of their selves varies from Paladin to Paladin.

There is plenty of distinction there between the most pessimistic (Do nothing, not even hand over rations and horsemeat) and the most optimistic(Fight the army even if they must do so alone).


On the resupply food front, I suspect the most practical answer is to ride to a nearby town with food and buy a lot. Then ride back to the first town. Handover the food, and the paladin's rations, and their horse for horsemeat (unless it is intelligent). Then either hunt (using martial training) if they can make a net improvement, or leave.

However my main point was "Yes, there are many responses different Paladins would have to this situation. The do absolutely nothing case is one of those responses."

You are right that it also depends on the DM. I recommend the DM and Paladin communicate if they are at risk of miscommunicating. Since Paladins can vary so dramatically, I also recommend the DM expect Paladins might vary.

[tyckspoon]

On the resupply food front, I suspect the most practical answer is to ride to a nearby town with food and buy a lot. Then ride back to the first town. Handover the food, and the paladin's rations, and their horse for horsemeat (unless it is intelligent). Then either hunt (using martial training) if they can make a net improvement, or leave.

In this case the granary is the 'town with food' - the defensive forces have opted to try to starve the attacking ones, and in doing so have eliminated most of the current food supply and caused both the attacking forces and the locals (who for some reason have not evacuated with their food in the face of an approaching enemy..) to overburden the natural resources of the area. The reserve food is now under threat. The smart thing to do would have been to evacuate that food plus the local populace when it became clear the enemy army was approaching, or possibly disburse it to the defending army if you must leave the locals to fend for themselves.. but Paladin Fall Dilemmas aren't created by people doing smart things, so instead we have a vital strategic resource apparently left both unused and unguarded.

I would throw in one more argument for the case of 'do nothing': The hypothetical Paladin doesn't actually have the authority to make this decision. He is not bound to either side; he is not a legal authority nor a military commander for either army. He does not have any right to determine what to do with their food supply beyond "I'm a Paladin and I say so." So a possible approach would be to locate whoever is actually in charge of the granary and/or the military operations in the area, make sure they are fully informed about the situation, and assist in executing whatever decision they make if it is compatible with the Paladin's morals.

[OldTrees1]

In this case the granary is the 'town with food' - the defensive forces have opted to try to starve the attacking ones, and in doing so have eliminated most of the current food supply and caused both the attacking forces and the locals (who for some reason have not evacuated with their food in the face of an approaching enemy..) to overburden the natural resources of the area. The reserve food is now under threat. The smart thing to do would have been to evacuate that food plus the local populace when it became clear the enemy army was approaching, or possibly disburse it to the defending army if you must leave the locals to fend for themselves.. but Paladin Fall Dilemmas aren't created by people doing smart things, so instead we have a vital strategic resource apparently left both unused and unguarded.

Context Disclaimer to avoid Miscommunication: Doing nothing is one of the valid responses I expect some Paladins to do.


I believe you are assuming more than the opening post specified. That is fine but if I have different assumptions I will reach different conclusions.

It is established the army is marching from city A to city B. The Paladin has no obligation to limit themselves to the army's path nor limit themselves to the army's deadlines. The Paladin could travel perpendicular to the armies path and find a town that is infeasible for the army to reach but is feasible for a single Paladin to reach.

Imagine there is a town where the detour costs the army 50 food but they can only take 30 food, but the detour only costs the Paladin 2 food and they can purchase/request 10 food. The Paladin could net 8 food for the town but the army would lose 20 food to deny the resource. If the situation is something like this then the Paladin could help some of the peasants survive.

The granary is the town's food. It is not the only town with food. A single rider can travel further on fewer rations than an army can march.

[Pauly]

I fail to see why "destroying the granary" is an option considered in the OP. It benefits absolutely no one.
.

It benefits those citizens of the invaded country who haven’t been attacked by the invaders. The OP clearly states the invading army is heading to besiege a small city, which has considerably more people than the local peasants who need the food.

The local peasants are doomed without some kind of intervention. The invading army takes all the grain and the peasants starve. The invading army is already stealing all the food along its line of march and condemning the local peasantry to starvation.

The option of burning the granary doesn’t undoom the local peasants, but it will undoom the small city the army is marching to.

[Psyren]

It benefits those citizens of the invaded country who haven’t been attacked by the invaders. The OP clearly states the invading army is heading to besiege a small city, which has considerably more people than the local peasants who need the food.

The local peasants are doomed without some kind of intervention. The invading army takes all the grain and the peasants starve. The invading army is already stealing all the food along its line of march and condemning the local peasantry to starvation.

The option of burning the granary doesn’t undoom the local peasants, but it will undoom the small city the army is marching to.

Definitely dooming a bunch of coerced soldiers and a bunch of definitely-innocent civilians in order to hypothetically protect a future set of civilians does not seem like the best course of action in this situation.

[incrediblefrown]

If I were playing a character whose motivation is "I have to save as many lives as possible", and I felt compelled to intervene here somehow, then the play is to get the attacking army to give up on what has very obviously turned out to be a death march. The ideal solution is to convince the attacking leadership to negotiate terms of surrender that allows their troops to return home. (Which they'll probably need food for, since they're out and they've been travelling *further* away.)

This is probably a pretty hard sell for multiple reasons, though; this situation wouldn't exist if someone at the top wasn't letting pride or desperation cloud their better judgment, and since they're in no position to start a second siege even if they made it to their destination they're not in a good position to negotiate; but they might be able to swing it, since it's in the defenders' interest for the attackers to turn around and leave, rather than collapse on the spot and become a gigantic bandit problem.

If the attackers aren't receptive to the idea, you could try talking to the middle management among the rank and file and see about inciting a mutiny, which is a funny sentence to say about a hypothetical paladin, but if they're united enough in refusal to die pointlessly they could probably take the existing leadership captive, rather than coming to blows and killing them, and the possibility of avoiding blood spilled seems worth entertaining some unorthodox methods. That's the whole point of this exercise, after all.

If there's, somehow, not enough unrest to sway the attackers from their course, or if the defenders refuse to play ball, then...well, the situation just kind of sucks all around. If the viewpoint character feels completely neutral as to which side is better than the other, then the fact is that a lot of people are about to have a bad time and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. I personally would lean towards helping the locals evacuate or hide their resources, because even if they're "just doing their job" the attackers are still soldiers invading and trying to prop themselves up with plunder taken from civilians, but at the end of the day that's just pushing suffering numbers around on the page, not actually fixing anything.

[Pauly]

Definitely dooming a bunch of coerced soldiers and a bunch of definitely-innocent civilians in order to hypothetically protect a future set of civilians does not seem like the best course of action in this situation.

Nothing hypothetical about the future civilians. The army is on the march to attack them. There is nothing in the scenario to suggest the defenders can or will do anything to prevent the army getting there. The only information offered in the scenario is that the army need the food to get to the city.

As for the co-erced soldiers, the fact remains they are burning, killing and starving civilians. The scenario as written depicts the soldiers as behaving in proper historical medieval like manner and unless explicitly stated otherwise I feel that is the valid working assumption.

[Thrudd]

Why are we always constructing utterly contrived trolley problems, and why should it only be a paladins response we are worried about? Is a paladin, or any "lawful good" character for that matter, supposed to be some sort of perfect moral agent?

Realistically, one granary won't make that much difference to the army. It won't feed them through another entire siege, which they are on their way towards. It's likely meant to feed a small nearby community. A Lawful person won't destroy the granary because it is not lawfully their property and they've not been given a lawful order to do so. A good person who has no reason to want harm to come to any of the parties involved will probably simply not get involved, as they individually can't stop the wheels of war, and realistically can't save either the peasantry or the army from starvation. If the army wants the granary, one person or a small party can't stop them. If they destroy the granary, everyone starves anyway.
It's a sad situation, those who ordered and planned this attack are the culprits, botching the logistics like this, leading to thousands starving. Someone seeking to remedy this situation would need to convince the leaders of the army to give up their plans, at least for this season, and retreat or hunker down somewhere else. If they literally don't have enough food to go anywhere else without starvation, then I'd think they need to negotiate a way to ration the contents of the granary so both the locals and the army eat for at least a while, and in the meantime try to find another way to feed everyone, and hopefully negotiate an end to the war.
If these goals are out of reach, and starvation for some or all is inevitable, someone interested in the pursuit of "justice" would likely seek to identify those responsible for the war and hold them accountable in some way.

[Psyren]

Nothing hypothetical about the future civilians. The army is on the march to attack them.

No, there are ton of hypotheticals here. Can warning be delivered to the future civilians? Can they be evacuated, or fortify? Could the army or its officers be negotiated with at any point between here and there? Could aid be mustered for their next target? Etc.

The primary concern should be the civilians (and potentially redeemable soldiers) at risk here and now.

[Satinavian]

As for the co-erced soldiers, the fact remains they are burning, killing and starving civilians. The scenario as written depicts the soldiers as behaving in proper historical medieval like manner and unless explicitly stated otherwise I feel that is the valid working assumption.

As i already wrote, you have that wrong.

The defenders are the ones doing the burning, not the attackers. The defenders want to deny the attackers the option to use the harvest for supplies and so they burn everything on retreat. Yes, that means that the defending army does more harm to its citicens than the attacking one.

Also no one is killing people for no reason.


Just read the OP again.