Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord Stigius 10-07-03, 10:26 PM	A paladin is captured by an evil cult (clerics of Nerull). Being a high-ranking member of the order, he could become a very valuable source of information for the cultists (the Order's structure, members, goals, resources etc). Of course he does not yield any information, and does not break when threatened and tortured. In the end they give him a "choice": either he swears service to their god (esentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead), or a dozen of random commoners, who are imprisoned within the temple, would be painfully killed and then animated as undead. Now, what the paladin should do? Note: This is not a situation I'd put a PC into. But all of these happened to a NPC, and now I want to have him judged. By a just and righteous, unprejudiced court.
Xaxor 10-07-03, 10:33 PM	This one's a toughie. How exactly would he become 'one of them'? Would it just be little more than a sworn oath? Or would it be 'sacrifice the peasants to our dark god'? If the former, a paladin might see the use in 'going along' with them for a time, though not really joining. Definitely a tough position, but nobody said it was going to be easy. If the latter, a paladin would offer his own life in place of the peasants. Giving the group any information would be an act of betrayal, an evil act, so he would lose his powers if he did. A paladin would throw out the option of letting the peasants die in all likelyhood.
Rudigrrr 10-07-03, 10:39 PM	the paladin would be stuck in finding what the greater good is, to save innocent lives or to combat evil, i think the paladin would "let" the commoners die, believing that his chance to avenge their death would be right around the corner, he could look at this as a chance to prove his undeniable loyalty to his diety and the greater good of the world, after this he could finally get his revenge and go on a quest to put down the followers of Nerull.... i think that is what he would do.....
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-07-03, 10:40 PM	He swears his alligience, makes sure the commoners are clear, then falls on his sword.
Kalidor187 10-07-03, 10:43 PM	Judged? He hasn't done anything yet. Let's see, if he swears fealty to Nerull and gives up the secrets to his order, then he is stripped of his paladin status, converts to evil, and will be used as a vasal for killing the villagers anyway. If he holds his tongue, the villagers will get killed, and he loses his paladin abilities. The temple will eventually run out of villagers and have to go find some more. Eventually, this will come to the attention of some good organization (maybe his own order), and the threat will hopefully be stopped. By remaining faithful to his order, church, etc. I would allow the paladin an opportunity to atone for his sins. Regardless of his decision, the paladin would have a very haunting past. He would probably have waking nightmares that could either make him more humble and forgiving, or drive him to insanity as he tries to kill everything to silence the screams of the dead. So, what choice did he make?
ManTimeForgot 10-07-03, 10:43 PM	The paladin has one of two choices then. Pray to a like aligned deity (if he has a deity his own will be best) that the deity slay him on the spot. If that does not pan out the paladin is forced into taking the option of sentient undead. I doubt seriously he would relent to becoming a blackguard willingly, but the unded, while totally abhorrent, is not as bad as the sacrifice of innocents. In the paladin's mind it is one innocent or many, and that paladin will choose the many every time. Besides there aren't too many sentient undead any way. Lich or vampire. IF a vampire is not around, then that leaves lich and becoming a lich is next to impossible for most people. So in the end the paladin is likely to become a shadow, wraith, or ghost if the sentient undead portion is a must and sentient incorporeal undead cannot be contained as well as in the case of wraith and ghost maintaining some semblance or memory of their former existance. Thus I believe the paladin will choose undeath before the immediate destruction of others. The paladin knows that as a blackguard he would be made to cause much more harm, thus the blackguard will never happen. The best option is pray for immediate death, and if the deity sees that this is indeed a credible threat on the part of evil, and that the paladin will not allow for the sacrifice of others, then the good aligned deity should slay his servant for the greater good. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Lord Stigius 10-07-03, 10:46 PM	There is no option of pretending obedience to the dark deity for the paladin: after he accepts the service, a ritual made by the priests will permanently turn him into blindly obedient servant of their evil god. And the clerics are not going to release the peasants before... Also, it is not for the paladin to chose wheather he wants to become a blackguard, or an undead. He has to swear loyalty and wait for the priests to chose. I can say that they would make him blackguard Plaguebringer (Plaguebringer being a homebrew template undead, sentient, with class levels, but always evil). Esentially more mean than just a plain blackguard.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-07-03, 10:55 PM	Then you turn. If a paldin is a good a person as they profess to be, this is the ultimate sacrifice. But what's the use of you still being Good if those innocent people die?
ManTimeForgot 10-07-03, 11:02 PM	Ashland has said plain as day why the paladin is going to swear fealty then. There is no point in being good if innocents are going to have to suffer because of it. The paladin would not only be a disgrace to the order but would be rendered a hypocrite and shameful in the eyes of (his deity) the powers that be (forces of good). The paladin must then risk undeath. Note that one cannot make a paladin become a blackguard. A fallen paladin is just that a fallen paladin. Just because a paladin becomes evil does not make him a blackguard. He has to become the chosen of a dark god. Yes Nerull qualifies, but I don't think that Nerull can just make any old fallen paladin a blackguard. Im fairly certain the fallen paladin has to agree to it. After transforming to evil, as an undead whatever, that might just happen, but turning him into undead and then a blackguard will take time and save lots of lives. The paladin knows this. Also if this paladin really is a high ranking member of the order, then the powers that be (forces for good) have taken a serious interest in this guy. If he asks for death, I seriously doubt that he would not be granted it. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
BladeVenom 10-07-03, 11:57 PM	Originally posted by Lord Stigius [B In the end they give him a "choice": either he swears service to their god (esentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead), or a dozen of random commoners, who are imprisoned within the temple, would be painfully killed and then animated as undead. Now, what the paladin should do? .[/B] The right choice would be not swearing service to Nerull. Doing so would be a chaotic evil act. He is not responsible for what the cult does, and there is no reason to beleive that the cult would keep their word anyways.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-08-03, 12:01 AM	Its far more evil to let those people die so you can keep you reputation.
Ashaman Joe 10-08-03, 12:08 AM	Tell me if I'm reading this wrong, but if he choses to swear to Nerull, wasn't their something about instantly becoming a Evil Blackgaurd in his service? I would think that he would commit more evil acts in the end, should he chose that. The correct solution would be to pray to his god, or any other good gods, either for help, or if that won't work, death and final rest for him, and/or the commoners.
Fixxxer 10-08-03, 01:01 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Its far more evil to let those people die so you can keep you reputation. Mabey, but the fact of the matter is that the paladin basically has to choose between two difficult options: 1) Bow down and swear an oath to serve evil, which directly opposes his oath to never associate with evil, knowing that if he serves evil, he is going to be directly responsible for the deaths of countless others. 2) Keep his oath and his faith, trusting that his eternal judge will see that there was nothing he could have done. Honestly, I would say that swearing an oath to obey an evil master would be the real sin, since the paladin already swore an eternal oath to the contrary. If the innocents are killed because he kept his oath, he did not kill them...thier murderers killed them.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 01:10 AM	And that is where you are 100% incorrect. Swearing an oath under duress is exactly why the powers that be (forces of good) would not only understand the paladin's decision to swear fealty, but would encourage it if it were not in their best interest to slay the paladin out right. No paladin is worth more lives than his own. Otherwise you fall into a slippery slope where how many lives is the paladin worth? Is the paladin worth the lives of two commoners? How about 10? Or 20? Or 100? or 1000? And so on until there are no commoners left in the country to sacrifice. Now tell me. How is the greater good served by letting those people die? The answer is; it isn't. The paladin must sacrifice his ethics in order to uphold his morals, and in the end that is the decision a truly good paladin will make. Check out the "some of the reported paladin problems thread." That should explain very concisely why a paladin must always consider morals before ethics and that given a paladin who breaks his ethics is given a chance to atone, but a paladin who breaks his morals is not given such a chance the paladin will instinctively know which is the right decision. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Cabren 10-08-03, 01:10 AM	Doesn't matter, he becomes a fallen paladin no matter what he chooses. The peasants die either way, and if the paladin refuses he is killed on the spot.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 01:15 AM	That is exactly why it does matter Cabren. Since the paladin is guaranteed to either violate his oath or his morals the paladin must choose between them. In the end a truly good paladin will choose to uphold his morals over his oath. The paladin cannot abide a willing decision to condemn innocents to death. As such the paladin must choose to forfeit his life for theirs. Yes, this is a much greater sacrifice on the part of the paladin in that he is sacrificing his livelihood, but not his life, but that is why the paladin is who he is. A paragon of lawful good, in which case it is part of his calling to make such sacrifices. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Yankee 10-08-03, 01:38 AM	:sad: I disagree that he should swear the oath. Even if he can assume that the evil temple will keep its word, the paladin WILL NOT BE CAUSING THOSE PEOPLE TO DIE. The evil clerics will be doing so. How can the captive paladin be held responsible for anothers act of evil? I think he should try earnestly to escape. If he does, fine, rescue the peasants. If not, he dies trying. But lets be clear, he did not capture those peasants. Trying to escape may not be the smart way to save them (taking the oath is) but it is the way true to his code. A paladin should never let evil fool him into thinking he has no options. -end rant- When you as a DM make a decision about what he 'should' do, if he has knowledge: religion, I'd allow him a roll to 'correctly' interpret his oaths.
Nephet 10-08-03, 01:48 AM	The key here is that the Paladin has no real control over the fate of the commoners. If he gives over to the Evil god, he will become a horrific minion of evil - that is certain. It's a no-brainer. The Paladin shouldn't swear allegience to the Evil god. Additionally, the Paladin doesn't lose his powers for that decision. He will have his conscious to deal with, but he will still be a Paladin.
Fixxxer 10-08-03, 01:56 AM	Yankee, Nephet, thank you. Those are exactly the points I was trying to make.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 02:09 AM	If the paladin had the option to escape how was he presented with this ultimadem? Yes the paladin should try to escape, probably already tried and failed, he's been tortured already people. Obviously the guy can't escape. Yes he should try to pray for death. Obviously death is preferable to either choice. BUT what if all of that fails, then he must forfeit his own life for the sake of others. It matters not whether or not the evil people are telling the truth or not. It is the responsibility of the paladin to protect people. If in choosing to not swear an oath just the possibility of harming others would result is a fault upon the paladin. It also matters not who directly kills the commoners/babies what have you. The evil people are just that evil and for them killing babies doesn't matter. The paladin has to take into account that if he doesn't go along with their demands the innocents lives are in jeapordy. To do otherwise than take the oath is to be selfish and prideful. Even if the paladin isn't directly killing the children the paladin is still the trigger for their slaughter. You can't make the who is more valuable argument, because of reasons previously stated. As such the paladin is called upon to sacrifice his very soul for others. (I personally find this situation abhorrent, to be honest. If I were DM and the paladin chose to take the oath because he could not in good conscience risk the lives of others then I would have the paladin die when the attempt to turn him into an undead occured. See other thread for possible reasons why). Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
LostGirl 10-08-03, 02:19 AM	Is the paladin morally obtuse? I thought he got special guidance with stuff like this. Does he recognize that these are evil people he is dealing with, and he himself realistically has absolutely no influence over the peasants' fate. They will die by the cult's hands if he chooses simple death for himself, probably horribly and probably in front of his eyes, and then he will die himself, probably horribly and probably in quite the prolonged fashion. If he chooses undeath and oathbreaking for himself, then it is quite likely that the first thing he is asked to do to demonstrate his new alignment is kill the very peasants he sought to save. Even if the evil people did keep their word, it is likely that he will kill many more peasants than he ever saved by turning evil. These are the problems of looking at this ethical conundrum with a consequentialist eye. All the consequences of all of his choices are bad; and none of them are really under his control. All he can choose to do is abstain from the proceedings entirely. What happens to the peasants is the choice of the evil people he is choosing not to enable. He has no control, one way or the other over their fate, because he will never be in a position to witness any bargain's completion. Not only that, but at its heart the choice is clear for the paladin: cooperate with evil, or refrain. If he agrees to undergo the change to undeath, he's complicit in the peasant's eventual deaths, but not before.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 02:34 AM	You cannot prove that the evil people will not let the peasant/babies go after the paladin complies. Yes abstention would be better than either choice as presented, but it is a rare sight to see where evil people will simply be like "well since he isn't going to side with us or demand we kill the children I guess we will just have to let him go." No the paladin must choose that option which does not directly engender a consequence of harm to others. The outcome of swearing an oath is uncertain. Does the paladin die? Does the paladin even become a blackguard? Will the procedure to turn him into undead succeed? I also think that too many people are not looking at this for what it is. This is a either or situation. There is not in between. There is no recourse for other alternatives. This is a flat out bad situation, and the thread starter wishes to know which one the paladin would likely take. Yes abstention is a better choice, but in this case it really isn't a choice at all. The children will simply be put death for his non-compliance. (The point of this exercise anyway, is not to figure out what would be better than making the decision. Obviously the poster would have said: "help me figure out how to get my paladin out of this mess" had he wanted us to do so. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Yankee 10-08-03, 03:23 AM	Respectfully, I think that ManTimeForgot is not seeing this for what it is. The paladin is NOT willingly committing an evil act by refusing to serve an evil order. Yes, they might kill the peasants. I have yet to see any reason why responsibility for this rests on the paladins shoulders. He does not pull the trigger, such as it is. Its someone elses gun. How many ways can I say, if THEY kill people, THEY did the evil. Refusing to swear fealty is not breaking the paladin code, because he is not WILLINGLY causing the death of innocents. That they die is someone elses choice. They may say he can influence their decision, but even if he can he doesn't have to do it thier way. The bad guy saying 'It's either A or B." where both are bad doesn't magically mean that the paladin can not try anything else - and keep trying alternatives when it looks hopeless. By the way, in the beginning post, Lord Stigius spells out exactly what happens if the paladin opts to give in to the bad guys. Of course one can't prove that the evil dudes won't let the peasants go. Swearing the oath would be a gamble with innocent lives. So take a gamble that doesn't compromise your oaths.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 03:29 AM	Whose fault is it if not the paladins? Evil cannot be assumed to take responsibility for it because they are devoid of conscience. If I put a gun in your house and you kill your parents with it. I would not be at fault unless I knew you were insane and wanted to kill your parents. If I knew that you were insane and that you were going to kill your parents with that gun, while the legal blame lies upon you, the moral blame lies upon me. So respectfully, I believe you all are yet to see the distinction between ethical responsibility and moral responsibility. Yes ethically the priests are to blame, but morally the paladin is at fault if he facillitates the action, which he would by not complying. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Gothic_Demon 10-08-03, 04:41 AM	A difficult moral quandry for the paladin indeed! As much as I agree with TheManTimeForgot, with the slippery slope of how many commoners is a Paladin worth? I think there is a fundamental issue here in that a Paladin CANNOT accept either option, under any circumstance. A Paladin cannot stand by and watch innocent people die by either his action or inaction (as is the case here), but the Paladin in this instance must realise that these people will die regardless of his actions. In that case, he has already lost, because he cannot prevent the death of those people. So, he must try to find the next lesser evil to prevent further spread. To this end, the Paladin must forget about the people who will be killed. They are to die anyway, and he does not have it within his power to stop them. Deal with the scene now and atone for your inability to be perfect later. Then, you have the option to become a powerful tool for evil, or not become a powerful tool for evil. This, as people seem fond of stating, is a no-brainer. The Paladin is the most difficult class to play morally, I think, because there is no room for grey, no room for compromises. Your poor paladin has had it, and if he escapes the Cult (through any means) he owes them payback for the deaths they caused. Otherwise, he'd better hope the powers that be are in a forgiving mood, because he WILL sin in this situation. To sum up, TheManTimeForgot is right, the paladin in this situation will commit a sin if the peasants die. Yankee, Nephet and others are right, if he chooses to become a minion of evil he is committing a sin, by breaking his oath and knowingly becoming a tool for evil. Therefore, your paladin has sinned, because one of these things has to happen. This is the time to be thankful for Atonement.
Arilou_skiff 10-08-03, 05:46 AM	The paladin should *not* swear allegience, that would be the path of EVIL, for not only would he not save the peasants, he would also become a more powerful tool of evil... Look at it like this: If the Evil dudes want him to convert then that is *certainly* not what he should do, if two choices are both bad he should take the one the evil guys does *not* want him to take.
the_heart 10-08-03, 06:59 AM	no moral quandry at all, because no man is responsible for the actions of another. if a paladin is given a 'choice' swear allegience to evil and betray your allies or witness the slayinig of random commoners, there is no choice. if the paladin is held prisoner he cannot save them, and it is not by his hand they die, he should not be held accountable. he should hold to his faith that the bad guy will be punished. if he betrays his allies and swears allegience to the bad guys, then he has violated his oaths several times over.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 06:37 PM	Did you all not read my post about the "gun" at all? Ofcourse it is the paladin's fault that the children die. Yes it is a sin to become a minion of evil. I don't think there are any game effects regarding swear oathes, as such it is entirely up to the DM what happens to the paladin, especially considering he would be morally in the right to do so, if there were no other choices. Yes escaping would be better. Yes praying for death would be better. Yes abstaining would be better. But the quandry is not presented in such a way as to allow for those options. And I do not believe assuming the peasants/children to be dead either way is an appropriate way of looking at things. Once the paladin has sworn an oath, the children will have out lived their usefulness yes, but that does not mean evil is stupid. Only Chaotic stupid goes around randomly slaughtering children. Otherwise how would more humans come into this world? So it is 100% certain in one case the children will die and not 100% certain in the other. In the case of the paladin not swearing the oath he is morally responsible for evil befalling another. In the case of the paladin swearing the oath he is morally responsible for evil befalling himself. The paladin can morally allow for evil befalling himself, but it is against the entirety of the paladins code of morals to allow evil to befall another because of him. IF you read the atonement spell a paladin who willingly performs an evil act is ineligible for atonement. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Cabren 10-08-03, 07:11 PM	Yes, the evil guys are just going to leave the prisoners alone after they got what they wanted. No, these horribly vile people are certainly not going to get rid of stuff they no longer need, and they will just let them go and be happy. Please spare us the comic book villain routine. The prisoners die no matter the choice, because there is no reason for them to remain alive. That, and this is evil we are talking about. They don't make exceptions just because someone just joined their ranks. They just kill as a matter of habit and alignment.
Mike the DM 10-08-03, 07:46 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot IF you read the atonement spell a paladin who willingly performs an evil act is ineligible for atonement. I don't know that I agree with the idea that failure of the paladin to perform a lawful or good act is the same as committing an evil act. I would think of that as more neutral than evil, per se - perhaps still outside the "paladin's code," depending on how you interpret this in your campaign-world, but not an automatic alignment shift, especially a two-step shift. If the paladin personally killed the captives solely to save the paladin's own hide ("Kill them or we kill you!"), then that would indeed be an evil act and would move the paladin to true neutral in my campaign. (Rarely does anything short of powerful magic result in an automatic alignment change of more than one step IMC.) That's clearly not the case here. I typically steer the paladins IMC away from, "The end justifies the means," with respect to fighting evil (ending the "killing hobgoblin children" debate before it starts), but in this case, the sacrifice of the many to preserve the one may in fact be the lesser of two evils. The paladin would need to atone, if indeed the paladin was ever able to escape (which seems unlikely), but the captives' sacrifice seems necessary compared to forsaking the oath to become an evil creature. Excellent dilemma, BTW! Very well thought-out in terms of being a moral and ethical quandry.
OGRE-MJC 10-08-03, 08:03 PM	I have to put my vote w/ Cabren and The_heart on this one. The only sin that the paladin is capable of in this situation is betraying his order. The Bad Guys are equally capable of sparing the childrens lives if the paladin doesn't convert as they are of killing them wheither he converts or not. Only the DM knows wheither or not that turning Evil will save the children, the player cannot (except thru gross meta-gaming) know for sure that the children will be saved not matter what he does. The paladin will probably feel like a heel (can't use the appro. words due to CoC) after making the choice, but there really nothing else he can do but refuse. As for it being a sin to "do nothing" to save the children's lives, he really can't do anything to save them in the senario that you have set-up. He would have to be taking the word of an known evil (as well as Evil) person that his turning evil will save the children. Gee, do you think that the Evil person might lie? The paladin would have to be playing Lawful Stupid fall for that line of reasoning.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 08:50 PM	You didn't read my last post at all did you? The paladin is morally responsible for the lives of the children. In refusing to swear an oath he automatically condemns them to death. Note that it is the paladin doing so. Like I said a couple times before, it does not matter if the evil people are lying. It does not matter if they are going to kill the children anyway. If the paladin swears the oath he is attempting to save the lives of the children. If the paladin does not he is condemning them to death. The former is a sin unto himself. The latter is a sin unto others. Note that swearing the oath could be atoned for later on, seeing as how the paladin had to make his decision under duress, which is specifically listed as one of the case by case bases in the atonement spell. However willingly allowing for, or causing evil to befall another is unatoneable. And for good reason. The paladin is morally responsible for the lives of the children, as such there is not only one sin the paladin could commit. Read the example with the "gun" I provided and tell me how that is any different than the paladin refusing to take the oath, or how I would not be morally responsible for the death of the parents in the example with the "gun." Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 08:54 PM	IF the ends don't justify the means, how can you argue that the sacrifice of the many can be less evil than the sacrifice of the one. How? It isn't the paladin is not doing good. It is the paladin is doing evil by condemning the children to death. It is only different from the paladin taking his sword and doing it himself because in doing it with his sword the paladin would be ethically responsible as opposed to just morally responsible. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Romulus LoneWolf 10-08-03, 08:56 PM	I say the Paladin should choose to save the innocent peasants' lives and swear fealty to Nerull... ...Because afterwards, there's nothing preventing him from double-crossing the cult and feed them misleading information and sabotaging their efforts from the inside.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 09:12 PM	Well Romulus that is not entirely certain, that depends entirely on the DM how he adjucates the situation. But that is exactly the point, the effects of swearing the oath are uncertain, are not 100% certain to bring death to the children, and does not leave the paladin morally responsible for the deaths of the children should it happen eventually. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
mercurial67 10-08-03, 09:26 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot The paladin is morally responsible for the lives of the children. In refusing to swear an oath he automatically condemns them to death. Note that it is the paladin doing so. The Paladin is not condemning the others to death, the evil group is. Your gun comparison is completely flawed. The paladin did not give them the children or set the situation up in any way. If it was a situation where the paladin had to surrender himself or people would die, the paladin should surrender himself. The choice here is not to surrender himself, but to convert to their ways and forsake his diety. Then he would become just like this evil group and could very well be the person saying surrender or I kill these people. When it boils down too it, the paladin is being asked to become a killer himself or the group (not the paladin) will kill people. The paladin can easily assume the worst since this is a high fantasy game and swearing to an evil deity has ramifications outside of "Gosh I guess I serve you now!".
Mr. Wilson 10-08-03, 09:34 PM	Originally posted by Lord Stigius There is no option of pretending obedience to the dark deity for the paladin: after he accepts the service, a ritual made by the priests will permanently turn him into blindly obedient servant of their evil god. And the clerics are not going to release the peasants before... IMHO, this is the key statement. The choice of turning to evil is not an option, even if you accept the premise of ManTimeForgot that the Paladin will then be killing a dozen innocents directly. We're talking about a PERMANENT binding, meaning that more than there is a 99.999999% chance that the Ex-Pally will kill more than a dozen commoners. The question is then redefined, it is no longer is the Paladin worth 12 villagers, but rather is 12 villagers worth more than 12 villagers. And in this case, the answer is no. The Pally loses his Paladin abilities but refuses to join the evil cult. That is the Lawful Good answer. IMHO.
John Paul Stoddard 10-08-03, 09:53 PM	How many innocent villagers will be killed by the expaladin in the near future.. Is the Paladin more evil than say a lawful good cleric who fails to prevent famine and starvation in a village..prevent the plague in children
OGRE-MJC 10-08-03, 09:59 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot You didn't read my last post at all did you? The paladin is morally responsible for the lives of the children. In refusing to swear an oath he automatically condemns them to death. Note that it is the paladin doing so. Like I said a couple times before, it does not matter if the evil people are lying. It does not matter if they are going to kill the children anyway. If the paladin swears the oath he is attempting to save the lives of the children. If the paladin does not he is condemning them to death. The former is a sin unto himself. The latter is a sin unto others. Note that swearing the oath could be atoned for later on, seeing as how the paladin had to make his decision under duress, which is specifically listed as one of the case by case bases in the atonement spell. However willingly allowing for, or causing evil to befall another is unatoneable. And for good reason. The paladin is morally responsible for the lives of the children, as such there is not only one sin the paladin could commit. Read the example with the "gun" I provided and tell me how that is any different than the paladin refusing to take the oath, or how I would not be morally responsible for the death of the parents in the example with the "gun." Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot Accually I did. It's just that it is a false arguement. And a rather silly one at that. Morally or ethically, if you had no foreknowldge that the son would kill his parents, then where he got the gun is immaterial. ie: It means you can't take a bath for someone else. (wish I could remember who's quote that was.) :nonono: The only way for the paladin to know if the bad guy is lying is to have the DM tell the player OOC that if you do x, y will happen. As far as the paladin is concerned, it is equally possible that in the paladin refusing to convert, the bad guy lets the children go because his ploy failed. The only way that this is a true ethical quandry is if the paladin KNOWS what the outcome of each of his choices are. The only way of knowing that is for the DM to predetermine what the outcome of each act and communicate that to the player and demand that the player use OOC knowledge in his decision. even then it's not really a moral dillemma{sp?}, Its more a problem of the DM being a jerk. :rolleyes:
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 10:09 PM	The situation goes like this. I know beforehand that if I gave a gun to you, that you would kill your parents. Then if I do give you a gun, then I am morally responsible for my parents death. And this is exactly what is happening in the moral dilemma as presented. The paladin has foreknowledge that the children will be killed if he does not swear an oath (I have foreknowledge that you will kill your parents if I give you a gun). I choose to not swear an oath (I give you the gun). The children die (you kill your parents). Where is the false premise? Until you all can provide with a reason how this is false, then simply calling it false amounts to an accusation. And you all are trying to be too consequentialist for this. Are any of you wise enough to see all ends? I certainly am not. You are weighing the immediate value of the lives here and now against possible lives in the future. Who are you all to make such a decision? Now if one's deity (in game) came to the paladin and said resist, well then by God resist because obviously some deific wisdom (the DM who is capable of knowing what is to come) is present in that advice, but until such time that man becomes sufficiently wise to see all ends and sufficiently wise enough to value human lives, then there is no moral choice other than to swear an oath. The powers that be (forces of good) know darn well why the paladin is making that choice. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Keg of Ale 10-08-03, 10:16 PM	OK, my opinion now. I read all your arguments, and my personal conclusion is this: the choice will depend on the personality of the paladin. (please read my explanation till the end before drawing conclusions) IF the paladin's heart contains even but the tiniest spark of pride, if his lawful good soul contains but a small spot of ego, he will choose to let the innnocents die. In doing so, he will save the world from his evil self commiting acts of evil. In such a paladin's reasoning, he already did all he could - he resisted even torture. In the end, he cannot convert to evil because IT IS TOO MUCH TO ASK OF HIM. He is good, yes, lawful, yes, but this is the limit, one sacrifice too great. BUT, suppose the paladin's soul is completely clear of pride and selfishness. Let's say he is devoted to his code to the core. Then he will swear. It is his moral duty to do whatever is in his power to save the lives of the children, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE CHANCE SEEMS. In doing so, even sacrificing his soul to evil is acceptable. Of course, the paladin knows fully well that after the cult has turned him into a mindless pawn of evil, he will be forced to cause much evil and destruction. But, this, however probable, is LESS CERTAIN than the fact that if he chooses the alternative, the children will face a horrible painful death. Such a completely devout and selfless paladin will, after much consideration, have no choice but sacrifice himself and his very soul in order to give the innocent even a tiny chance to avoid their horrible fate. His high morals cannot contemplate the alternative. I would also like to state that the LATTER solution preferable. Of the two choices, it is also, by far, the most difficult, in term of resolve. To surrender his very being to evil to spare harm to the innocents is an ideal so high, that it hardly seems achievable. But, IMO, it is what true good requires. Plus, such a decision would be terribly beautiful, poetic and noble, far more so than the other one. To summarise: a paladin is lawful good. If his lawful side is greater, he will choose to let the children die. If, however, his good side is stronger, he will choose to swear the oath.
OGRE-MJC 10-08-03, 10:40 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot The situation goes like this. I know beforehand that if I gave a gun to you, that you would kill your parents. Then if I do give you a gun, then I am morally responsible for my parents death. And this is exactly what is happening in the moral dilemma as presented. The paladin has foreknowledge that the children will be killed if he does not swear an oath (I have foreknowledge that you will kill your parents if I give you a gun). I choose to not swear an oath (I give you the gun). The children die (you kill your parents). Where is the false premise? Until you all can provide with a reason how this is false, then simply calling it false amounts to an accusation. And you all are trying to be too consequentialist for this. Are any of you wise enough to see all ends? I certainly am not. You are weighing the immediate value of the lives here and now against possible lives in the future. Who are you all to make such a decision? Now if one's deity (in game) came to the paladin and said resist, well then by God resist because obviously some deific wisdom (the DM who is capable of knowing what is to come) is present in that advice, but until such time that man becomes sufficiently wise to see all ends and sufficiently wise enough to value human lives, then there is no moral choice other than to swear an oath. The powers that be (forces of good) know darn well why the paladin is making that choice. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot I misunderstood your arguement, but the result remains the same. The false premise is that you can effect my choice to kill the parents. I have the choice to fire the gun or not to fire the gun or use a knife or set the house on fire. The only way that you can effect that choice to stop me (by calling the police, tying me up, etc.) and this senario specifically states that you can not stop me in anyway. Indeed it assumes that I took the gun off of your bound body. That is why it's immaterial. On the wisdom bit, that is exactly what I'm talking about. The paladin doesn't know if his turning to evil will have any effect on weither the children lives or dies. It becomes a moot point. The only way that the paladin knows is to use OOC knowledge. Without the OOC knowledge, The only real decision that the paladin can effect is either to betray his order or not. And I hope that one is a no-brainer for a paladin.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 10:52 PM	No Ogre, I am assuming that if I do not give you the gun that you will not kill your parents with the gun that I have. If you kill your parents with something other than the gun I give you, then I am not at fault, but if you kill your parents with the gun I gave you, then I facillitated the murder of your parents. I think you may be right Keg of Ale, I may be assuming too much of the paladin to say that he should choose that path. Keg of Ale without, possibly without even knowing so, has illustrated what I was saying all along. It is a question of ethics versus morality. If the paladin is more lawful, then he will side with his ethics. If the paladin is more good, then he will side with his morals. I have always assumed the paladin to be good first and foremost, but that may be a false premise I am working under. I cannot back up my claim that the paladin should be first and foremost devoted to good, because I do not have the books with me. Alas, I must say that you, Keg of Ale, have put forth in a more digestable form the reasons why one might go one way or the other. I can honestly say now that I agree some paladin's might choose to let the children die; I cannot honestly expect all paladins to be perfect souls after all, this is after all explained in their description. I admit that until now I was forgetting what this thread is all about, which should choice should the paladin take, and was debating the morality behind it. Thank You all and have a nice day.
deadDMwalking 10-08-03, 11:02 PM	I have to begin by saying I read every post, including every one by ManTimeForgot. That being said, I would prefer to provide my answer before I respond to tangential debate on whether ManTimeForgot has a "model" of the problem in his "gun scenario." Firstly, any person can only be held directly responsible for his own actions, and his own failures to act. The first premise of free will is that I can no more prevent you from attempting an action than you can prevent me. You can argue with me, plead with me, attempt to dissuade me, but eventually, the decision lies with me. If I choose to do evil, even in your presence, you are not directly responsible. If you could have stopped me, you are somewhat responsible. If you can do nothing, you have no responsibility. As an example, if I kidnap an 8-month old child, and I tell you about it. You have several options. You could directly confront me, you could call the police, or you could do nothing. If I tell you that I'm going to kill the baby and you do nothing, you have some moral responsibility. If you are tied up in my torture chamber, with no actions, and I tell you I will kill the child, you have no responsibility. The fact that you witnessed the evil act does not mean you participated in it. Now, if I tell you that I won't kill the baby if you do it for me, it would obviously be more evil for you to kill the baby. If I tell you that I won't kill the baby if you kill an 80-year-old man, it would still be more evil if you kill the man. In both situations, your direct participation in an evil act is worse than if you let me continue to do my evil. The situation we are originally given offers us two possibilites. 1) Do nothing while an evil act is committed. 2) Committ an evil act directly to prevent another evil act from being committed. Both would result in the loss of Paladin's abilities, unless in situation 1) the paladin could do nothing. However, he can try to break his bonds. He can try to convince them otherwise. He can beg, he can plead. If he does all that, he has done no evil. And when the cult kills the villagers, all the Paladin can say is "I was to weak to prevent this evil." Still, no taint would attach to him. If you read the legends of King Arthur regarding his Grail Quest, you can find some interesting stories that are of similar nature. One possible book is the "Once And Future King." I read it after watching X-Men 2, where Magneto was reading it...... Anyway, only those who are pure can find the grail. In one situation a Grail Quester is told that he must sleep with one of 100 virgins, or all 100 will be killed. However, sleeping with a virgin would be a violation of his vow of chastity, and procreation out of wedlock was considered a sin against God. He has no choice but to refuse. It turns out the virgins were really demons sent to tempt him, but the point remains the same. Essentially, it is often easier to do a "little" evil than to do good. Sometimes people die when you do the "right" thing. However, in the Paladin's case, why should he consider the death of the commoners an evil thing. In the first case, they may not be innocent. They could actually be cultists who have fallen out of favor. In the second case, if they are good, they may be assured of eternal happiness after death. If they are killed by an evil person, that may send them to heaven. And even if it is evil to kill, if heaven exists it must be better to be dead than to be alive. So, again, the Paladin has only two choices. Do evil, or not to do evil. If the Paladin wants to retain his class (meaning to do the right thing) he will refuse the cult. I know I've gone on for a long time. I'll end this post here, but if ManTimeForgot would like me to dismantle his example, I will do so. However, I don't know if the rest of the posters will appreciate the "off-topic" post.
BenTGaidin 10-08-03, 11:23 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot The situation goes like this. I know beforehand that if I gave a gun to you, that you would kill your parents. Then if I do give you a gun, then I am morally responsible for my parents death. And this is exactly what is happening in the moral dilemma as presented. The Man Time Forgot A points that might go into consideration here: If I don't give you a gun, do you kill your parents with a knife from the kitchen? (Will the cultists kill the peasants anyway?) If this is the case, I am not responsible for the parent's deaths, but only for failing to prevent it by dealing with you. (Not an option here; the paladin is captured and presumably can't do anything other than to affect himsel, but it's still a different failing than being morally responsible for the actual death of the peasants.) Given that unless he has some very good reason to trust the word of these cultists, I'd say his choices in this option are between breaking his vows as a paladin (by converting to this evil god) or between failing to stop the cultists and save the peasants... which he has already done. In which case, he should continue resisting and looking for a way to escape, rather than commit yet another evil. Another arguement against this is that it isn't just him swearing to the evil god, it's him undergoing a magical ritual to turn him... which, if it's any sort of decent ritual, will completely strip him of any ability to further protect the good, and serve the right. As has been pointed out, the lives of these peasants will be bought with the deaths and/or suffering of many other peasants... This isn't a choice a paladin should accept, any more than letting the cultists kill others in his place. So what should the paladin do? Stall! *grins*Ask for time to spend in meditation pondering this matter. Pray to your god to send aid. See if you can get the cultists to cook you a good big last meal, or one for the peasants... Or both, preferably. Claim that you don't want to die a virgin. Anything to delay both them turning you, and them killing peasants. Suicide's another option, though not quite as good as escaping or stalling until you're rescued... As a far, far distant third, I'd think that (subject to long conversations with your god/DM) the paladin's response would be to let the cultists kill the peasants. Why? Because it is, in this case, the lesser of two evils... He has no more responsibility for the deaths of those peasants than that which comes his way for failing to stop the cultists in the first place. He can atone for not being able to save the peasants, though it will be long and difficult. Even the most lenient DM, however, shouldn't let a paladin atone for _willingly submitting to an evil god._ Here's another thought to compare it with: An assassin is captured in the high temple of a good god. The priests there give him the following choice: Undergo a magical ritual and swear to serve their good god, which will change his alignment to LG and make him a happy, charitable and merciful person... Or the priests will go out and do good acts for a dozen peasants. Which of these options is the most good? In the short term, I'd say sending the priests out to do good; they're well equiped for it already. Unless the assassin has an immediate heart attack, on the other hand, he's rather likely to do more good over time, not least because he's no longer out there killing people.
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 11:24 PM	Dismantle my example because it still remains valid until otherwise dismantled. Furthermore: the "paladin" in your example did evil by not sleeping with the "virgin." The fact that they turned out to be evil later on is irrelevant. The "paladin" willfully endangered the lives of others so that he could remain chaste. That is hubris in the extreme, pride is the source of all evil (to quote more Christian belief back at you), and therefore had that person been a paladin he would have immediately lost his status as a paladin. If it is 100% certain that someone will kill someone else if given a knife, and I give that person a knife I am morally at fault for whom ever dies at the hands of the person with the knife I gave them. Ethically the person who killed them is responsible. I do not see how you can refute this. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Ashaman Joe 10-08-03, 11:25 PM	It also depends on the type of god the paladin follows. A more militant god would likely see converting to evil as worse, because he has essentially given up in the war against evil. A more good/less lawful and/or peaceful god would see converting to evil to possibly save the villagers lives as better. And while I'm at it, I may as well jump into the pointless metaphor bandwagon... Supposed X evil people took Y innocents hostage and demanded, say, an nuclear weapon from Z country, or they kill the hostages. Z country knows that if they give the nuclear weapon to X evildoers, they will use it 'for great evil', but might be nice enough to set Y innocents free. Which should you chose? If you can't understand this metaphor, then it means I'm a useless idiot, and will attempt to explain it. :(
Plunderer_of_the_planes 10-08-03, 11:28 PM	If I was said Paladin what I would do is fake an oath to Nerull. Given that there is a 99.9% Chance that my first act as an "evil" Paladin would be to kill the villagers the oath would get me close to them to assure myself of their safety. Then at the right moment I would turn on my newfound 'allies" to give the villagers a chance to escape. Even if I were to die trying I would get a cahnce for a last heroic act to proove my undying loyalty to my God and at least give the defenceless villagers a chance. Here's the reasoning. A Paladin is sworn to fight evil. Now a higher level Paladin would know that there is no way a cult to a god of death would keep their word. A greater good presents itself: the villagers safety is his first priority the Paldins life is secondary to their need (given that in any heroic epic or story the good hero always sees to others before himself). Now we have a problem the Paladin lies to get the greater good accomplished. This could cause a loss of abilities (we assume here it does for the sake of argument); all the better since the clerics of Nerull would be checking to see if he is honest. Now the time of sacrifice is at hand. The pally goes to sacrifice the villagers and turns on the cult. This is a heroic act that could be form of Atonement (again for arguments sake and as a DM if a player came up with this I would allow it to be so). Now the abilities are restored and he kicks holy butt. Even if the Paldin dies the Villagers probbaly will come out mostly safe. (again as a dm iwould call that especially if the Pally dies they live...heroic ending and all) So theres my 2 cents....
ManTimeForgot 10-08-03, 11:39 PM	With all due respect Mr. Gaiden: There are no secondary or tertiary choices in this matter. It has already been stipulated that the paladin must choose one way or the other, and by tacit agreement from the posters stalling, suicide, or abstention is not an option (we all agreed, quite a while ago I might add, that that would be for the best). Nextly, your assassin example is not quite fair to the original example. The assassin stands to lose nothing if the priests do go out and do good, and on the other hand the assassin stands to lose nothing if converted to goodness (unless ofcourse this means he will not be able to obtain a job because he can only do assassinations). Your example with an assassin would be better put if a greater demon replaced your assassin. Now the greater demon stands to lose immensely if converted evil (presumably stripped of powers) versus the greater demon stands to lose in the grand scheme of things because the priest's are doing good. Now with all due deference Joe, Ben: one cannot make assumptions about the value of human life morally. Yes decisions such as this are made all the time, but that is because of politics and ethics. People are selfish, and seeing their neighbor they have come to love die is worse than seeing some stranger in another country die. The country/nuclear weapon example does seem to follow the same lines as the paladin dilemma, but the same exception applies to both. Who are we to morally judge the value of human lives? There are a few problems with your example Joe also, is that it mixes pragmatism with morality, and those are two things which invariably must remain separate in order to choose the "right" thing to do. Pragmatism dictates one should let the innocents die, yes the X evil people can take more hostages, but that is invariably less than the potential harm caused by a nuclear weapon. Morality should suggest an alternate course though, morally no man is equipped with the faculties to judge the value of human life. It is no right of man's to decide the fate of another and therefore should give over the nuclear weapon. The mechanical problem with your example is that the game effects of swearing an oath, the undead transformation procedure, and the alignment effects on the paladin are not described according to the rules and are left completely up to the DM. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
OGRE-MJC 10-08-03, 11:42 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot No Ogre, I am assuming that if I do not give you the gun that you will not kill your parents with the gun that I have. If you kill your parents with something other than the gun I give you, then I am not at fault, but if you kill your parents with the gun I gave you, then I facillitated the murder of your parents. Thank You all and have a nice day. We'll have to agree to disagree, because any foreknowledge that I'm going to kill the parents makes you an accessory wether you hand over the gun or not. Why would I not kill the parents if you didn't hand over the gun? What I don't see is how that ties in to the original question. Your senario implies both foreknowledge and choice and the original question doesn't have either. The paladin in the original question doesn't have the choice about the children, he has the promise of an Evil person. He doesn't have the foreknowledge of what the Evil person is going to do. He might have a second-hand effect on the children, then again maybe not. Sorry to disagree with you Keg, because your post was very well written. (better than my stream of disjointed thoughts and bad spelling) Purity of the soul would only determine how bad the paladin felt after it all went down. And he would feel bad, because nobody likes to feel powerless and that is exactly what the paladin is in this senario. The rest is just window-dressing. (what god did he follow, etc.) The BBEG hasn't given the paladin choice, he has given the illusion that the paladin can effect the children's fate. Maybe it's real, Maybe it's not. The only thing that the paladin would be sure of is that he was the one to betray his order if he decided that course. The paladin in this senario cannot be sure that the bad guys are going to kill the children, or even if there is even any children to start with (Illusion is a staple in this game) or if the children are the bad guy's children and they are only trying to mess with the paladin's head. The only sure thing are his actions (verbal in this case) and if the paladin was one to betray people and comrades over maybes, then was he a paladin in the first place?
BenTGaidin 10-09-03, 12:01 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot With all due respect Mr. Gaiden: There are no secondary or tertiary choices in this matter. Heh. Yeah, I got a little carried away there... *wry grin* Nextly, your assassin example is not quite fair to the original example. ..... Your example with an assassin would be better put if a greater demon replaced your assassin. Ooo... You're right, it is a better example like that. I wish I'd thought of it. That said, I still think it works out that converting is the greater good(or evil) in the end. Now with all due deference Joe, Ben: one cannot make assumptions about the value of human life morally. .... Who are we to morally judge the value of human lives? *rhetorically* Who else is there to judge? I think, though, that I'll just have to agree to disagree with you here; if you believe that human lives are infinately precious (and my apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth here) then I don't see that either one of us will ever come to the same conclusion. That said, I wouldn't condem you for your choice, because it's not really a choice with any good options, as given to us.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 12:07 AM	Certainty is irrelevant to morality. Pragmatism =/ morality. It does not matter if the children are illusions, demons (like in the previous example, or golems. The fact is the paladin would be willfully endangering the lives of others in order to obtain benefit for himself. That is the very foundation of evil. The paladin has foreknowledge. Not assuming the premises of this dilemma to be true destroys the whole argument. I could argue that well the evil people are actually greater good deities in disguise and are simply trying to test the paladin. This is not what this argument is all about. The children do exist and the children are guaranteed death if the paladin does not swear the oath. A king who orders his executioner to slaughter innocent children is the paladin in this example if he does not swear the oath. (admittedly this is a one sided version of the argument presented)The paladin in refusing to swear the oath has ensured that the innocents will die. So just like the King, while the paladin is not ethically responsible (the executioners in both cases are), the paladin and the king are morally responsible. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Plunderer_of_the_planes 10-09-03, 12:11 AM	Hello...hi there....ummm did anyone read a certain other post made by anyone else here............ I am gettin ready to use ----------> :turkey: him in a minute...... :D :angel: ;) :) :cool:
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 12:21 AM	Frankly Ben, I am not advocating either choice. I simply am trying to point out that the moral choice in this dilemma is swearing the oath. I think that paladin's should always try to do the moral thing, and in this case that means swearing the oath. I admit paladins are not perfect, and that means that some will refuse. Also I do not mean to suggest human lives are infinitely valuable, but we as humans do not possess the wisdom to adequately value a human life. As such any discussion which revolves around the destruction of human life cannot be resolved morally. Pragmatically yes, a situation like that can be resolved, but morally no. To make it clear what I mean by moral versus pragmatic here: Group A consists of 8 people. Group B consists of 10 people. One of these groups must die and you are not allowed to know anything about the groups. Pragmatically one must choose group A to die. Knowledge of the groups would skew things dramatically pragmatically, but I do not know how judge according to morals with knowledge of the groups. If Group A consisted of 8 Einsteins and Group B consisted of 10 retarded people, which group dies? Pragmatically one will choose group B to die. Morally one should choose group A to die because the value of human life cannot be expressed in a value with which a pragmatic decision can be based. The only place the Group A Group B situation falls apart is if one of the groups consists of habitual murderers. Even if group A consists of policemen and group B consists of car thieves, it is the moral thing to let the thieves live, because one cannot ascertain the value of the lives of the theives over the policemen. The only thing that causes break down of this with habitual murderers is that the habitual murderers would go on to kill more people, and that would be on your conscience to let them live. But the paladin dilemma differs from the group a group b example in two key respects, one of the groups is the paladin and the paladin must make the choice not an outside observer. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 12:23 AM	Yes plunderer, your post was read. It was also tacitly agreed that no false oath could be made on the part of the paladin. It is obvious to all that such an action would be preferable. For sake of argument here, we have all long since agreed that the "preferable" secondary and tertiary choices are unobtainable/impossible. This discussion is now a matter of which choice should the paladin make. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Ashaman Joe 10-09-03, 12:41 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Now with all due deference Joe, Ben: one cannot make assumptions about the value of human life morally. Yes decisions such as this are made all the time, but that is because of politics and ethics. People are selfish, and seeing their neighbor they have come to love die is worse than seeing some stranger in another country die. The country/nuclear weapon example does seem to follow the same lines as the paladin dilemma, but the same exception applies to both. Who are we to morally judge the value of human lives? There are a few problems with your example Joe also, is that it mixes pragmatism with morality, and those are two things which invariably must remain separate in order to choose the "right" thing to do. Pragmatism dictates one should let the innocents die, yes the X evil people can take more hostages, but that is invariably less than the potential harm caused by a nuclear weapon. Morality should suggest an alternate course though, morally no man is equipped with the faculties to judge the value of human life. It is no right of man's to decide the fate of another and therefore should give over the nuclear weapon. The mechanical problem with your example is that the game effects of swearing an oath, the undead transformation procedure, and the alignment effects on the paladin are not described according to the rules and are left completely up to the DM. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot Ok, then would you be happy if your president/prime minister/ whatever gave terrorists The Bomb to save the lives of Joe Average? And if you were a nice, perfectly moral hostage, whould you rather A)Be happy that X evil guys now have The Bomb because your president would rather make the moral choice or B) Die happy that X evildoers don't have The Bomb, even though their killing you now. I don't see how you really can be happy that the bad guys have the Bomb, even if you made the right moral choice. In the end, you can't be perfect, and sometimes thats a good thing. Also, I don't think Moral Perfection is in the Palidin's CoC, but generally doing the right thing is. The right thing includes the lesser of two evils, such as giving up the lives of innocents to prevent the greater evil.
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 12:42 AM	no, the paladin does not. (this is really turning into a "is too/is not" thing) Certainty is at the heart of the problem here. Pragmatism is only part of this arguement. The paladin would have to be mentally challanged to assume the actions of others is his fault. His duty in the case of the King would be to rise up and hopefully lead a successful rebellion against a tyrant who would do such things. His duty in the case of the original post is to not betray his order, causing the lives of untold number of people to be killed or subjected. (this is, ofcourse, assuming that the BBEG wasn't going to ask the head of the paladin's order over for tea and crumpets.) The "look what you made me do" line of thinking is what abusive husbands give their wives after knocking them around the room abit. "look what you made me do to you and the kids, honey. Don't make me angry again". Women (and some men) buying into that line of thinking is what lets so many of the animals that do that kind of thing loose on the streets. Indeed, paladins could not function under the paradigm that you have postulated, because of the maybe of destroying one evil will lead to a greater evil taking it's place. It's real easy to double and triple think yourself into inaction or even evil acts. That is why evil is so nice and seductive. The paladin would have to do what he can, when he can, and let the actions of others be the responsibility of the the ones that commit those actions.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 12:50 AM	Its safe to assume the Paladin hasn't seen the ovies we have. Yeah, we all see what's coming: to prove himself, he's going to have to off the kids anyway. No duh :rolleyes: . But he doesn't know that. All he knows is that if he doesn't do it, they're going to die. It is in his powe (as far as he knows) to stop it, though that means sacrificing his 'goodness'. The simple fact is, that as a person, he's dead once he gets turned, so this truly is a last act of heroism. If he is truly a good person, he has to take the chance that these guys will keep thier word and let the children go.
Jancarius 10-09-03, 12:54 AM	From a purely game mechanics perspective, if he chose to let the humans die, and later escaped the Nerull cultists, he would have to Atone for his choice.
deadDMwalking 10-09-03, 12:58 AM	ManTimeForgot said "If I put a gun in your house and you kill your parents with it. I would not be at fault unless I knew you were insane and wanted to kill your parents. If I knew that you were insane and that you were going to kill your parents with that gun, while the legal blame lies upon you, the moral blame lies upon me." First off, you can never truly know what any man is going to do. If you put a gun in my house, you could not know if I was planning on using it to kill my parents. The most you could hope for is believing that I would kill my parents. If you gave me a gun believing that I was going to kill my parents, yes, you would be enabling me, and you would certainly share in the blame (you couldn't have all the moral blame, I get some too.) If you refuse me the gun, I could always use a knife. Or, I could get a gun from someone else. Not providing me a gun does not mean you have done any good. Reporting me to the authorities would be more appropriate. In the paladin example, the paladin does not give the cultists the "gun". He may believe that they will kill the villagers if he doesn't make an oath, but he isn't giving them the weapon to do so. So, initially, your premise of giving me a gun has very little relationship to the paladin. Later, ManTimeForgot said: "The paladin has foreknowledge that the children will be killed if he does not swear an oath (I have foreknowledge that you will kill your parents if I give you a gun). I choose to not swear an oath (I give you the gun). The children die (you kill your parents)." In this example, if I am the Paladin, I do not have foreknowledge that the children will be killed if I don't swear an oath. The only thing I know if that there has been a threat made against these people as an attempt to compel me to some action. I may be reasonably certain that the cultists will do as they say, but they might not. They may not even get the chance. What if the villagers or children are actually capable of defending themselves? I don't know they are not. Again, I can only believe that they need me to championship their cause. When you say "I give you the gun" you haven't given me anything at all. The cultists had the means to kill the children at any time. If the Paladin were not there, there is a good chance that they would have killed the children anyway. Because he is there they might just think they can get some extra use out of these prisoners. When you say (You kill your parents) that might not happen. It only happens if you have foreknowledge, which is impossible to actually have. Okay, so maybe you can see that your example wasn't a very good one. In fact, I feel fairly unbiased when I say it doesn't apply at all. But there is a chance that you will develop a much better model of the situation. And it appears that I will be unable to convince you. However, I will try one more time. You can only claim responsibility for your actions. Willfully doing an evil act is certainly evil. In this case, swearing yourself to a dark god is willfully committing an evil act. Refusing to do an evil act is never evil. Even though people may die, you are not directly responsible. In this case, you are not even morally responsible. You have no actual recourse to save them without doing evil. You originally posed the question, how many innocent lives is a paladin worth? 10? 20? 100? 1000? How many lives are a dozen villagers worth? 10? 20? 100? 1000? There is no guarantee that the paladin will ever do an evil act after he becomes a blackguard/evil undead. He might be attacked by a group of good adventureres moments after swearing the oath. Also, although it is an evil act to kill, it is not necessarily an evil act to allow someone to die. Death comes naturally eventually. Most spiritual people believe that the soul travels to a better place after death. In D&D characters know that souls travel to higher planes of existence (if they were good). The paladin can allow the villagers to be slaughtered because his only other choice is to actually do evil. Once they are dead they are safe from further harassment by the cult. When the paladin finally frees himself he can have them resurrected, or more likely, allow them to rest in peace, secure in the fact that they died resisting evil, and living forever in paradise. ManTimeForgot - A Paladin cannot always prevent death. Doing evil to save a life is not good. If a Paladin were walking along a lake, and came upon two people drowning, what would you do? If you save one, the other will drown. If you try to save both, they will both drown. What if you're wearing armor. If you try to save them, you'll die and they'll both drown. In this case, I would say removing your armor and trying to save them would be your best course of action. While you do so you could always yell for help. Perhaps 2 unarmored swimmers will hear you and rescue them for you. Lastly, I can understand why you think a Paladin has a responsibility to save innocents. But what are his actual responsibilities to these people. He has not promised to protect them. He has not assured them that death would not come to them. If he had, it might be different. How does he know they are innocent? Does it matter if they are not really villagers? Of course. If they are really cultists trying to deceive him the only good thing he could do is refuse. And he can never know. He can only suspect/believe. Are you convinced?
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 01:03 AM	Like I said many times before I am not perfect. I do not assume to live inside a perfect society. If I were a hostage and the president handed over the bomb I would not be happy. If I were a citizen in the country were the president handed over the bomb I would not be happy. Why, because I actually use pragmatism in my day to day thinking. But you also did not address my response as to how your situation differs from the paladin dilemma. I also never said moral perfection was part of the CoC for paladins. I was, however, assuming that morality over ethics was. The atonement spell seems to suggest as such, and the description may or may not agree with me. The paladin would not have to be mentally challenged. It is the same as the king who orders innocent peasants to be slaughtered. Where is the difference. The paladin is the cause which sparked the deaths of the children. If it is 100% certain X action will result in Y, and Y is evil, then the paladin should not do X. Y in this case in the innocents dying. (Innocents being put to death is evil, unless you wish to debate otherwise). The argument that you all keep putting forth is that the paladin isn't responsible for the actions of others. The paladin is responsible just as surely as the king who orders his executioner to kill innocent peasants is responsible. What is the difference? And Ogre what you propose at the end is impossible for anyone who is "good" (I purposefully leave this term undefined as something as nebulous as goodness defies definition) to abide by. For sake of argument a detective exists. This detective has a 100% success rate at catching criminals that he chooses to go after, time is still a concern, but he gets them eventually (I understand no such detective exist, but for sake of argument lets assume one does). That detective has no current cases going at the moment (that is he is not chasing down any other criminals at this point in time). The detective is presented with a serial murderer case. The detective chooses not to take the case. And now we will assume simply for sake of argument, that for the next 5 years the detective has no cases to take up other than the one serial murderer case (all other cases are being handled by junior detectives). Let's also assume that the serial murderer cannot be caught by any other detective other than our super detective because the serial murderer is a super criminal. In 5 years time the serial murderer manages to kill 100 people. The detective is morally responsible for the deaths of the people over the 5 years time minus the amount of time it would take to catch the murderer because the detective had nothing else to do over that 5 year time. You are suggesting otherwise? And this is not a "look what you made me do" line thinking. This is a "oh look what will happen if you do this, don't do that," then guess what you do, you do it. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 01:04 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Its safe to assume the Paladin hasn't seen the ovies we have. Yeah, we all see what's coming: to prove himself, he's going to have to off the kids anyway. No duh :rolleyes: . But he doesn't know that. All he knows is that if he doesn't do it, they're going to die. It is in his powe (as far as he knows) to stop it, though that means sacrificing his 'goodness'. The simple fact is, that as a person, he's dead once he gets turned, so this truly is a last act of heroism. If he is truly a good person, he has to take the chance that these guys will keep thier word and let the children go. Part of the problem I'm having with this senario is that the paladin doesn't know if he refuses, the children are going to die. He has no way of checking or ensuring anything. There is a line between being heroic and being stupid. If your going to die anyway, trying to save to most amount of people that you can is better than the emotional salve of being spared watching a few die. The paladin didn't set-up this senario, the BBEG did. Helping him do the most damage to the world that he can is hardly heroic.
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 01:05 AM	Isn't a Paladin bound by the Code to protect the innocent? It make very little sense for a pally to go 'meh, I don't owe them nothing. Kill'em if you want." in any situation.
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 01:10 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Isn't a Paladin bound by the Code to protect the innocent? It make very little sense for a pally to go 'meh, I don't owe them nothing. Kill'em if you want." in any situation. that is not what I said. I said if the pally is "given" the choice of watching a dozen die or sealing the fate of thousands that he will never see again, It might make the pally feel better if he saved the dozen, but is he really heroic to let the thousands fall?
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 01:14 AM	No I am not convinced and I never will be as long as every one here continues to assume it is necessary for the threat against the children/commoners to be plausible. It is irrelevant whether or not the evil people even have the children to begin with. It is the threat itself which matters, and according to this argument it is assumed that this is a valid threat, otherwise you can't assume that the evil people will actually force upon the paladin an oath to an evil deity. They could force the paladin into swearing an oath to Obad-Hai. Your logic uses the same logic as the 100 virgins example. The paladin there did wrong by not sleeping with one of the virgins. The paladin here does wrong by not swearing an oath. The paladin willfully endangers the lives of innocents by not swearing an oath. It is not certain the fate of the innocents if the paladin swears an oath. In the case of swearing the oath, the paladin is not the cause of what will be the deaths of the innocents. The innocents could go on to live a long and happy life. It is not certain the evil people will kill the children anyway, and it is not stated in the example to the contrary. DeadDmwalking you have indeed picked apart the flaw in my gun example I didn't stipulate correctly. Check out the knife example. If I know you will kill your parents if given a knife, and I give you a knife, then I am morally responsible for the death's of your parents. Note that this says nothing about other possible murderings of your parents; it doesn't have to. In the example choosing not to swear an oath is the direct brings about events which will lead to the deaths of innocents. Giving the you the knife. The King ordering the executioner to kill the peasants. The paladin not swearing an oath is all the same. A paladin need not have promised to protect anyone. It is part of his CoC to help people when possible. And yes Ogre this discussion would be a lot more simple if the paladin knew the children were going to die anyway. If the children were already dead (that is certain to die eitherway, then this would be easy, the paladin resists as there are no lives to save). Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 01:21 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot And this is not a "look what you made me do" line thinking. This is a "oh look what will happen if you do this, don't do that," then guess what you do, you do it. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot I can't see the difference. If the husband says, "look what you made me do." or "have the house clean and food on the table , or I'll make sure you and the kids will have a hard time walking for a month." should the wife submit to this? Is not every time that she does only make the situation worse? Is it the wife fault if she and her kids are put into the hospital because the meal wasn't perfect? That is the end result of assuming responsibility for other actions in cases like that. The abused often have to get counciling to help them realize that it wasn't there fault, except for putting up with it for so long.
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 01:26 AM	I have to go and take care of my kids, I'll post ASAP. thanks for the fun. Ogre
aeon001 10-09-03, 01:28 AM	I don't get it, this a no win situation for the villiagers. I think the focus should be on fate of the prisoners, not the paladin. Scenario 1 - we die by the hands of our captures, the bad guys will have no more leverage on the paladin. Thats it. We sacrafice ourselves in hopes the paladin hero will defeat the enemy and avenge our deaths. But hopefully the paladin may lose his bonds and slay the bad guys while they make the paladin watch as they slaughter each of us innocent villiagers. Quite possibly we villiagers can rebel against our captures as well. We may be prisoners, but were are not sheep waiting to die, we will fight for a chance to survive. Paladin status - Still maintaining all things paladin, being held and restrained does not forfeit the paladins desire to help. So long as a paladin wants to do good, if he is unable to due to being say asleep, unconscious, dying, poisoned, tied up, being tortured, imprisoned, fighting one evil while unable to stop another evil, he is still a paladin. Now, willingfully commiting an evil act - No paladin. ----------------------------------------- Scenario 2 - The paladin swears an oath to the bad guy and then as an act of loyalty kills each and every one of the villiagers, then sets out to thier homelands and start killing thier families there. Maybe some hero, sometime in the future, after untold deaths caused by the paladin swearing to the evil god, maybe some hero can come and slay the traitor who was once paladin. Paladin status - evil, evil, bad fallen paladin, servant of evil, destroyer of lands, murderer of thousands and at the cost of 12 innocent villiagers it could have been prevented. It is better to be a weapon against evil for as long as you can then to become a weapon used for evil. (The paladin in question would not go insta black guard - unless the paladin willingly hung out with an evil outsider and made a pact with it) Either way this is not the case of options, or the lesser of 2 evils to the paladin, there is only truely paladin thing to do. Wait. Because there is always 3 options, or as many as you can think of. Each and every day the paladin should ask his captures to spare the villiagers, and set one free and in return he would draw 1/12 of a map showing you where the paladin base is. Basically turn the Leverage in the paladins favor, use the prisoners to the paladins advantage instead of his weakness. The bad guys want something, the paladin says - Harm any of the prisoners, and you might as well kill me now cause your not going to find out anything from me nanana. Let one prisoner go and I will draw you 1/12th of a map to the location of my base. Once all but one of the priosners are freed you will have 11 of 12 pieces of the map, free the last prisoner and I will personally escort you to the location of my base and you will have a map how to get there should I fail as your guide. In this scenario the paladins base will be better prepared to defend against soldiers then 12 innocent, unarmed prisoners that can't defend against the bad guys to being with. It is better to have a fighting chance against evil then no chance at all.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 01:33 AM	The key difference here Ogre is "putting up with it for so long." The reason why the "look what you made me do" is so effective at keeping mothers in place is because morally the blame falls on them. But the problem is not with the mother, it is with the immoral husband who acts unethically. Further explanation on how "wife beater" differs from paladin dilemma. The paladin in this example has no other options. Thus on the one hand the paladin has a choice where evil directly befalls himself, and on the other the evil befalls others. If the paladin chooses the option where evil befalls others, then he is the one who choose evil to befall them. If the paladin chooses evil to befall himself, then he has not harmed others. (Yes the paladin might become a blackguard and go on to kill millions of people, he might also die of a heart attack right after swearing the oath, we can't really judge future actions morally without that knowledge even if pragmatically we would assume that a blackguard will go on to do great evil). The no other options is a very key difference. IF presented with only two possible (not just plausible) choices, and you chose the one which net results evil befalling others you are morally responsible for that. Obviously life will never be so cut and dry that one will only have TWO possible options. I would never assume such a thing to be real, but assuming something like that for sake of argument is where it differs from reality. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
aeon001 10-09-03, 01:34 AM	the paladin does have more options, my post was long, but read the last part of it :)
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 01:39 AM	I'm sorry Aeon, but there is no third option. Because of your unwillingness to swear an oath, all the prisoners were put to death. (Stated as such in the example). What's more is that in Scenario 2 you have a made an assumption, which I have pointed out many times so far, that is not necessarily correct. Just because the paladin swears an oath to a dark deity does not mean anything. We can be certain of nothing in this option. There are no game rules adjucating what happens to a paladin who swears an oath to an evil deity, undead creation procedures are DM only, and alignment changes are purely DM jurisdiction. The tantalizing tertiary alternative, other option, which is always present in real life, is left out of this discussion. There is not third or fourth options people. There is only swear or not swear. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
aeon001 10-09-03, 01:54 AM	Forgive me if I am wrong, but in your first post you stated the bad guys wanted the location of the paladins base. Hence the whole threaten to kill the villiagers. This is called leverage, so the proposed I will give you the information your asking for but on these terms scenario is of no interest to the bad guys? It breaks down like this. 1- Use the villiagers as pawns to get the paladin to talk. Killing the villiagers gains the bad guys nothing. No villiagers - no leverage, they can get more prisoners until the paladin breaks but they still seek the same information from the paladin. 2 - Join us or die paladin, the paladin becomes evil, tells the bad guys the information cause he is now on thier side and they go spead evil across the lands. 3 - The paladin uses the prisoners as his leverage and negotiates with the bad guys to give the bad guys what they want but sparring and freeing the prisoners in the proccess. The paladin can sleep easy knowing his comrades who fight evil won't have to go looking for it that day, but can wake up and battle evil in the comfort of thier home. If they refuse to agree to option 3, then the situation is not a moral or ethical option. It's does the paladin kill himself or force the bad guys to kill him, because options 1 and 2 and unthinkable. As it seems this join the bad guys option seems like it has to be voluntary act or the bad guys would have forced this on the paladin already. Also, if the prisoners were of no use to the bad guys, they would have killed them long ago. Remove the prisoners from the equation and all you have is Bad guys - " Join us paladin?" Paladin - "NO!" Bad Guys " Please?"
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 02:09 AM	This is not my thread btw, but even that does not change the fact that there still is not third option (no leverage, no discussion, no anything); refuse to swear an oath and the peasants die. It's that simple. No simpler, no more complicated. Problem with removing prisoners from choice is that you can't do that. Do anything except choose to swear an oath and the prisoners are dead. Prisoners would be dead if they were not of any use? Assumption on your part, but I have heard that some evil guys like torturing prisoners they keep, so I guess some bad guys will just be creative and come up with uses for prisoners huh. Note I do not want to get into a discussion about the morality of quality of life versus living (I get enough of it in philosophy thank you). Besides it is not stated in the example that the prisoners are being tortured, thus it does not factor in to the problem. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 02:13 AM	The only real answer is that the villagers should have taken a self defense class because apperently no one is looking out for them. A few rogue levels would have solved all of this.
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 02:33 AM	because aeon001, that makes too much sense. We're trying to keep this binary to see how ridiculous we can get. :D and MtTF, the thinking is still the same. I saw it too many times working in the hospital. The wives and sometimes husbands who sit there and blame themselves for something that their spouse did to them. After awhile, it got hard to feel sorry for them, because they didn't stand up and say "No, I'll not go one step further. What you do is your perview, but I'll not help you in this one more time." The ones that did that are ten times more heroic than the ones who keep helping the abusers. In the new senario, you keep saying that the paladin is responsible for the King killing the peasants. Short of mind-control or compulsion, the paladin can do no such thing. He might feel or even think that way because of the the terrible dread that human beings have of feeling helpless, but that doesn't make it true. The paladin has the choice of helping the abuser(King) to placate him for a short while or he can stand up and say "if one commoner is harmed by this edict, I'll not rest until your bloody corpse is scraped off of that throne." Which do you think is more in keeping with the LG alignment? Which do you think is more likely to work in the long run?
aeon001 10-09-03, 02:48 AM	even the scenario of " Join us or we kill the prisoners" Motivation - use the prisoners as weakness to sway the paladin. Leverage - the prisoners. Paladin - no prisoners, no leverage Endless stalemate of threats vrs no, ask me tomorrow Kill the prisoners, why would the paladin join you now? Threatening to kill the prisoners is all the bad guys can do, without the prisoners they can't make the paladin do anything. They can't force the paladin evil, all they have is the prisoners. The paladin can see this plain as day, the prisoners are safest if he refuses to swear an oath to the bad guys. Remember - paladins can't lie, they can't swear to do one thing and do the opposite, they can, but not be paladins at the same time. Basically this is an endless stalemate, the bad guys need the paladin, why else do they still let him live. They need the viliagers to sway the paladin and the paladin who refuses to play thier little game...is still a paladin, his hands are not bloodied with empty threats.
L33t Angel 10-09-03, 04:08 AM	Then they kill the prisoners and the Paladin. And they start over. Leaing the Paladin alive once he's proven unrepentant serves nothing, he will merely be a thorn in their sides. So they slay him along with the prisoners, and activate plan 2. The pragmatism in this room is unbearable! LORD GIMME SOME AIR! Here let's try a new analogy. A Nurse is stuck in traffic due to an accident. From where she sits she can see the accident victim lying in a pool of his own blood. He will be dead soon. She has the medical knowledge to save him from his predicament, but she feels that she cannot stop to help this man for some reason or another. If she keeps on going is she morally responsible for the man's death? You pragmatists will say no. You've been sayin no for the longest time. Guess who says yes. The law. The highy pragmatic American law code has stated that if it was within the nurse's power to save the man, even though she is not responsible for his injuries, she must do everything she can to save him. Who else's job is this? Off-duty firemen, off-duty lifeguards, anyone with the ability to save a life who doesn't is morally AND lawfully responsible for that person's death. Now, this legal system has nothing to do with the Paladin's CoC but it does set a precident. If the Paladin has it within his power to save the villagers, which he does, and he does not that is an EVIL act. Now notice, he HAS the power to save them. If he refuses then they die. They DIE! No ifs ands or buts. If he agrees to swear the oath then our jaded minds say that he will immediately be double-crossed. this is a movie stereotype. there is really no reason for the Evil men to kill the villagers other than being evil, and evil is fickle. not every evil villains kills hostages when they're done with them. It makes no sense. Because in reality, when it is known that you execute hostages for little reason, then noone will take your word. The hostages will be presumed lost from the beginning and 'Other' Paladins who you trap will never pick the 'Save the Villagers' option, because THEN it would be pointless. Currently it is not pointless. Yhe villagers have an existant chance of survival. The villains may slay them or they may not, a much better choice than having them slain 100%. I have been in the Moral over Ethical camp since the beginning of these damn debates. the Paladin should not look forard and say, "I retain my Paladinhood if I do this!" or "I can atone for that!" because that's something you can't atone for, having the pride to think that your divine abilities are more important than your oaths.
the_heart 10-09-03, 04:40 AM	dissappear for a while and all hell breaks loose... a paladin is not responsible for what an evil man does, if the paladin is not in a position to stop[ said evil. in the example, swearing allegiance isn't stopping the evil, it becomes actively assisting it. now if, in the example, the pally was passive, then he would be at fault, but all indicatuions are that if he could, he would fight the bad guys. IMO the gun analogy seems flawed, a closer analogy would be, i am not giving him a gun, he already has it, he is telling me he will kill his parents unless i grab the knife from the kitchen and join him in killing others... in short, if the paladin doesn't swear allegiance,he is neither passively allowing evil or actively supporting it. no wrong that i can see. (i've assumed lawful stupid isn't an option therefore no suicide attacks or praying for death)
Gothic_Demon 10-09-03, 05:11 AM	Quote: "In the end they give him a "choice": either he swears service to their god (esentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead), or a dozen of random commoners, who are imprisoned within the temple, would be painfully killed and then animated as undead. Now, what the paladin should do?" I think this boils down to the statement: "We do evil now, or you do evil later. Which will it be?" Remember, either way this evil cult are going to continue doing whatever it is they are currently doing because the Paladin is not in a position to stop them. Can a good person truly allow themselves to become a tool of evil and destruction, regardless of the cost? MtTF is right when he says you cannot put a price on human life, a value that would be required here to make sense of this situation. You cannot read the future, but just as you can't assume that the BBEG will kill the commoners even if the Paladin swears, you can't assume that the Paladin will get lucky and be killed soon after the oath is sworn. With that in mind you have to try and balance 12 tortured, and now undead commoners, with the chaos and destruction of this evil paladin at large, because they are the two options. Pragmatically, the death of so many at the hands of the Paladin later cannot be balanced against the death of 12 commoners now. Morally, your deity has already decided whether or not you should turn or let the commoners die, and you should try to follow his wishes. Ethically, does the Paladin believe that he will truly commit worse atrocities once he has turned to evil than will be committed by the cult without him? There are consequences here that reach far beyond the deaths of 12 commoners or an evil paladin that have so far been ignored. We cannot analyse this situation in a vacuum and come up with a definitive conclusion. I think Keg of Ale had it right when he said, the actions here depend on the personality of the Paladin. We have been discussing the Paladin's options. I have come to the conclusion that the Paladin, in fact, has no options, because neither option can be considered a good option, and without a further option, the Paladin is doomed to failure.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 05:17 AM	Ok I will dilineate this one step at a time. (Note Ogre I am not saying the paladin is repsonsible for King, I am using the King as an analogy). The "If you do this I will do this" "wife beater example." The wife beater says if you do this I will hit you. Ogre this is different from the paladin problem because the paladin has no other choices. The wife can refuse to go along with things. She can leave. She can sue the guy for hurting the children. This is vastly different, observe the certainties listed below. The intuitive response to the "wife beater example" is its not the woman's fault, the bad guy here is the husband. Well congratulations people, all that tells us is that without the bad husband, this whole problem would not take place. The same way with this example. Without the bad clerics this problem would not take place. The paladin is repsonsible for the death's of the peasants, not for the actions of the priests. That is a splitting of hairs I know, but that subtle differenence is what this example illustrates. King Decrees peasants to be slaughtered. Executioner kills peasants. Which is the exact same as: Paladin refuses to swear an oath. Evil people kill peasants. The paladin is not killing the peasants just as surely as the king did not kill the peasants either. But the question of causation ends with the King in the first and the Paladin in the second. Admittedly the gun analogy is flawed. See the knife analogy I constructed for a much more accurate one. But The_Heart you have stated yourself why exactly the paladin would be responsible. If the paladin swears an oath, the peasants are not guaranteed death. So in swearing an oath the paladin prevents the certain death of the peasants. Not swearing an oath guarantees the death of the peasants. Aeon: there are three certainties in this argument. 1: If the paladin refuses to join them, the peasants will die. 2: The paladin cannot falsely swear an oath to the dark god. 3: The paladin must choose one way or the other, there is no third or fourth options. And I'm sorry aeon, but the bad guy's quite simply in this example are cookie-cutter bad guys. Pure evil. They are not trying to leverage the paladin for anything. The paladin refuses to join, then the peasants die period. No discussion it happens. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 05:27 AM	Absolutely correct pragmatically speaking Gothic Demon. No one here is denying that a blackguard could potentially wrought unspeakable horror. The problem with that is we cannot take that into account because that requires future knowledge we cannot possess. I agree with you that the personality of the paladin would dictate what will occur, I even said so earlier. But you have overlooked is that the choice does not boil down to do evil now or do evil later. Pragmatically it seems that way because we look at the odds and the odds are that is what will occur, but realistically things are uncertain at the point in time the choice is to be made. When the paladin swears the oath it is uncertain that he will die, be animated, be turned into a blackguard (requires contact with an evil outsider even if he is a fallen paladin), even that he will become evil. There are no game rules which adjucate the effects of an oath taking, thus it is all left to the purview of the DM, and without insight as to what will occur exactly as a result of the oath taking one cannot make any assumptions about the potential moral consequences which result from it. Absolutely we have thought about these things, but we are forbidden from taking the consequences into account because we have no future knowledge. The paladin may die of a heart attack soon after swearing the oath. The paladin may go on to a reign of terror. The paladin may be killed by a good aligned party shortly there afterwards. Like Ogre said, this would be really simple if we knew whether the peasants were going to die any way. It would likewise be simple if we knew the paladin was guaranteed to later on go on a reign of terror if he swears an oath. The only choice here is: Do evil now and uncertainty. Obviously one should follow the deity's advice, I even said so previously. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Arilou_skiff 10-09-03, 05:39 AM	No. The paladin is not "doing evil now" (I assume the paladin does everything he can short of becoming an undead monstrosity to stop the evil-doers) It is between doing A Great Evil or letting *others* committ a lesser one. It is better to have Evil done to you (or others) than to do Evil. (as Socrates put it)
the_heart 10-09-03, 05:40 AM	i still feel that swearing the oath is acceding to evil, and a paladin has to oppose evil. the paladin is not 'allowing' the peasants to die. the 'choices' are 1) actively support evil(swear the oath) 2)passively accept evil exists and cannot be stopped in this instance(not swear the oath) the greater evil is active support of evil. also the king/ executioner analogy is flawed, if the executioner is doing the job willingly, yes he is responsible. but the executioner has a choice to walk away or not accept the job, the paladin doesn't have that choice. a closer analogy(but far from perfect one)is the king is holding a knife to the executioners throat and saying 'kill or be killed' the bad guys set the rules and leave no real choices, therefore they are ultimately morally and ethically responsible.
Gothic_Demon 10-09-03, 05:44 AM	I think you are really getting this MtTF. You have obviously considered the problem thoroughly. I have but one problem with your reasoning, and it is this: "When the paladin swears the oath it is uncertain that he will die, be animated, be turned into a blackguard (requires contact with an evil outsider even if he is a fallen paladin), even that he will become evil." "And I'm sorry aeon, but the bad guy's quite simply in this example are cookie-cutter bad guys. Pure evil. They are not trying to leverage the paladin for anything. The paladin refuses to join, then the peasants die period. No discussion it happens." You have declared that, categorically, the bad guys are EVIL!!!! in the capital E sense of the word. I agree. However, you are arguing that by choosing the oath the Paladin is putting his fate into the hands of uncertainty, and this is preferable to the 'certain' death of the commoners. What I said in my post was that, if we can be certain the commoners will die, then we must be certain that the Paladin will become EVIL. If there is a chance the paladin will not become evil, then there is a chance that the bad guys will say, "Oh no, that didn't work! Let the commoners go and kill the Paladin, we need to find another, less good holy warrior to convert to evildom." As you stated, "...we are forbidden from taking the consequences into account because we have no future knowledge." And yet, you are using the consequences of the paladin's choices to defend your argument. Don't take this the wrong way, I have to agree with large portions of your arguments. I respect the thoughtful way you have considered this problem and put ideas across. I just think that you are using a principle of uncertainty to defend your point whilst using certainty to refute the other arguments, and you can't really have it both ways.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 05:57 AM	With all due respect to your assertion that we must accept that the paladin will become evil, the only certainties allowed for are the ones set down in the prompt. In the prompt it was stated that if the paladin does not swear the oath, then peasants will die. The only tacit assumption, which by concensus of posters, that we have accepted as certainty is that no third option exists. (the thread starter clarified that one could not swear a false oath, which is the other certainty). I argue uncertainty because no game rules suggest otherwise, and the rest of it is up to the DM, or if one were to assume reality in the situation, then the "deities." I know of no reason why one should assume that it is certain that the paladin will become evil. Otherwise, the problem does change. If one accepts that the paladin with certainty will become an evil undead, then the problem turns into a question of "Do evil now or do evil later"? In this position I still stand by my position of swearing the oath. It is better to have evil befall oneself, rather than have evil befall others. I think Keg of Ale summarized this view point quite eloquently. Without knowing anything about the situation, I in the position of the paladin would make the decision to swear the oath, not just to avoid the consequences of endangering others, but in the hopes that my order has safeguards in place just for occasions like this. The "if a paladin is captured, we should assume him to be dead or turned, in either case we must ascertain his status and if necessary kill him for his own good." I would suggest that the paladin not be allowed to not take the oath because in doing so he would be weighing future lives against the current ones, and this decision cannot be decided morally. Thus I would content myself to hope... Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Gothic_Demon 10-09-03, 06:10 AM	I quote the initial prompt: "In the end they give him a "choice": either he swears service to their god (esentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead), or a dozen of random commoners, who are imprisoned within the temple, would be painfully killed and then animated as undead." And I draw attention to the 'essentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead' section, which I think implies quite clearly (since both are considered evil in DnD) that the paladin will become evil, which is where my initial summarisation came from: "We do evil now, or you do evil later." Though I will freely admit that the turning to evil is not necessarily the death of thousands of commoners. As such, I formulated the idea that the Paladin could indeed become a blackguard, and then evilly slay all the cultists, and go looking for other evil cultists and slay them in horrific ways too, thereby being evil but still in some semblance of keeping with his old Paladinic nature. However, I think this is an escape clause, our third option that we have tried to avoid as part of our argument. And while I agree that the Paladins order will have safeguards, and will no doubt come looking for him to help him or slay him as needs be, that too is a potential future consequence that cannot be taken into account, simply because they might all fail, and the now-evil Paladin has destroyed an entire order of pure souls because of his fall. And so I return to my assertion that this decision cannot be taken in the vacuum, because whilst lacking further knowledge of the paladins order, the plans of the cultists (insofar as the paladin knows them), and his knowledge of the effects of the oath (and subsequent change) we can only fall back on Kegs personality assumption. While I can respect your decision to save the commoners, I think my decision would be to find a way to bring the cultists to justice for that action later. I could not, as the paladin, willingly be a party to evil however it was laid to me.
Gothic_Demon 10-09-03, 06:11 AM	This has to be the nicest, most civil and polite paladin thread I have ever read. Thanks to everyone for keeping it like that!!!
deadDMwalking 10-09-03, 08:54 AM	To ManTimeForgot I appreciate your goodness is trying to take suffering on yourself. If I understand you correctly, if you were in the Paladin and the cult had captured a dozen commoners and you, and they asked who they should kill, you would boldly step forward and volunteer to die. You would be saving a life, even if for a short time. That is the moral decision. Pragmatists might say let a peasant die, you have a better chance of saving more peasants. That arguement would hold up until there are 11 dead peasants. So, I know you have a strong sense of morals, and you are essentially correct. The point where I disagree is, I don't see the Paladin saving anyone. His choice is whether it is better to do evil in the hope of accomplishing good. In this case, swearing the oath would be evil, but saving the villagers would be good. I think that, morally speaking, we should be able to categorically agree that the ends do not justify the means. You can not do an evil act and be morally good, even if it accomplishes a good act. Again, the Paladin has no good options. However, he cannot "save" the peasants by swearing an oath. Assuming he knows that they will die if he does not, he still shouldn't do an evil act. Remaining true to his god is the best he can do. And you haven't addressed the issue of an afterlife. Willfully causing suffering is an evil act. Killing people causes suffering, but not necessarily in the victim. It certainly causes suffering among surviving family, etc. How much do the peasants mind having been killed after the fact? You may have heard policies of not negotiating with terroists. It is for exactly this reason. If you swear the oath, but avoid becoming evil, the cultists are out to capture a dozen more villagers to try again. Once you let them get away with it, you encourage them to do more evil. We call that appeasement. That is why Hitler was so successful early on. It turns out that appeasement doesn't work. The thought is that whoever you appease will always want more. Another example of the ends not justifying the means - If you travelled back in time, and you came upon Hitler at the age of 4, would you kill him? Even knowing it could conceivably save 13 million holocaust victims and hundreds of millions of soldiers? The ends don't justify the means. What if you came upon his drowning, when he was a 4 year old child. Again, if you don't save him, you are morally responsible for his death. But are you truly responsible for his future actions? What if you just tried to teach him that hate is bad, and love is good? Might you change history without killing him? So, do you still think swearing the oath is a good act because it (maybe) saves lives?
Naeron 10-09-03, 09:17 AM	I think I will start with the solution and then post my views, which are likely to cause some hackles to rise. The solution is the most simple thing in the world. The evil cultists have presented the paladin with 2 choices, both of which inevitable result in the suffering of others. Regardless of which you personally view to be the more morally and ethically preferrable the noble choice is to remove the choices from the equation. Answer: The paladin kills himself. Prays for DI and a peaceful death, hangs himself, opens his own wrists or bites his own tongue off. In his weakened condition after so much torture death should be achievable in the short time he is bound to be left unguarded. This removes all responsibility for the death of the commoners from the paladins hands as if they are killed this is a different choice to commit evil. IMHO human life has no value in and of itself. The only value that can be applied to human life is taken from the actions that we perform. The highest encompassing principole of good is that we do not submit to performing evil acts. If the Paladin submits to the ritual that is a most evil act for which he has total responsibility. If the refuses and the commoners are killed then he has no responsibility for their deaths as no one is responsible for the actions of another unless you actively aid and abet them. The gun, knife and nurse analogies is seriously flawed as they only highlight the single choice that leads to wrongdoing, the Paladin faces 2 choices. A better analogy would be if X says "give me your gun so I can shoot people in the street or I will use my knife to kill people in the street". What it comes down to is that there is a group of evil clerics who have, and will continue to, kill people, the Paladins choice comes down to whether he aids them in killing people by lending his powers to the cult or denies them an increased ability to do evil. That is what people are missing, that this is not a single act such as the killing of a single person but ongoing acts of cruelty and murder. Making the cult more able to commit evil is the greatest breach of the Paladins code.
wrax 10-09-03, 09:20 AM	The Paladin should swear the oath, sacrificing himself that the peasents could live, even if the chance is slim to none and slim left town that the cultists won't kill them no matter what. Chances are that the cultists will have the newly made blackguard kill them anyway as his first test, so the Paladin could try to fake their deaths that way. However, I would have some Celestial creature (probably an Astral Deva) come to the aid of the paladin before the ritual started and free him, giving him back his equipment through some "power" and allowing the Paladin to fight his way out with teh Deva's help. I would have the Deva be pretty impressed with the Paladin for giving himself up for the commoners, even if this made him go back on his vow. Paladins are like that, they'll throw all the power away, even their lives for the right cause. Then the butt kicking starts and the Paladin player feels really good at being rewarded for his decision. If this Paladin is high ranking I think some good agency would be a little cheesed off at the Nerull priests for trying to corrupt a Paladin like that and send some aid, espically if the pally attempted escape before and was brought back. Giving the Paladin the chance to die in combat honorably against the forces of Evil is only right in that situation to me. Anyway thats my $.02 Edit: And really who's to say that Pelor or St. Cuthbert didn't arrange for this test to occur to test their paladin's honor?
Gothic_Demon 10-09-03, 09:23 AM	Naeron, Wrax Whilst your input is appreciated (and you have both stated your opinions and chosen a side) this thread wasn't started (I don't think) for the DM to find a way out of the situation. The paladin cannot kill himself, or escape, or expect divine aid. This was stated explicitly before. There are only two choices, as clearly stated in the first post. We have been arguing as to whether, given ONLY those two options to choose from, which one would be more in keeping with the spirit of paladinhood. Given that, would you both still stand by your current decisions? Edit: My spelling is getting worse as the day goes on.
Dowanroden 10-09-03, 09:32 AM	The paladin has only one option if he is to truly abide by his code and his means of escape are nil. Die. All the villians can do is attempt to keep him alive and hope he talks which, if the paladin is truly worthy of the title, will be never. The villagers may die first but at least the paladin can rest assured that he will atone for their lives with his own. It's not always about saving face, often it's just a matter of saving grace. If the villians want their precious information, let them torture a castel guard, a paladin should never betray his god else he has no right to even call him or herself a paladin. The morality play most of you seem to want to force on the paladin is a moot point. If indeed the villagers are killed then it is the paladin's calling to join them as pennance for having permitted all of it to happen in the first place. The ways a paladin can kill himself are as varied as the ways you and I can kill ourselves. If he has a bed then he could break it and stab himself in some vital area like the stomach. He could refuse to drink anything, you can only live 2-3 days without water. Back to the bed if it has sheets he can manage a noose hang himself from the ceiling. Really, if the paladin has access to even the simplest things killing themselves will just be a measure of trying.
Naeron 10-09-03, 09:45 AM	The possibility of the paladin killing himself was not specifically excluded - what was excluded was escape or rescuing the other prisoners. Even today prisoners on suicide watch still manage to kill themselves. But assuming that option is denied then yes I still say that out of the 2 simple options of a) becoming an undead plaguebringing greebly in the service of an evil god or b) refusing to do so thus allowing others to commit acts of evil the only choice a Paladin can make is to refuse to submit. The protection of innocents is about all innocents, not just those directly in front of you. Adding an undead servant to Nerul (was it Nerul?) to the cult and revealing the Orders secrets is inevitably going to lead to far more harm to the cause of good, and for a Paladin secure in their faith there is always the comfort that the dead commoners will certainly be embraced by their gods and go to a better afterlife. (absolute certainty of the existence of Gods andan afterlife always makes death less of a issue).
Leap 10-09-03, 09:52 AM	Would ‘dying’ (as a paladin at least – either by “falling on his sword” or “swearing allegiance to bob the dodgy deity”) save the people? No. The BBEG will probably turn on the peasants anyway, and will turn on someone else sooner or later (such is the nature of evil). The better action would be to refuse to swear allegiance, but in truth it makes no real difference which he does; so long as he does not come to genuinely believe in evil (that is he begins to believe that they can be treated like cattle rather than as informed, personal, autonomous, moral, agents), both actions deserve understanding and forgiveness as well as the opportunity for atonement. All good characters show others the forbearance they hope to recieve themselves
MrNiceGuy 10-09-03, 10:18 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot BUT what if all of that fails, then he must forfeit his own life for the sake of others. It matters not whether or not the evil people are telling the truth or not. It is the responsibility of the paladin to protect people. If in choosing to not swear an oath just the possibility of harming others would result is a fault upon the paladin. It also matters not who directly kills the commoners/babies what have you. The evil people are just that evil and for them killing babies doesn't matter. The paladin has to take into account that if he doesn't go along with their demands the innocents lives are in jeapordy. To do otherwise than take the oath is to be selfish and prideful. Even if the paladin isn't directly killing the children the paladin is still the trigger for their slaughter. You can't make the who is more valuable argument, because of reasons previously stated. As such the paladin is called upon to sacrifice his very soul for others. (I personally find this situation abhorrent, to be honest. If I were DM and the paladin chose to take the oath because he could not in good conscience risk the lives of others then I would have the paladin die when the attempt to turn him into an undead occured. See other thread for possible reasons why). Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot How is it that this paladin turning to evil will result in less evil? Maybe the 12 commoners will be spared, but maybe they won't. How can the paladin know that this evil cult will even keep their word? He certainly wouldn't care once he is a sentient evil undead... He may just kill them himself at that point. I see the paladin's primary responsibility here to be preventing the creation of whatever this leveled plaguebearer undead is... That is more likely to result in substantially more than 12 deaths. Some of you people have a really warped view of LG IMNSHO... Paul
Keg of Ale 10-09-03, 10:24 AM	I think, for the sake of the argument, that the situation we're discussing should be a little simplified. Obviously, there are two flaws in the paladin's story that thwart the original point of the discussion. It has been said that if the paladin allows the prisoners to die, they will go to their just afterlife. This indeed hampers the argument. To correct this, let's say the cult will instead sacrifice the peasants to their evil god, damning their souls forever. The other problem is the assumption that the cult will necessarily slay the prisoners even if the paladin swears. Let's say that the cult has been known to be NOT entirely treacherous. Moreso, the head cultist swears by "Nerull's bony hand" (or whatever strong oath) that the prisoners will be released if the paladin swears to serve evil. Note that the cultists may NOT KEEP their word, but there's still a chance that they do. These modifications make the paladin's choice all the more painful. Which is the whole point, in fact, no? Oh and a third modification (more like a clarification, anyway): there is NO third choice for the paladin: no swearing false oaths (the cultists will instantly know), no commiting suicide, no arguing with the cultists, no nothing. Only two choices: Swear to serve evil, or let the prisoners die. In closing, let me congradulate everyone for this discussion - very valid points from both sides. Just stay clear of each other's throats, and all will be fun and jolly:D
the summoned skull 10-09-03, 10:30 AM	right, this is my theory! paladins are one of the worst classes EVER! once to often paladins are always given choices like this! but i would say, swear allience to them and when they release you to do a mission for them(cos evil people do that)go back to your temple,and then just go on a praying for forgiveness spree
SeraphimJMF 10-09-03, 10:30 AM	The Paladin has no choice but to stay true. He will see the innocent souls again in heaven. Some things are worse then a few good people dieing and going to heaven.
wrax 10-09-03, 10:34 AM	Well it seems to me that he is going to violate his oaths anyway no matter what he chooses, so the paladin should choose the path that at least offers the hope of good to come out of it. Besides the Paladin can also hope that some agent of good will slay him when he becomes an Undead Monster (TM). If he's getting made into a blackguard, unless they make him mindless undead and take away his free will, he can still seek death, perhaps even at the end of one of his order's swords. Thusly choosing to forsake his oaths to his Order he should join the cult, and try to make amends later by seeking true death. Even if the Cult kills the commoners after the paladin agrees, then the paladin has done nothing to hasten their death, even taking the path that at least had the hope of saving them. Whenever this paladin goes out into the field, he'll be where the battle is hottest, and seeking release from his fate all the time, chances are the first battle will see him dead, and if the evil guys won't let him die by going into combat, then the whole point of the cult having him on staff as it were is nullified because he isn't killing people for Nerull. The problem is solved of him commiting greater acts of evil. This is a no win situation for the Paladin, unless he can somehow kill himself (which may also violate his oaths depending on faith) he's got to make a choice based on good, rather than law. If the Paladin chooses the cult, he at least MAY have some control over what he does after that, If he allows the commoners to be killed then he's commiting a great sin, and probably will still have to undergo the ritual anyway after watching the victims tortured in front of him one by one. No the correct choice for the Paladin is to join the cult and try to topple it from within (while still being loyal to nerull, his new god). There is no other realistic choice for the paladin except the hope that the Cultists will kill him rather than use him without his consent. And that hope is even fainter than the Cult letting the commoners go.
Keg of Ale 10-09-03, 10:36 AM	Oh, and if you wonder what my opinion is, I already said it on the second page: if the paladin is more lawful than good, he will deem the innocent's sacrifice to be the lesser evil, and uphold his paladin oath no matter what. If he is more good, however, he will swear to save the innocent lives. I find the second choice preferable, mostly because it is such a beautiful act of self-sacrifice. Like I think the mostly-good paladin in the example would say it: "if, in my quest of good I have saved but one soul from eternal torment, then I will know my life was not in vain. Farewell, and remember me, friends, remember me always."
The Reverend 10-09-03, 10:54 AM	This Post is long and it’s in a topic that is already long so I will break it up into parts so you can read only what interest you. In regard to "option C" Suicide is the coward’s way out. Not only that but it doesn’t save the lives of the villagers or deal with the problem of the cult. Paladin is not responsible for actions of the cult MtTF: I disagree with your assertion that because that the paladin is somehow responsible for the action of the cult. Accepting guilt for the actions of others is one of the worst sins a person can commit (IMO) because it perverts the very meaning of justice. According to your line of thinking a person should be able to deal with any paladin and a good number of Celestials simply by taking a hostage. I mean if that is the case then why don’t Evilly aligned gods simply tell the lawfully align gods if you do not serve me X number of innocents will be destroyed and cast into Hell? The Paladin should refuse to swear the oath, he has not broken his word and is not responsible for anything the cult does and so does not loose his paladin abilities. Examples I.E. The president/bomb example. If the president does not give terrorist atomic technology and they kill the hostages because of it the president does not share in ANY of the guilt for the terrorist murdering those people. If terrorists are flying a plane full of people into a building (or let’s actually give the people the terrorist is using as a shield a chance to survive and say a cruise liner into a beachside resort) is the person who shoots down the plane/blows up the boat guilty of the deaths of the passengers? Nooooooooooooo. The Paladin’s oath Even with the Paladin oath….no especially with the Paladin oath you can not accept responsibility onto yourself for the actions that others commit. That is not moral, that is the epitome of evil. As a final word on this subject, nobody would suggest that a lawful good cleric who doesn’t devote his entire life to bringing people back from the dead, curing diseases, or healing the sick is violating his alignment; even though that every moment he is not doing that type of stuff is another moment of suffering or dieing that he could have prevented. The Paladins oath part 2(on the issue of pride) The other issue I have is that some people are saying that if the Paladin does not swear the oath it is out of pride. That like saying if a Navy Seal was in a similar situation the main reason he would not betray his country is pride. Its not pride it’s practicality (yes there is that word). If the Paladin turns, then all the secretes of his order and his church are up for grabs. Depending how highly ranked and trusted the Paladin is, the secretes he reveals could be the end of his order and his church. A lot of trust is placed in Paladins and if the Paladin doesn’t swear the oath it is out of his recognition of that trust and the number of lives that depend on it, not to save his pride. (Final word) Paladins do not break their oaths no matter what. Especially an oath to his god. If a Paladin has sworn an oath not to do something then he can not do it, asking him to or trying to hold him accountable for it is like holding Christopher Reeves accountable for not being able to walk. Mental blocks and limitations are every bit as insurmountable as physical ones; you don’t take your feebleminded wizard to task for not casting fireball so how can you take a Paladin to task for not breaking his oath? (Answer to the post) He won’t swear loyalty. edit: I also think he will keep his status as a paladin
MrNiceGuy 10-09-03, 11:29 AM	MtTF's biggest problem here is that he is denying the consideration of possible consequences in one instance, but relying on them in another. It was said that if the paladin swore the oath, he would be turned into a sentient undead that is always evil (I interpret that as him becoming an NPC under the DMs control) - MtTF relies on the assertion that the paladin has no way of knowing what will happen once he swears the oath - maybe he'll have a heart attack; maybe a party of good adventurers will burst in an kill him - he doesn't know. The problem arises when MtTF says 'the commoners will DEFINITELY be killed'; the fact is, the paladin doesn't know this either. Maybe all the cultists will have heart attacks as they go to kill them; maybe the paladin's god will intervene and free him; maybe the afformentioned party of good adventurers will burst in and kill the cultists before they can kill the commoners. The paladin has no control over the evil cultists - they are in a position of power - they can kill the commoners, kill the paladin, or both or neither - the only control the paladin actually has is whether to forsake his oath and become evil or not. This is not about pride or pragmatism; this is about whether the paladin is good or not - Not voluntarily becoming a servant of an evil god is good - voluntarily becoming a servant of an evil god is evil. If the paladin refuses to turn, the villagers may be killed out of spite, but that is the doing of the cultists; not the paladin. Maybe they are not even commoners; maybe they are freshly animated zombies; maybe they are clones; maybe they are illusions... Again, the only the only choice the paladin really has here is whether to become a servant of an evil god or not - this is the real test of faith. Paul PS - personally I don't think that refusing to turn would result in a loss of paladin powers even if the commoners are killed.
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 11:51 AM	I knew if I kept posting that someone would say what I've been trying to say better that I could. Thanks, MrNiceGuy and Reverend. :D
LoricDAHPaladin 10-09-03, 12:35 PM	Originally posted by Nephet The key here is that the Paladin has no real control over the fate of the commoners. If he gives over to the Evil god, he will become a horrific minion of evil - that is certain. It's a no-brainer. The Paladin shouldn't swear allegience to the Evil god. Additionally, the Paladin doesn't lose his powers for that decision. He will have his conscious to deal with, but he will still be a Paladin. Badda BING! Right on, my man! The Paladin is not in control. There is no guarantee WHATSOEVER that if he yeilds to their demands of worship that they will not slay the captives. He refuses to participate in all of the aforementioned baited traps, and keeps being who he is. To be sure, he will be affected and traumatized...haunted by the evil he witnessed for the remainder of his days. But if he did nothing and renounced their options, he did all he could. It is a damning situation, but there is no catch 22. If he swears allegiance to spare the peasants, he is evil ( since there is no option for artifice ) and if he does not, he cannot help what the priests will do. It really is a no brainer, though I will admit that it seemed a conundrum at first.
aeon001 10-09-03, 01:13 PM	While Paladins sleep, late at night. Evil creatures are killing innocent life. Paladins know the evil creatures are there, Yet they slept instead, like they don't care. Do they wake Paladin? or do they Fall?
Crossover-Chronicler 10-09-03, 01:55 PM	Originally posted by Lord Stigius In the end they give him a "choice": either he swears service to their god (esentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead), or a dozen of random commoners, who are imprisoned within the temple, would be painfully killed and then animated as undead. Now, what the paladin should do? Note: This is not a situation I'd put a PC into. But all of these happened to a NPC, and now I want to have him judged. By a just and righteous, unprejudiced court. Originally posted by Lord Stigius There is no option of pretending obedience to the dark deity for the paladin: after he accepts the service, a ritual made by the priests will permanently turn him into blindly obedient servant of their evil god. And the clerics are not going to release the peasants before... Also, it is not for the paladin to chose wheather he wants to become a blackguard, or an undead. He has to swear loyalty and wait for the priests to chose. I can say that they would make him blackguard Plaguebringer (Plaguebringer being a homebrew template undead, sentient, with class levels, but always evil). Esentially more mean than just a plain blackguard. :whatsthis Right. Well, first off I would say that I think the setup is flawed. The priests of Nerull can kill him and reanimate him as an enslaved undead no matter what he chooses (and likely will), so his choice has no bearing on the outcome. As such, his only real options are whether to grovel before his deity's enemy before his subsequent death and defilement. Given that he's stood up under torture, if he's still coherent (and otherwise his choices are suspect anyway) and has sufficient ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge(religion) or Knowledge(undead), he could realize that. Or he could easily infer that information from the fact that they're threatening to animate the commoners against their wills. The whole choice is an elaborate form of psychological torture and if there is no way to save the villagers (or even to ensure that they do not die by his undead hands), what he chooses is less important than why he chooses it. Personally, I'd swear allegiance on the off chance that they left me alive; since they've failed to break my will so far, I would bet on the ability to fight any compulsion they put on me. I would keep an eye open for any chance to escape during the ritual, and regardless of escape possibilities, the moment they put a sword in my hand I'd butcher them all. Then I'd find a Cleric of Heironeous and seek atonement. :fight!: If reanimated as a sentient Undead, the ex-Paladin is not immediately under the clerics' control. If he can resist their rebuking powers then he can kill them anyway, or at least take a few of them out before they are forced to destroy him; even as an Evil undead, he's likely to bear a grudge against those who tortured and killed him; therefore the "slaughter them the moment they hand me a sword" part works out well either way. There is a reason that Nerull has Trickery as a Domain. I wouldn't trusts his clerics as far as I could throw them (and chained to a wall, that's not very far). They have no reason to keep their words, and I know that if I were a Cleric of Nerull, the first thing I'd do with a converted paladin is test his allegiance in the most horrific ways possible. But, really, why bother presenting the choice if the outcome is predetermined? Look at the outcomes. 1: The Paladin swears to follow Nerull. The Clerics bind his will and make him a Blackguard wholly subservient to them. he betrays his order's secrets. They might or might not kill the commoners, but it's easier than rounding up new sacrifices. 2: The Paladin swears to follow Nerull. The clerics kill him and reanimate him as an undead monster wholly subservient to them. If he is a sentient undead, he betrays his order's secrets. They might or might not kill the commoners, but it's easier than rounding up new sacrifices. 3: The Paladin refuses to follow Nerull. The clerics kill him and reanimate him as an undead monster wholly subservient to them. If he is a sentient undead, he betrays his order's secrets. They might or might not kill the commoners, but it's easier than rounding up new sacrifices. 4: The Paladin kills himself. The reanimate him as an undead monster wholly subservient to them. If he is a sentient undead, he betrays his order's secrets. They might or might not kill the commoners, but it's easier than rounding up new sacrifices. Looking at it in a simpler description: Evil Cleric: "Join us." Paladin: "Why?" EC: "If you don't, we'll kill these villagers. Then we'll kill you, reanimate your corpse, take control of you, and force you to do our bidding." Pal: "And if I do?" EC: "Then we'll kill you, reanimate your corpse, take control of you, an force you to do our bidding." Pal: "What about the villagers?" EC: "No comment." Pal: "So, my choices are, 'everyone dies' or 'everyone dies?' What the :censored: kind of choice is that?!" EC: "No, no! We promise we'll let the villagers go. Trust us." Pal: "And you won't send my reanimated corpse to track them down and kill them?" EC: "mmmaaybe." Pal: "Just kill me now and get it over with."
askandarion 10-09-03, 05:21 PM	But if they're hobgoblin villagers, this entire point is moot, since the clerics would actually be Lawful Good. Sorry, had to get a jab in. :D I miss discussions like this. Civil, intelligent, and thought-provoking. :( Enough rambling. For my view, the Paladin made a vow to GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD. Not Bob the Good Cook, or the Good Lands, but Good as a concept, truth, and belief. This means he must always do the best thing possible. I think we all agree on this. For me, this means that the Pally must follow the path closest to his vow. I probably won't make any sense, but a paladin must keep his oaths. This is how he does good, in essence. A paladin is about himself. He KNOWS Goodness, knows it with his heart and soul. He cannot miss it, for it is always by his side. He depends on his connection with Good as a force and its representatives to make a difference in the current world. Thus, he is focused on himself. However, because of this truth that shines within his soul, he understands that this life is fleeting. Worrying about staying alive is meaningless, for evil must be countered to the point of death. In effect, the paladin makes a difference not for the sake of good, but to OPPOSE EVIL. Good merely shows him the path to oppose evil; it is basically a tool. He does what is best to oppose evil, which means protecting the innocents from Evil's predations, combatting its influence, and stripping it of its power in any way possible, from killing demons and evil clerics to reforming a sadistic fighter. He cannot truly protect the innocent in this case; he is powerless, and they are already under the sword of these clerics. The dominant opinion is not to allow other choices (a stark contrast to the intricate world and ramifications Lord Stigius has implied in other posts). You say, "But joining the clerics will protect the villagers." No it won't. They are already in danger, and no matter what the choice, they will remain in danger (in the hands of the clerics). The way a paladin protects the innocent is by releasing them from the control of evil. Because the clerics will still have control over the villagers, they will not be safe, and thus the paladin will not have protected them. Paladins fight evil, not trust it. Because their fates are outside the bounds of his ability, his duty is broken down: to oppose evil. They want him to join, thus he must not. Otherwise, he is failing his duties both to Law and to Goodness. That's my view, and I hope someone finds some use for it. I predict 4.8 seconds will pass before Man that Time Forgot pulls out his chainsaw for the dissection process. Enjoy. :D Oh, and suicide as a coward's way out is western thinking. We do not know the way of thinking this paladin or his gods, so that might not necessarily be the case. It might very well be the best way out. (Except we are not allowing him any choices.)
Rotipher 10-09-03, 05:28 PM	If you ask me, every paladin's CoC should include an express statement not to give in to the threats of hostage-takers, except to stall them until the chance to free the hostages comes up. Why...? Because the "save the innocents at any cost" POV would, if taken to the extreme, lead to the following: 1) BBEG takes 100,000 innocent people hostage. 2) BBEG demands for every paladin in the world to either convert to evil or commit suicide in the next hour, or the hostages will be killed. 3) Paladins comply and become extinct. The paladin class couldn't *function* if paladins were held morally-responsible for hostages' fates! If paladins (or other Good characters for that matter) are obligated to concede to villains who threaten innocent people, then villains are going to take hostages at every opportunity ... and make good on their threats, if ever a hero doubts them, the better to compel the next Good character to concede. Even if the paladin in the example kills all the cultists and himself, after (falsely) agreeing to convert, he's already done damage to untold thousands of *other* innocent people. That's because every OTHER cleric of this evil god is going to hear from his deity that paladins cave in if you threaten helpless children, so will snatch an ample supply of kids with which to threaten any *other* paladins who come along. While he might have (temporarily) alleviated a few children's peril, he's also turned every child in the world into a hostage waiting to happen.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 05:54 PM	Don't negotiate with terrorists...because if your lawful good and you have no other options other than the ones presented for you by the terrorists you can't. Chaotic good does a very nice job of taking out terrorists because their ethical/moral stratification allows for pragmatic based decision making. A paladin on the other hand has no such niceties. The moral thing to do and what is done, is rarely if ever match up in real life. The terrorists are the root of the problem (their immorality) here; their terriblly unethical actions have caused the choice between an immoral action which will likely prevent harm from occuring later versus an action which is moral and could allow for harm to happen later. Everyone keeps coming in here spouting off "the paladin cannot be responsible for the actions of others." (I'm actually a bit pleased because this reinforces all my socio-philosophical lessons, which stated that the folks indoctrinated in the Western mentality emphasize individuality, and autonomity in their belief system). This is exactly the problem. You all are emphasizing individuality, when you cannot. There are three certainties as presented. The paladin cannot swear a false oath. The paladin not swearing an oath results in the slaying of the prisoners (in actuality it matters not whether prisoners even exist, but that is a separate issue), and, by concensus of those posting, there can be no third option. It has already been discussed that abstention, stalling, commiting suicide (praying for), attempting to engage in negotiation, and attempting to break free are all better options. No one denies this, but those are not options. Now since there are only two options we must observe direct causation. X nets Y. Y nets Z. X is the evil clerics present the paladin with choices. The paladin chooses Y, not to take the oath. Y nets Z, the death of the prisoners. The paladin is part of the causation of the prisoners' deaths. If there can be no justification of the means by the ends, then why would anyone kill Hitler if they went back in time to when he was a baby? The end result (preventing the holocaust, cannot be used to justify murdering the baby Hitler) can be used by some to justify the means. In fact, it happens every day. I would personally not kill the baby Hitler, it is not my right to do so, even if it might save millions of lives. The problem a paladin would have with the slaying of the baby, is that the baby is not yet evil. Slaying hitler while he was in power to prevent the holocaust killings, a paladin would do in an instatnt, as would I, but slaying the baby is the taking of an innocent life in order to prevent what might or might not happen. The only problem with time is certainty, and there can be none in an example like that. (even if I were certain it would prevent the holocaust I would not do it, temporal side effects aside, I cannot justify my attempting to value any human life). The paladin, in the Hitler example, faces the same problem as this paladin dilemma, on a much larger scale. Does the paladin kill the innocent baby Hitler to prevent the holocaust? (even if the paladin were certain it would prevent the holocaust, a paladin will still lose his paladinhood over the slaying of the baby). (Read the sister thread to this one if you guys would like a read on ethics versus morality) Now to address the villagers. It doesn't matter if the prisoners are hobgoblins, illusions, or even non-existant. From the paladins perspective, he cannot verify the existance of prisoners, but the paladin cannot afford to bank on this. If the paladin refuses to swear an oath he is purposefully endangering the lives of innocents. Do I believe in this case the ends could justify the means, Yes. But, only because the only person who can be harmed without necessitating an evil action is yourself, and even then the action must be sacrifice and not suicide (if you all would like me to post the difference between them I have several examples which can elucidate). The paladin in sacrificing his very soul is banking on the off-chance that the prisoners will live, Like I said the quality of life issue is unapplicable one does not know how they are being treated, but we do know how the prisoners will be treated if the paladin does not. The paladin in accordance with his oath cannot through his actions engender, nor allow his actions to result in the engendering of harm to others. Rotipher, that is just silly. The paladin in this example has NO, as in ZERO, as in 0, other options. In example you gave, all the world's paladins would have to be captured and have no other alternatives before that might occur, even then not all paladins are that pure of heart so as to willingly sacrifice their soul for others. I suspect also that deific intervention would happen before that point even arrived; additionally divine guidance would enter into that one for certain, the power that be are not going to just let all their precious paladins sacrifice themselves in order to do good. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Mirtek 10-09-03, 06:08 PM	Originally posted by the_heart no moral quandry at all, because no man is responsible for the actions of another. A man is responsible for his own action or inaction. In this case it's the paladins inaction which let them die. An action of him could have saved them. The paladin should swear the oath and later try to be slain by the first good champion he encounters in his service to Nerull
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 06:14 PM	To whomever said that the paladin cannot break his oath, because it is his oath to his deity or to goodness, then I submit to you that the PHB must be wrong. It certainly states that a paladin who chooses an unethical action like killing unjustifiabely to prevent further harm would lose his paladin status (because he broke his oath), but could atone for it. The paladin has performed an unethical action but did so because he was morally in the right. The problem with inability to break the oath is duress, evil will always force good people into bad situations. Your argument falls apart under an example like this: Paladin, you will steal from this little girl or the universe will explode. The paladin steals from the little girl. The paladin later atones for it, because he is sorry, because he had to do so under duress (same principle applies to dominated paladins). Also people keep coming in and saying it is inevitable that the prisoners will die, that the paladin will become evil and go on a killing spree, or other some such future events. We are allowed no presuppositions other than if the paladin does not swear the oath, then the peasants will die, and if the paladin does swear the oath he will be subjected to evil (of what form we can be uncertain). The paladin will fall if he swears the oath, the paladin won't necessarily become evil, the paladin won't necessarily become undead, that is all part of the DM's pervue. I make no presuppositions other than the ones allowed for by the prompt. If however, it was guaranteed that the prisoners would all go to paradise, then yeah it might change things, but that isn't certain. What if the one guy is right and it turns out the prisoners are hobgoblins, but had they seen the paladin acting in their best interest, they would come to see the error of their ways and gone on to be good hobgoblins, but in sealing their fate the paladin condemned the soon to be reformed hobgoblins to some infernal realm. I cannot make such a supposition, nor can you all assume all is certain when it comes to the effects of swearing the oath. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Dowanroden 10-09-03, 06:22 PM	I will say one thing. Seppuku. That's right, that Japanese stomach-slashy thing. Samurai, when threatened with dilemma's such as these would commit ritual suicide before letting themselves dishonor their lords. In this instance the lord is the 'Powers That Be' and the paladin is our samurai. For samurai their lives were forfeit the moment they took up the ancestral blade, their world from then on revolved around the furthering of their lord's wishes. They were bushido. They were samurai. Our paladin is effectively the samurai of whatever God he serves. It's not his duty to to defend his life in the name of the people. It's his duty to defend the will of his God. Did his God will him to be captured? No. Did his God will him to listen to his captors? No. So how is it the will of his God to break the very oaths he swore to his God? The argument that he only has two options is flawed in it's very idea. His options in that example are nonexistant. His only option is to let fate deal it's blow for he can make no act save the one to defend his God's will which happens to be none of those choices present. The villagers are but a bitter loss to the forces of evil, the paladin can do nothing. And quite frankly if I were in this same situation I'd do the same. What's my life compared to thousands? That is the real question. A question paladins should already have the answer to.
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 06:30 PM	MtTF, I think that the problem is that the philosophy of one side just happens to be different than the other side's. One side doesn't agree with your underlying premise, therefore there is no way that we can come to an agreement without one of us ditching some of our personally held beliefs. I don't think it's going to happen over a D&D game. Basically it boils down to, If you believe in Collective Responsibility (I don't know if there is acually name for this philosophy, if there is please insert it here.) then the paladin is in a catch-22 and is responsible for both the death of the peasants or the betryal of his order no matter what he does. If you believe in Indiviual Responsibility (ditto above comment) then the paladin can only be held responsible for the betryal of his order, since he cannot reasonably (or unreasonably) effect the outcome of the peasants. Am I missing anything here?
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 06:40 PM	I dont really see it as a matter of collective responsibility. I am looking at this in terms of causation. Causation of harm. The paladin is part of what nets harm to the peasants, ergo responsibility does go to him. I do not see the flaw in that. P.S. MtTF? Did everyone just start speaking japanese english: Man the Time Forgot? Or Man that Time Forgot? Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 06:57 PM	LOL. Sorry, and no i'm not super-deformed or anything. As you can probably tell from the other spelling mistakes, I'm at work and trying to follow the thread, post, and atleast pretend that I'm worth the salary that my boss is giving me. :nonono: Is the name of the philosophy Causallity or is there another name for it? I only used collective to differenuate from indivual. Man, my spelling is atrocious today:headexplo
The Reverend 10-09-03, 07:06 PM	Oh, and suicide as a coward's way out is western thinking So? And even ignoring the greater debate on that issue, suicide would be the cowards way out in this case because it doesn't solve anything. It's just the same as running away and making it someoneelse's problem. MTF Don't negotiate with terrorists...because if your lawful good and you have no other options other than the ones presented for you by the terrorists you can't. Chaotic good does a very nice job of taking out terrorists because their ethical/moral stratification allows for pragmatic based decision making. A paladin on the other hand has no such niceties. [/B] A paladin’s whole career, her whole life is based on dealing with those “niceties”. The moral thing to do and what is done, is rarely if ever match up in real life. I completely disagree. The right and moral choice can almost without exception be applied, done, or matched up with real life. I reject the idea that you can not be both truly good and truly pragmatic. The two go hand in hand. [B] The terrorists are the root of the problem (their immorality) here; their terriblly unethical actions have caused the choice between an immoral action which will likely prevent harm from occuring later versus an action which is moral and could allow for harm to happen later. How is the paladin betraying his oath and his order, damming his soul, and destroying an innocent life (his own) not doing harm? Are the lives of 12 villagers worth 1 immortal soul (or even 1 other life for that matter)? If the paladin swears the oath he is not simply sacrificing himself he is sacrificing his order and endangering all those who would follow the path of the paladin after him. You can claim this danger is theoretical but it is as believable an outcome as the villagers going free Now since there are only two options we must observe direct causation. X nets Y. Y nets Z. X is the evil clerics present the paladin with choices. The paladin chooses Y, not to take the oath. Y nets Z, the death of the prisoners. The paladin is part of the causation of the prisoners' deaths. A is the paladin taking the oath. B is evil gaining a new champion, an innocent man being condemned to hell, and a scared trust and oath being betrayed. How is A nets B a better choice than Y nets Z. Just because the paladin is personally suffering from choosing X does not make X more moral than A. Now to address the villagers. It doesn't matter if the prisoners are hobgoblins, illusions, or even non-existant. From the paladins perspective, he cannot verify the existance of prisoners, but the paladin cannot afford to bank on this. If the paladin refuses to swear an oath he is purposefully endangering the lives of innocents It does matter. If I am a cop in a hostage situation and she tells me to drop my weapon or she will blow the hostages head off, it matters a great deal if I believe her. If I think as soon as I drop my weapon she will kill us both and I drop my gun anyway, then I just got myself and the hostage both killed. Whether or not the paladin beliefs the villagers will be safe/or are worth saving in the first place is important. sacrifice and not suicide Thanks. I have been looking for away to express that. The paladin in accordance with his oath cannot through his actions engender, nor allow his actions to result in the engendering of harm to others. So a paladin cannot be involved in a war? In any type of conflict (conflict being pretty much the majority of a paladin's life), especially large scale conflicts, there is the chance that innocents will be hurt; however this fact does not stop a paladin from challenging .i.e. starting a conflict with evil, even if it is on a massive scale that puts many innocents at risk. Rotipher, that is just silly. The paladin in this example has NO, as in ZERO, as in 0, other options. In example you gave, all the world's paladins would have to be captured and have no other alternatives before that might occur Rotipher is pointing out that if the paladin allows this tactict to work here what is to stop the cult from doing the same thing to all the other paladins one at a time. I suspect also that deific intervention would happen before that point even arrived; additionally divine guidance would enter into that one for certain, the power that be are not going to just let all their precious paladins sacrifice themselves in order to do good. Why exactly would the lawful good gods be in a better position than their paladin subordinates? A good god vs. an evil one is the same as a paladin vs. a cultist. Just on a large scale.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 07:07 PM	I suspect that if you look up causality you will find ,ore on science than philosophy. But what I use to justify my argument there is causality. Determining causation, however, is a tricky thing, one can argue against what I have said, but one needs to know how to do that :). Side note: Thats ok, I think Gothic Demon was doing it too. MtTF... Dunno, maybe I will have to have a fan club of acronym mis-spellers just like no one can spel unholydragoon's name right. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
deadDMwalking 10-09-03, 07:15 PM	ManTimeForgot - Sorry, I think I started getting your handle wrong. I think I disagree with you over the causation. The original post said "In the end they give him a "choice": either he swears service to their god (esentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead), or a dozen of random commoners, who are imprisoned within the temple, would be painfully killed and then animated as undead." You believe that it is inevitable that if he chooses not to join the party of evil clerics, the commoners would be killed. However, we can not be certain that the action will in fact lead to that effect. From the Paladin's perspective divine intervention could come at any point. You suppose that his inaction will yield a result that causes harm. We are led to believe that is the most likely result, but we are not guaranteed of it. Now, normally if you find a moral absolute, you can change the situation and it would still hold true. So, example 1: The paladin is caught as before. However, the (not-so) evil clerics tell the Paladin in their most evil voice "If you don't swear the oath to our dark god, we'll cut off the big toe of each prisoner, give them a lollipop and send them home." That would still net harm to the villagers. Should the Paladin surrender his life and future to save a dozen big toes? What if the evil cultists were going to cut off whole legs? Example 2: The Paladin, through a vision from his God knows that if he takes the oath, the dozen prisoners will be released, and when the ritual that turns him into an undead is completed, a giant meteor will kill everyone in the complex. Therefore, he will not kill any innocent people. He will save the peasants. In the example 2 I could justify taking the oath. But not in situation 1. Not even if lives are at stake. I could not do something wrong hoping that some good would come from it. As a Paladin, you are the epitome of good. You are nearly incapable of evil action. Going back to the issue of causation, you must consider a distinction between deliberate and accidental. In this case, even if the Paladin chooses not to break his oath, and it results in the death of the commoners, it was not his intent. He did not create a situation where that result was more likely. For example, if I walk out on my balcony on the 40th floor of my building, and it collapses under my weight, and lands on someone, I caused their death. That is to say, I made the balcony fall when it did, rather than falling 2 minutes later when no one might have been around. However, I have no moral responsibility in the death. I did not wish that situation to occur. I did not know that the situation would happen, and I did nothing to make it more likely. If I had known that the balcony was weak, and needed repairs, I would have moral responsibility. I think that the Paladin must choose first not to do evil. Sometimes evil will happen as a result. I don't think a Paladin should lie, even if it could save a life. He could refuse to speak, but telling a deliberate falsehood is an action a Paladin should be incapable of. Not because they are proud, but because they are the epitome of good.
FreeTheSlaves 10-09-03, 07:22 PM	The solution is pretty simple actually, the paladin holds out as best he can and pray for rescue. Either now or in the afterlife because the Nerullites will likely imprison him in undeath. The innocents are completely at the mercy of evil priests into undead. In other words their fate is sealed already, the Nerullites word simply holds no weight in trustworthiness. The said paladin can only wait, pray and hold out until death. No real paladin deliberately falls from grace under any circumstances, if they were capable of making that decision they would never have qualified dor paladinhood to begin with.
FreeTheSlaves 10-09-03, 07:23 PM	The solution is pretty simple actually, the paladin holds out as best he can and pray for rescue. Either now or in the afterlife because the Nerullites will likely imprison him in undeath. The innocents are completely at the mercy of evil priests into undead. In other words their fate is sealed already, the Nerullites word simply holds no weight in trustworthiness. The said paladin can only wait, pray and hold out until death. No real paladin deliberately falls from grace under any circumstances, if they were capable of making that decision they would never have qualified for paladinhood to begin with.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 07:26 PM	I think that is where we differ DeadDmWalking: I believe it is paramount that the paladin hope for good to come of it. If the paladin cannot hope that his sacrificing his soul for the peasants well being, then what else is there. Let the peasants die. There inumerable variables that could be attached to this problem. After becoming evil, as Gothic Demon pointed out, the paladin could just evilly betray the cultists and slay them all. This kind of "what if" arguing does not solve the heart of the debate and that is the morality issue. This boils down to Allow evil to befalls yourself and in doing so take a chance that some good will come of it or allow evil to befall others and avoid betraying the paladin's oath. I can see why someone argues the second choice, but I consider it to be the worst evil of the two because in the second choice the paladin propagates harm unto others, and in the first he allows harm to come unto himself in order that he might make a sacrifice for good. The balcony example isn't quite fair either, because you had no way of knowing the balcony was going to fall. If you had known the balcony was going the fall, then the moral responsibility would fall onto you. The paladin in this case knows his refusing to swear an oath nets the prisoners being tortured and killed. The example about the "Big Toes" illustrates quite nicely why pragmatism and morality do not mix well. Morally the paladin should not allow harm to come to others, even if it is just their big toes. Pragmatically why should the paladin be called sacrifice his soul so that people might keep their big toes. I hope this clarifies my position at least a little. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
OGRE-MJC 10-09-03, 07:28 PM	Off-topic: Cool. I get to start a movement for the terminally bad typers. Donations for the cause can be sent to me at this address. No, I won't re-type it cuz I want the goodies. Sings badly: You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaraunt. (excepting Alice). You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaraunt. Come on in, it's around the back, Just a 1/2 a mile from the railroad track. You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaraunt. If you don't know the song, then your too young.:angel: On topic: I have heard of the scientific process, I'm just not agreeing with your application in this instance. We are agreeing there is a line, we just differ about where the line is.
Dowanroden 10-09-03, 07:32 PM	But I just had a though that fits this situation to a tee. Braveheart. Yes, the Mel Gibson movie. Most everyone has seen it so I don't have to go into detail. In the end Wallace had but two choices as presented by the grand magistrate. Beg for God's mercy and die mercifully or be tortured to death. Wallace didn't beg for any mercy. Instead he yelled, "Freedom." The paladin is stuck in a similar crossroads, two choices that are clearly unacceptable by certain sensibilities and yet they are his perceived 'only choices'. He still has the unspoken choice, he still has the greater good to consider and the greater good is the good of the world, the will of his God. Unlike us flawed humans, Gods can be far more understanding when it is in regard to them. His God wouldn't strip him of his power for letting the villagers die if you continued resisting the will of the cultists. It is a measure of proof of his loyalty to his God over all other things.
The Reverend 10-09-03, 07:34 PM	A man is responsible for his own action or inaction. In this case it's the paladins inaction which let them die. An action of him could have saved them. The paladin should swear the oath and later try to be slain by the first good champion he encounters in his service to Nerull If a girl shoots a man standing right next to me I am in no way responsible for not jumping in front of his and taking the bullet. The guilt rest entirely on the girl. MTF P.S. MtTF? Did everyone just start speaking japanese english: Man the Time Forgot? Or Man that Time Forgot? Sorry I was saying in my head "Man that Time Forgot " :D To whomever said that the paladin cannot break his oath, because it is his oath to his deity or to goodness, then I submit to you that the PHB must be wrong. It certainly states that a paladin who chooses an unethical action like killing unjustifiabely to prevent further harm would lose his paladin status (because he broke his oath), but could atone for it. The paladin has performed an unethical action but did so because he was morally in the right. The problem with inability to break the oath is duress, evil will always force good people into bad situations. Your argument falls apart under an example like this: Paladin, you will steal from this little girl or the universe will explode. The paladin steals from the little girl. The paladin later atones for it, because he is sorry, because he had to do so under duress (same principle applies to dominated paladins). I don't think he sould have to atone at all. If a paladin breaks the girls ribs giving her CPR he doesn't have to atone even though breaking a childs ribs is usually a bad thing. He stole from her to save her life. Another more analogous example. Girls favorite doll is actaully a bomb. Paladin asks for it but girl says no. He yanks it from her (steals it) her and disposes of it before it blows. I don't think that paladin would have to atone either. I cannot make such a supposition, nor can you all assume all is certain when it comes to the effects of swearing the oath. You are making a supposition when you say the cult will keep its word. That people capable of setting up such a situation can actually be trusted is supposition. (it is also besides the point) Dowanroden I will say one thing. Seppuku. That's right, that Japanese stomach-slashy thing. Samurai, when threatened with dilemma's such as these would commit ritual suicide before letting themselves dishonor their lords. That only worked because seppuku was considered an honorable act. A Samurai who is committing seppuku is admitting his failure to do his duty, live up to the code, whatever and then atoning for that failure by offering his life in restitution. I don't think that suicide or seppuku would offer the paladin any of the comforts it offers the samurai. OGRE-MJC MtTF, I think that the problem is that the philosophy of one side just happens to be different than the other side's. One side doesn't agree with your underlying premise, therefore there is no way that we can come to an agreement without one of us ditching some of our personally held beliefs. I don't think it's going to happen over a D&D game. MTF I dont really see it as a matter of collective responsibility. I am looking at this in terms of causation. Causation of harm. The paladin is part of what nets harm to the peasants, ergo responsibility does go to him. I do not see the flaw in that. I think OGRE-MJC is right. I disagree with your basic assertion that the paladin is in any way responsible for what the cult does. I don't believe that because it is in someone's power to stop something and they don't that they are guilty of it.
Dowanroden 10-09-03, 07:40 PM	That only worked because seppuku was considered an honorable act. A Samurai who is committing seppuku is admitting his failure to do his duty, live up to the code, whatever and then atoning for that failure by offering his life in restitution. I don't think that suicide or seppuku would offer the paladin any of the comforts it offers the samurai. No but it does fit in that the paladin has failed his God by getting captured and then forced into a situation where he has to make a choice that, in itself, is yet another failure. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Valerius 10-09-03, 07:41 PM	Paladin, you will steal from this little girl or the universe will explode. This is actually a great example, but the interesting part is the implied one: "Paladin, you will steal from this little girl or I will cause the universe to explode." Presumably, the speaker is some omnipotent being capable of this. It seems to me, ManTimeForgot, that you are saying that for a Paladin, the ends justify the means. In a system of absolute good and evil, like the D&D universes, this is not true. Because of the alignment system, we have a definite set of acts which are good, and a definite set of acts which are evil. In the last example given, the Paladin has done no evil. The Paladin knows that stealing is Wrong. The exploding of the universe is being performed by the omnipotent being, and as such, all responsibility for its good or evil ramifications belongs to the omnipotent being. What if the exploding universe is the preplanned final moment, when this omnipotent being has decided will be the time in which all living people will be judged for their actions? What if this is part of the Paladin's deity's doctrine? Averting the apocalypse with an evil act of thievery, he will probably not die a Paladin. He may still be good, for one evil act will not push him over the line in most worlds, but he definitely willingly committed one evil act. Perhaps his deity IS the omnipotent being who wished to give him one final test before the End. The bottom line, in which we will probably eternally disagree, is that you are not morally responsible for others' actions. You may be practically responsible, as a military commander, or the head of another organization, but an underling who has committed evil, whom you are practically responsible for, will not change you to be more evil. Correspondingly, a good act by an underling may reflect well upon you practically, but it will not make you morally more good. ManTimeForgot, you will not or can not agree with this, and as the lack of agreement is the basis for all this argument, it seems that we are done.
The Reverend 10-09-03, 07:48 PM	MTF The example about the "Big Toes" illustrates quite nicely why pragmatism and morality do not mix well. Morally the paladin should not allow harm to come to others, even if it is just their big toes. Pragmatically why should the paladin be called sacrifice his soul so that people might keep their big toes. I hope this clarifies my position at least a little. I don't see how the paladin sacrificing his soul in return for the villagers keeping their toes is a moral act. It seems to me that would be immoral because he his wasting the reasources , power, and time his god has invested in him. I still think morality and pragmatism mix nicely.
Yankee 10-09-03, 08:29 PM	My goodness this thread grew quickly! Way back on page 1 or 2, Man that Time Forgot said that the captives dying would be the paladins fault because evil people are devoid of conscience, and can't be held accountable. Then how are they evil? A golem can slaughter villages of innocents, and never become evil because it didn't choose. If the paladin refuses, the priests CHOOSE to kill the captives. That it not an inevitable consequence, it is a choice of the priests. The priests can't BE evil without a conscience (which they refuse to listen to). If you accept this (I realise many won't) then the priests are at fault morally and ethically, and the paladin should refuse to serve.
Astanax 10-09-03, 08:31 PM	The answer is clear.
Lord Stigius 10-09-03, 08:37 PM	Coming back to the boards and seeing my thread growing like this I feel like a proud parent...:cloud9: Well, I had decided even before posting here what the paladin in question will do. Or rather what THEY would do, since there were quite a few in such situatiation. Actually, all of this happened over a year of game time ago. The cultists took captive some members of the paladins' orders and gave them the "choice" presented here. Some of the captives used reasoning presented here by Vaalingrade Ashland, Man Time Forgot. Esentially: "It's better for me one to die, than for the 12 villagers". They gave out the structure of their order (highly secretive, forsworn to fight evil spelcasters and prepared to deal with them). During the following 2 months the order ceased to exist. My PCs (accidentally) stumbled upon a hidden evil temple during the absence of the high priest, and after a harrowing combat with the acolytes and something they thought to be a minor death knight, (and 12 skeletons), they found a terribly mutilated prisoner. When, after LOTS of healing, he was able to speak, he told them he was a fallen paladin who did not swear such an oath. Still, considering himself fallen, he belived his choice was the right one. Why? Shortly speaking, it was not the choice between the paladin's life vs. the peasants' lives. It was the choice between serving evil or not. Is the paladin responsible for his actions as undead? Yes, he is, for it was his choice that made him this undead. Is he responsible for the death of 12 peasants? Yes, he is, as far as he did "let the badgyus take him": he should be now breaking into the temple with his armor on and his sword in hand. His inability to act is caused by his earlier failure: as such, it is his fault. But he should never side with evil: not for the sake of his "good feeling about not breaking the vow"; but because of the immesurable conseqences of joining the dark side. The paladin has been judged: his choice (doing nothing, so letting the peasants die and be animated as undead) was found to be the right one in his situation. The judges were two paladins: the PC, and a local duke (my pet NPC paladin, currently under trial;) ). After YET MORE healing (including regeneration ) the rescued paladin started his quest against the cult. He still wakes in the night tormented by nightmares, has yet to smile since then. He has also all paladins powers. I think it sums up my POV on this matter. But now the duke's sentences are about to be revoked. His opinions were mine, but I really neaded others. And not only opinions, but especially the reasoning behid them. So all posts here were, are and will be welcome.:bow:
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 08:58 PM	Lord Stigius: The problem with this debate, and the outcomes presented, is that you never stated that the choice was between becoming evil or allowing it to happen. If the paladin is guaranteed to become evil and betray his order, it then takes a new moral spin. How many people are in the order? Are there more than 12? If so then simple pragmatics has to come into play. If lives are at stake, since one cannot judge according to the value of human life, one must go according to the route of pragmatism and save the most lives. Reverend: The problem you are having in understanding how the paladin can be morally at fault is that you are used to real life, where situations have third or fourth choices. There are only two choices. In this example, the only certainty arising in the death of the prisoners is if the paladin does not take the oath. IF presented with only two choices and two choices only, then choosing the one which begets harm for others is morally reprehensible; note that the other choice did not do harm to others. (Valerius look here too). (Note that Lord Stigius changing the considerations attached to swearing the oath, does change the premises associated with my argument, but as it stood before his final post, the paladin swearing the oath did not stand to do anyone harm other than himself). And no Pragmatism cannot ever align with Morality; you proved that in your statement, "it would be a waste of resources." That is pragmatism and pragmatism alone, not morality. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
aeon001 10-09-03, 08:59 PM	I'm still not convinced there is only 2 options. I mean yeah I understand what is being said about being presented with 2 choices, but doesn't mean there can't be more. And looking at a problem through one set of eyes yields one answer, while another person sees a different answer. Both people can be wrong, but both can be correct as well. Example What is wrong with this sentence "Too Plus Two is Equal to Five?" As a paladin in said example from the beginning. the bad guys have given the paladin 2 choices - join us or die, or join us and die. But those are the options presented by the bad guys, the Paladin has options as well, just they seem to be more or less ignored. The villiagers are of no point to the moral debate anymore, if they will be killed if the paladins refuses to do evil, so be it. By not joining the side of evil, the enemy of the paladin, they die. Big deal, they were dead already. The paladin in question is under no moral responsibliltiy to the prisoners as he is also a prisoner. There are 13 prisoners in the equaltion, the paladin being one of them. And by not joining the bad guys, forcing them to kill all the prisoners, he should be counted amongst them and killed as well. How do you take responsibilty for the deaths of others when you are dead as well?
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 09:21 PM	Double Post.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 09:24 PM	Aeon you have cheated this entire exercise by assuming the prisoners to already be dead. That is absolutely 100% what you cannot do. Otherwise this moral experiment has no bearing at all. There is nothing wrong with your sentence either. I cannot prove it wrong. Too plus two can be anything you wanted it to be, I am aware of no number system which will prove you wrong. There are only two options because NONE of us care about the other options. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that negotiating, suicide, stalling, abstention, etc are all better options. The point of this debate is to determine which is the better option given the circumstances. Under the original guidlines Stigius laid down I posited that the swearing of the oath was best, but knowing what he said now about betrayal of the order as a certainty, then I can with 99% certainty say that not swearing the oath is the best option. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Lord Stigius 10-09-03, 09:38 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot: you never stated that the choice was between becoming evil or allowing it to happen. If the paladin is guaranteed to become evil and betray his order, it then takes a new moral spin I belive I wrote it: In the end they give him a "choice": either he swears service to their god (esentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead), I was under the impression that this statement was clear enough. Sure, they will not tell him "And after the ritual you'll give out all your brethern so we would be able to get them all and give them the choice you're facing now". They prefer him knowing as little as possible. But from what they wanted to achieve by tortures (which had failed) one can see what they want to achieve now. And even if this was not clear (my fault then :blush: ), still it is clear that he is going to become a sworn servant of Nerull. So at least we can take for granted that he's going to become evil and join the cultist's cause. Can we tell he's going to cause the death of more than 12 people? Surely no. Pragmatical counting heads still may yield nothing. But I have also said that he's going to be a blackguard and/or sentient undead. Sentient undead retain their memory, though their personalities become warped. So he would be: 1. Evil 2. Sworn to serve Nerull 3. Still knowing the secrets that the badguys crave to obtain and 4. Wery capable in terms of combat abilities We do not now how the evil priests are going to use him. Maybe for watering flowers around the temple:angel: . The only sure thing is that he will turn to evil. Nothing more. (Had I said he's going to slaughter whole villages after being turned into servant of Nerull, the whole dillema would become rather pointless) In my first post I described the sheer facts, known at the point of the "choice", leaving both their conclusions and consequences untold, because I wanted to present the posters with the same dilemma the paladin is facing, and no more knowledge than he has. And thanx again!
aeon001 10-09-03, 10:15 PM	But lord Stigius, even in your example you eliminated the choices the paladin had and reduced them 2 where there is clearly more. either way, the fate of the paladin seems he chose to join with the cult, assuming it would be better choice for the sake of the 12 prisoners...I would venture to guess this paladin in question has a 10 Int score and a 12 wis score at best. The hardest thing to do when faced with a problem like this is try to see all the issues at hand and see all the options available as well, many different posters suggested alternate options which differ from the 2 you originally put forward. The paladin in question then only saw 2 options, not that he didn't have more, he just was not wise enough to see more. In the end he chose the worst one of them all in the opinion of the majority of posters on this thread. He became the evil which he fights against, he betrays his order, he violates his code, and isn't allowed to go to the paladin reuion class of 87. The paladin is now a servant of evil. And if your PC heros face him, may have a good time learning of his history on... Behind the Glory - When Paladins go Bad, Part 1. Oh yeah, one last thing - MttF, I think many assumed the paladin would willingly supply the bad guys with the information they sought once becoming one of them. Which is why that option was never an option to me at least. Like I said in previous posts, the only Paladin thing to do is option number 3 - negotiate for a settlement which is aggreable to all parties - give the bad guys what they want, but give the paladin what he wants, and give the villiagers what they want. I understand your opinion based on what info was available at the time, but with new info pertaining the fate of the paladin, does that make option 3 more plausable?
Falkus 10-09-03, 10:27 PM	Reverend: The problem you are having in understanding how the paladin can be morally at fault is that you are used to real life, where situations have third or fourth choices. There are only two choices. In this example, the only certainty arising in the death of the prisoners is if the paladin does not take the oath. IF presented with only two choices and two choices only, then choosing the one which begets harm for others is morally reprehensible; note that the other choice did not do harm to others. And if the paladin has no reason whatsoever to believe that the peasants will be allowed to live if he does choose to swear the oath? Evil people have this tendancy of reneging on their promises, you know.
Lord Stigius 10-09-03, 10:44 PM	aeon001 : As I wrote, there were more than one paladin: my PCs so far have encountered one who joined the cult (the undead creature they fought in the temple), and one who did not, therefore letting the prisoners die (the rescued prisoner). The SECOND was the one I had given far higher mental scores:D And no, there were no other options. No way of faking the allegiance, no way of suicide (no, he was not in a room with a blanket to hang himself. Even cutting or bitting his wrists was impossible... I don't want to go into the very details here, but believe me, suicide was not an option). And no negotiating or delay. They were not interested in getting the maps, names, anything such at this point. Only the oath of service, or killing the peasants. This is an artificial scenario, maybe. But, again, I did not place a PC in this situation; rather, presented this situation to a PC paladin afterwards, when he was to judge the paladin who did let the 12 villagers die... [Edited:] Moreover, suicide is no solution because: The paladin kills kimself=he does not chose service to Nerull=peasants are going to be killed anyway.
Gothic_Demon 10-10-03, 03:56 AM	Thank you for clearing that up Lord Stigius, and what a quality dilemma it was! M(t)TF: (Sorry, it just sounds better in my head :) ) Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah! :) Jokes aside, I still see your point in all of this, and it was well argued besides. I hope to argue with you again at some point across these boards. And again, A Thank You to everyone else who kept this thread civil and informative, with good ideas and input. It's a rarity to see that on the boards. Gothic_Demon Lawyer to Paladin's Everywhere
Arilou_skiff 10-10-03, 04:09 AM	If the cleric would use an Atonement spell to simly change the paladin's alignment after he agrees to let so be done then, what would be your suggestion then? The paladin can either become evil (and willingly so) or he can let evil be done to others. IMHO letting evil be done (especially when it is not of your doing IE: they act on their own and against your wishes) is less evil than consciously doing evil. As socrates put it: It is better to be done evil than to do evil.
ManTimeForgot 10-10-03, 04:18 AM	There is a problem skiff. Atonement requires that the paladin actually welcome the change in alignment. Having the paladin swear aloud that he willing accepts the alignment change will not trigger the atonement spell's ability to change alignment. In his heart, the paladin has to want to change. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
ManTimeForgot 10-10-03, 04:27 AM	Yankee. The problem with the golem example is that the golem is devoid of thought. The golem makes no conscious decisions. The golem merely acts as an extension of the mage who wields him, hence the golem cannot be held responsible. The golem is a tool in this case. Blaming the golem would be like blaming the gun which shot a person instead of blaming the guy who pulled the trigger. The Priests in this example are Chaotic stupid (see interaction of alignment in D&D for a good laugh about this). They are evil with a capital E. IN this case it is guaranteed the priests are going to kill the prisoners if the paladin refuses. This makes the paladin the originating cause of the prisoners deaths. In much the same manner as the golem is a tool of the mage, the priests in this example are a tool of evil. The priests simply serve to function as a tool of evil. The paladin if he chooses to not swear an oath, becomes the wielder of said tool in effect. (Note that I do not any longer support the decision to swear an oath; this is because it would result in the deaths of the members of the paladin order, which amounts at least in theory to more than 12 lives). Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Gothic_Demon 10-10-03, 04:47 AM	MTF: Now, have you changed your oath because you feel it is pragmatically wrong to weigh twelve against more, or are you appreciating the fact that it is morally reprehensible to do evil? :) I won't rest until I've changed your morality!!!! Edit: Just a joke. It reads badly, so I added this to be sure.
Arilou_skiff 10-10-03, 04:50 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot There is a problem skiff. Atonement requires that the paladin actually welcome the change in alignment. Having the paladin swear aloud that he willing accepts the alignment change will not trigger the atonement spell's ability to change alignment. In his heart, the paladin has to want to change. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot It's simple. The priest casts atonement. Then detects evil. If the paladin now radiates evil it worked. Otherwise the peasants are toast. Get it? And if the paladin *does* accept it (he should, because that was the condition to letting the peasants live) he will be Evil.
the_heart 10-10-03, 04:51 AM	IN this case it is guaranteed the priests are going to kill the prisoners if the paladin refuses. This makes the paladin the originating cause of the prisoners deaths. MtTF, nononono( in the nicest way), The Evil guys hold all the cards, the Paladin is not the originator of the death of the peasants, the bad guys are for threatening the peasants. if the bad guys didn't threaten the peasants the paladin wouldn't be in this dilemma. a 'choice' given to me by evil men where i have no viable alternatives is no choice. abstract it for a minute, evil guys say choose peasant A or peasant B, the one you choose will be spared....is the paladin responsible for the death of either peasant. no, it is not his responsibility. can i echo Gothic_D and say thanks all, this has been interesting.
Gothic_Demon 10-10-03, 04:59 AM	Just to stand up for MTF (hey, I got it right!!!), I have to agree that the Paladin must feel some responsibility for the death of the commoners. The commoners will die by his choice or not, therefore, even though he is not directly responsible, he must take some of that blame unto himself. (He's a Paladin, and nobody said this situation was fair.) In this instance, he has no choice but to disobey his oath, one way or the other (willingly perform an act/many acts of evil, or allow the death of innocents that he CAN prevent). Even in the "A/B one of these dies and you choose" scenario, the Paladin would feel responsible that he couldn't think of a clever way of saving them both. Such is the hard life of a captured and abused Paladin. The argument for me has never been which choice is right, and which choice is wrong; the argument has always been which one is worst, and why.
Gothic_Demon 10-10-03, 05:02 AM	Just to clarify the post above: The Paladin feels the weight of the world on his shoulders. He is intelligent enough to know that he cannot stop all the evils of the world, because he is just one man. He is wise enough to know that in situations as horrible as this he cannot be held responsible for the actions he could not prevent. AND YET, being pure of heart and soul as he is, he can't help but feel responsible, because he allowed himself to get captured and have this situation arrive. (Regardless of the truth of the matter, it's how he feels inside that counts to the Paladin.)
ManTimeForgot 10-10-03, 05:14 AM	To clarify my position. I am of the mind that one cannot morally value human life. As such, given a deficiency of information about: the quality of life the prisoners have; the state, number of those belonging (in this case I do assume there to be more than 12, would be a funny kind of paladin order than only had 12 guys in it, and capabilities of the paladin order; what exactly will happen after swearing the oath (now that it has been set in stone that swearing the oath renders the paladin evil), and whether the order was prepared for this occurence; I am forced to render my decision based on simple numbers because I cannot morally decide. It would be with heavy heart that I recommend that the paladin refuse, but in the end it would be what must be done. The paladin cannot afford to become a servant of evil AND betray his order. This is not because one should morally value the order before the peasants (far from it), but one should value the order first because more human life stands to be lost should the order be compromised. The only reason I would be able to in good conscience affirm this position is because Lord Stigius has not stated that the Priests would do this same setup again. If the priests would continue to sacrifice 12 peasants, then I do not know which I would endorse. It would boil down to simple numbers even still. :( Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
the_heart 10-10-03, 05:27 AM	feeling responsible isn't the same as being responsible.... but i take the point, how bad the Paladin feels about the situation, thats an altogether different matter.... i feel quite sure that if i was in said position(not that i could even remotely be considered a Paladin) i doubt that i could stand by and watch the peasants die...i think many Paladins, especially the more compassionate ones would swear the Oath rather than witness the death of innocents. whether that decision is better or worse wouldn't really enter the discussion. could you distance yourself that much, tired and probably beaten, especially if Bad Guy's were slitting throats right in front of you? but i think that is a different topic.
LoricDAHPaladin 10-10-03, 10:07 AM	Originally posted by Rotipher Even if the paladin in the example kills all the cultists and himself, after (falsely) agreeing to convert, he's already done damage to untold thousands of *other* innocent people. That's because every OTHER cleric of this evil god is going to hear from his deity that paladins cave in if you threaten helpless children, so will snatch an ample supply of kids with which to threaten any *other* paladins who come along. While he might have (temporarily) alleviated a few children's peril, he's also turned every child in the world into a hostage waiting to happen. Well done! I think you have captured the essence of the issue. This is another reason why the Paladin must not negotiate under such duress.
LoricDAHPaladin 10-10-03, 10:12 AM	Originally posted by the_heart a 'choice' given to me by evil men where i have no viable alternatives is no choice. You guys are good! Excellent point, Heart. Excellent. I am not contributing much, but I recognize a good argument.
Lye Blackthorn 10-10-03, 10:58 AM	Stupid and easy question. Pledge to the god to save the innocents, then kill those worms who tried to rope you into the faustian pact. Then denounce that god, defecate on their shrine and attone for trickery. Jeeze, paladins make simple issues so unnecessarily complicated. Silly silly paladin...
deadDMwalking 10-10-03, 11:22 AM	ManTimeForgot, I know you have changed your view, based on the information now given. I think you see that most of us were arguing that making the oath had the possibility of worse consequences, and that risk made that action unacceptable. I think, I at least, argue that a Paladin should not do evil in order to accomplish good. I don't think the Paladin can "sacrifice" himself in this situation. If he could, that would have been the better solution. But, although you can not morally weigh the value of a human life against another human life, you can make a moral decision that may even result in more death than the immoral decision. I like using World War II as an example, because most people agree that the programs of the Nazis were evil, and those who opposed them were just. Now, in the Holocaust 13 million innocents died. Perhaps if noone had chosen to oppose this atrocity, perhaps 30 million would have died. However, going to war resulted in more than 30 million deaths, including Russians, Germans, Japanese, Other Allies, etc. However, even if I knew that more people would die as a direct result of armed conflict, I would morally be bound to choose that. In the first case beause the 13 million that were killed were essentially innocent, with no means of defending themselves. The soldiers I ask to fight and die can "accept the sacrifice" of themselves. They are given a choice to die to protect others (in this case, it is like the Paladin trying to accept the suffering). And they can succeed in protecting others, something the Paladin can't do if it makes the bargain. Besides the direct cost in human life, I can evaluate the various other moral wrongs. For example, I can value individual freedom as a moral imperative, and slavery as an immoral institution. Even if more people died with the choice to do go war, more could have been saved from slavery. How many lives spent in slavery is equal to one death? I don't think I can calculate it, but I can weigh it. Trusting in my moral compass I can try to make a decision, should I oppose that which I know is wrong, even knowing that it will cause the death of an unknown number of people. Even if I don't know if I will be successful. That is why Paladins can lead armies to war. If I were a Paladin leading an army, and the enemy capatain approached me and said "You can fight me, and you can win, but I will kill thousands in your army. Thousands of lives lost because you want to fight with me. Now, how about this, I take you with me, and I don't kill any of your soldiers." At this point, I hope you would tell the enemy captain that you won't surrender yourself. You have already made a decision that the sacrifice of all the lives that are with you would not be too extreme to end his evilness forever. Right? Even if you don't know how many more he will kill. Even if you think he will kill fewer people than might fall in battle. Why? Because he might end up killing more, and because the people with you are willing to oppose evil, volunteering themselves to protect those in the future without regard to who they are or whether they deserve protection. I think I'm rambling, but I'll stop now. Try again tonight if I'm not clear enough.
the_heart 10-10-03, 11:29 AM	MTF, my apologies for the mis-acronymisation(is that right?) have just re-read some of this, and am way out of my league, anyway... MTF, RE:determining causality(and i may be misinterpreting the usage of this word), surely the BBEGs are the cause of all this. they have imprisoned the paladin to the point of defencelessness, removing any defining factor of choice. they are also the ones threatening the civilians. forcing a non-decision on the paladin. also, the nature of good. surely the greater good is to always oppose evil...lives may be lost along the way, but if all good capitulates to evil, there will be NO GOOD LEFT!!! (psst Lye, thats not an option)
Astanax 10-10-03, 11:34 AM	The fact that he has the desire to accomplish the greater good means he wouldn't be able to truly turn his heart over to darkness, otherwise he would just as soon help the dark side than stop it. It is odd how some think becoming evil will save people. When you are on their side, you are guilty of their deeds. These are the kind of "discussions" that make people not even want to bother with the Paladin class. I had my troubles while playing a paladin before and probably partly or mostly because of all the arguing and verbal attacks within our group regarding the paladin and what he should/would do, the entire campaign faded away.
aeon001 10-10-03, 12:32 PM	The Paladins code states a Paladin must be honorbale - no lying, cheating, using poisons etc. The paladin canot swear a false oath, what a paladin says and what a paladin means are truely the same thing. A paladin cannot swear a false oath as that would be lying and there is no lying for Paladin....fallen paladin yes, but one cannot lie and considerthemselves paladins. In this extreme example however, lying may not result in a gross violation of the code, it may be a minor offence, but thats the DM's call. To discuss this issue we need to go by the PHB rules and remove the DM specific unknowns. Here is logic - I am a good Paladin, I hate evil, I smite Evil, and I like Pie. Cult - Join us or die Paladin - ok, sign me up, whats on my evil to do list? Oh wait now that I am pure evil, something inside me still wants to do good? I don't think so, once the paladin swears the oath, which cannot be false for the no lying factor, he becomes evil. Now as an evil character, why would his motivation be " Lets kill my new evil friends who will join me in the slaying of good? I want revenge for freeing me from that pansy ass pathetic life of do goodery, I will crush them for freeing me from the slavery of rightousness, and avenge the loss of 12 pathetic wretched weaklings who were stupid enough to get captured, they deserved to die...." This is how I see at least, a lawful good person has moral values, ethical standards, and a desire to help others. A paladin takes those views and goes above and beyond them, setting the highest example of lawful good and is at constant war with evil. An evil creature has no desire to do good, no desire to avenge the loss of 12 good creatures who he had no connection with, his or her moral and ethical views are geared towards it's own selfish needs. Why would Evil mcevil used to be paladin want revenge on his new friends?
Astanax 10-10-03, 02:27 PM	Agreed. This "dilemma" seems such a simple matter. Either fight your way out (or attempt to) or lay there and die.
detectevil 10-10-03, 02:42 PM	A paladin must find another way. If there is none, he must die trying. You say the paladin was captured. What he must do is to escape. You say there is no way, he must make a way. If there was really no other way, I would accept my captors terms, for long enough so the peasants are safe. And then, kill then all, or die trying. Swering a fake oath is the least of two evils. I am sure the gods will forgive me for doing so to save the inocent. If not, at least that would be on his concious, not mine. But the mait thing is that good prevails over evil.
Lye Blackthorn 10-10-03, 02:49 PM	Originally posted by detectevil A paladin must find another way. If there is none, he must die trying. In this case, I would accept my captors terms, for long enough so the peasants are safe. And then, kill then all, or die trying. Swering a fake oath is the least of two evils. I am sure the gods will forgive me for doing so to save the inocent. If not, at least that would be on his concious, not mine. Well does my eyes deceive me? You actually support my stance? And here I thought you were unmovable. there is hope for you yet...
detectevil 10-10-03, 02:55 PM	Originally posted by Lye Blackthorn Well does my eyes deceive me? You actually support my stance? And here I thought you were unmovable. there is hope for you yet... That is the kind of situation where there is no right decision. But as you can see, I found another option moments after you posted your comment. And I must remind all that even if a paladin swears an oath to an evil deity, his alignement would still not change. There is no way to change a persons alignement. Even through atonement. Atonement is not like other spells, that have a Saving Throw (harmless). If that was the case, the paladin might take the spell. But you must be trully willing, and in that case, he would have been cohersed. That is the kind of thing the DM does expressely to screw with the player. Though it is a nice plot, it is basically forcing him to lose his character.
Lye Blackthorn 10-10-03, 02:58 PM	What other option, you compleatly took what I say do and parroted it. Except for the defecating on the altar thing but that was just to add some seasoning on the bland character. You know, kick him up a notch... BAM!!!
SureFoot 10-10-03, 03:51 PM	I was going to make a detailed post on this topic, but there are just too many pages to read!!! So I'll make it short. (I read most of it up 'til page 4, but didn't read much after that.) The paladin should absolutley NOT make any oath to an evil god. I reject any stipulation that there are 2 and only 2 choices. There's ALWAYS another way--and if there isn't, make one (watch Start Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan and learn from Kirk!!).
Ashaman Joe 10-10-03, 07:42 PM	I go to school for a day, and look what happens. The nice arguments we had going all get resolved. Makes me feel kinda useless. :( Well, at least as was right in the end. And compliments to Lord Stigius on his moral delimna. Got any more where that came from?
ManTimeForgot 10-10-03, 09:58 PM	DeadDMwalking: In response to your example about the captain and his soldiers, I most certainly would tell the opposing captain to screw off. Those soldiers out there on the battlefield have but one purpose and that is to defend their homes. They are out there knowingly and do so willingly. Soldiers are willing to die; that is part of who they are. Since they are willing they are no longer considered innocent. I would dread the loss of life, but the men under my command knew the risks and decided they were willing to take them. Choosing to fight and have something happen that the soldiers already were expecting to happen is morally ok. Individual freedom as a moral imperative. This is a function of western ideology and is not necessarily a fundamental truth. I accept it, but can not be certain of its moral value. What do you mean by freedom? Freedom to do what? How far does it extend? Slavery as an immoral institution is morally incorrect because it robs people of the ability to make choices. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Scorpion_Shugenja 10-10-03, 11:50 PM	i say let the peasants die!!!!!!!1 no really. how many peasants are we talking about here 12? what level is this guy? 10? a 10th level paladins can save way more than 12 lives over his career. a 10th sentient undead blackguard can kill way more than twelve people. consider the peasants casualties in the war against evil. their lives were not sacrificed in vain. consider an example. forget the paladin for a moment, and forget fantasy. it is an earth-like world. you, an ordinary citizen have somehow come into posession of a thermonuclear missile. now, terrorists have captured you and 12 others, and threaten to kill the others if you do not reveal the missile's location. do you allow the 12 to die? or save them, while giving evil people the capability to kill many thousands? what is the morally right choice? by becoming evil a paladin would be, effectively, giving the bad guys a super-powerful weapon. and, as a paladin he must make the morally right choice.
BladeVenom 10-11-03, 12:56 AM	I'm skipping several posts since I don't want to read all 160 of them. So I'm not sure if someone hasn't already brought up this argument, but an important rule of thumb is,"You don't negotiate with terrorists." It just encourages more of the same, and there is no reason to beleive they'll keep their word. If the Paladin gives in and swears allegiance to protect the peasants, then maybe they'll make him kill 19 peasants to save the 20. Then should he keep doing evil to protect 20 peasants? If they can manipulate him once to do evil, then why wouldn't they keep manipulating him to keep him doing evil?
ManTimeForgot 10-11-03, 12:59 AM	I'm sorry bladevenom but your question has been asked and answered. The reality is morality and pragmatism do not mix. You are asking the paladin to use pragmatism in making a morality decision. This discussion has been about which is the moral decision to make, and it has been agreed upon after some clarification what we believe that decision to be. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Haradim 10-11-03, 01:04 AM	Originally posted by BladeVenom If they can manipulate him once to do evil, then why wouldn't they keep manipulating him to keep him doing evil? As I understand the situation, they would not have to manipulate him again; he would become as they are through some means. So if he turns to the bad guys in an effort to save the captives, he would become Evil. They wouldn't have to goad him into a favorable response, since presumably, there would be some form of magical alteration to the Paladin to assure loyalty to his new cause (because the alternative would be very risky on the part of the Evil faction).
Lord Stigius 10-11-03, 01:41 AM	detectevil: That is the kind of thing the DM does expressely to screw with the player. Though it is a nice plot, it is basically forcing him to lose his character. See my initial post, and one of my clarifications too. He's a NPC.
Demon Lightfoot 10-11-03, 03:05 AM	I formed this opinion after reading the first few posts: This is the Paksenarrion Dilemma (to say much more would be giving too much away). The paladin should not and cannot swear the oath to the cult and its evil deity. He cannot give in to their demands or threats. He is not responsible for the deeds of the cultists, and is unable to stop them from doing whatever they want anyway. The peasants die; the paladin dies -- if the cultists are true to their word. If they don't kill the peasants, the paladin has beaten them because he has shown their threats to be empty. If they do kill the peasants, the paladin has still beaten them because their main purpose was to get him to turn to the Dark Side willingly. Sad, but not the end of the world. The Deed of Paksenarrion is available from Amazon (and prolly any half-decent bookstore) in trilogy and omnibus formats. I recommend it highly to anyone who plays D&D, likes fantasy in general and/or is interested in how to play Paladins.
ManTimeForgot 10-11-03, 03:13 AM	I'm going to stop saying this because I am tiring of explaining. But if the next person post here starts off their post with "the paladin is not responsible for the actions of the cultists" then I am going to flip out. Read some of the thread before saying something that has been said and reitterated at least 30 separate times in this thread. On the other side of this rant, I flat out disagree with that assertion. The moral responsibility rests in the paladins hands. If you can't discern the difference between ethical and moral responsibility see the sister thread I posted for details. And you can read my logic to see why I disagree with the assertion the paladin is not responsible, in the thread itself. Remeber people Pragmatism and Morality will NEVER be able to function together. The bit about this having a name: Paksenarrion Dilemma is interesting though. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Crossover-Chronicler 10-11-03, 03:25 AM	Apologies for the rampant snipping, I'm trying to make this readable. Originally posted by Lord Stigius Is the paladin responsible for his actions as undead? Yes, he is, for it was his choice that made him this undead. Technically, it wasn't. Y'see, (as I mentioned earlier) create undead targets a corpse, and allows neither a save nor spell resistance; the paladin really has no say in the indignities perpetrated upon his corpse, even if they include dragging his soul from its eternal reward to be corrupted as an unliving servant of evil. The clerics can offer him the choice, but they are in no way forced to honor it. Originally posted by Lord Stigius And even if this was not clear (my fault then :blush: ), still it is clear that he is going to become a sworn servant of Nerull. So at least we can take for granted that he's going to become evil and join the cultist's cause. But you bring in the ritual to make him a mindless servant of Nerull. Which they could likely force upon him regardless of his will. His choice to play along becomes pointless. Can we tell he's going to cause the death of more than 12 people? Surely no. Pragmatical counting heads still may yield nothing. We can consider the probabilities. How likely is it that the servants of "the enemy of all life" will create an unliving killing machine and order it to run the garden? But I have also said that he's going to be a blackguard and/or sentient undead. Sentient undead retain their memory, though their personalities become warped. So he would be: 1. Evil 2. Sworn to serve Nerull 3. Still knowing the secrets that the badguys crave to obtain and 4. Wery capable in terms of combat abilities Sure, but they can reanimate the paladins anyway (see above). At the point that the paladins were captured and not rescued, the Order's secrets were doomed. Offering the paladins this choice at all gives the clerics nothing but an opportunity for a twisted head-game. We do not now how the evil priests are going to use him. Maybe for watering flowers around the temple:angel: . The only sure thing is that he will turn to evil. Nothing more.[quote] But we can infer from the apparent motives of a band of cultists who revere death. And we can perceive how the ex-paladins will conduct themselves; many undead have a burning hatred for the living (wraiths, for example) while others feed on them (ghouls, vampires). Even if their duties are pastoral, their attitudes will not be, and (barring accident or violence) they will have lifetimes to make up for those 12 villagers. [quote](Had I said he's going to slaughter whole villages after being turned into servant of Nerull, the whole dillema would become rather pointless) But given the lack of impact the Paladins' choices have on the outcomes, isn't it pointless anyway? The clerics of Nerull will do as they please, and little you've allowed for the Paladin to do has changed that. In my first post I described the sheer facts, known at the point of the "choice", leaving both their conclusions and consequences untold, because I wanted to present the posters with the same dilemma the paladin is facing, and no more knowledge than he has. But in that light, the Paladins' crimes are not failures of flawed morality, but the consequences of flawed logic; the Paladins who surrendered really thought that they were saving someone. Originally posted by aeon001 The paladin canot swear a false oath, what a paladin says and what a paladin means are truely the same thing. A paladin cannot swear a false oath as that would be lying and there is no lying for Paladin....fallen paladin yes, but one cannot lie and considerthemselves paladins.So what? They can't precisely swear themselves to evil and be Paladins either. Maintaining Paladin-status is not the question; whether the Paladin swears the oath whole-heartedly or not, the Paladin's blessings are at least temporarily revoked. Once they cease to be paladins they cease to be bound by the paladin's code, and the Paladin is not intellectually incapable of deception, only ethically barred from it. I think an ethical reservation against false oaths would break before a moral desire not to kill innocent people. Why would Evil mcevil used to be paladin want revenge on his new friends? Well, they did torture him... I agree that there are more options. However, none of them are guaranteed to work, and it's the "survivors" that we get to meet.
Lord Stigius 10-11-03, 03:41 AM	Crosover-Chronicler: The clerics must have a reason to offer him choice, if they are doing that at all. Probably this is the difference between a mindless animated corpse (similar to those the peasants are about to become), and a willigly sworn servant of Nerull that matters. Maybe also the difference between CR 1/2 and CR 12 (sorry, could not resist:D . But THIS was not meant seriously).
aeon001 10-11-03, 06:24 AM	no, they tortued the old him, the past him, the good him. Now thats he is evil, he would have tortured himself too, and loved doing it. Paladins cannot lie, in this case let me try to express it better. Do you join the cult? Paladin - Yes, because I have no choice, please let me be the best gardener and not let me become an agent of evil. Paladin who has no intention of joining the cult but trying to trick the bad guys - Yes (but once I do I'll kick your butt.) They both equal the same result - now your an agent of pure evil. So now thats your an agent of pure evil, who loathes the very thought of lawful good paladins, why suddenly do you have the burning desire to kill your makers? Revenge for making you a better person? Avenge the loss of a sick, disgusting, hated paladin who you would have gladly killed yourself? See, this is my take on it anyways - A lawful Good paladin would smite an evil black guard given the chance without hesitation, mercy or losing any sleep. Why would a chaotic/lawful/neutral/ Evil black guard type thing want vengence on the tortue and killing of a paladin, the most hated of all the good champions? See when the paladin swears an oath, to me he dies and the evil creature takes over leaving behind no Paladin, but a black guard/undead who looked like him.
nick012000 10-11-03, 06:45 AM	What level is the paladin? What level are the cultists? What equipment does he have? What equipment do they have? Are the prisoners in the room? Is the high preist in the room? Is there a high priest? What terrain is it? Is the paladin wounded? Are any of the cultists wounded? I need information.
Lord Stigius 10-11-03, 07:20 AM	nick012000: What level is the paladin? What level are the cultists? What equipment does he have? What equipment do they have? Are the prisoners in the room? Is the high preist in the room? Is there a high priest? What terrain is it? Is the paladin wounded? Are any of the cultists wounded? Doesn't matter. For the sake of argument, it was somewhat along these lines: He is level 10, naked, with his hands cut off, at single HP digit, chained and under permanent Hold Person , unable to see the prisoners or contact with them. The cultists: one epic arcanist, one priest about 20, one multiclass blackguard about 20 too, one cleric level 14 (the high priest of the temple), three at 7, about 30 low-level fighter types. Really, since my PCs were to hear about it afterwards, not to confront the baddies (at the point) I had not worked out every detail. But the power of the cult was overwhelming.
Haradim 10-11-03, 01:02 PM	Originally posted by aeon001 So now thats your an agent of pure evil, who loathes the very thought of lawful good paladins, why suddenly do you have the burning desire to kill your makers? Depends on how thorough the change is, and how it is carried out. The only way to prevent an ex-Paladin from exacting revenge (for whatever his reasons might be) would be through considerable magical reprogramming. That would include altering/destroying memories, and anything that might spark some kind of anger or other emotion in the character. You dont' exactly have to be Good to fight in the name of Good, and an ex-Paladin who recalls why he changed is still dangerous, and can still act contrary to his new compatriots. You don't have to be a Paladin, nor LG, to sabotage or smash an Evil cult. You simply need to hold on to your ultimate goal when you agreed to change sides. Just turning Evil doesn't automatically mean you hate everything; if anything, it gives you greater freedom to accomplish your goal.
Crossover-Chronicler 10-11-03, 01:52 PM	Originally posted by Lord Stigius Crosover-Chronicler: The clerics must have a reason to offer him choice, if they are doing that at all. Probably this is the difference between a mindless animated corpse (similar to those the peasants are about to become), and a willigly sworn servant of Nerull that matters. Maybe also the difference between CR 1/2 and CR 12 (sorry, could not resist:D . But THIS was not meant seriously). But there is no difference. Using create undead, they can (in 3.5) create a ghoul, ghast, or mummy (in 3.0, I think ghosts were also possible). Using create greater undead they could also create a shadow, wraith, spectre, or devourer (in 3.0 I think vampires were also possible). Of those, only the mummy and shadow lack siginificant mental abilities. None of the others are particularly "mindless". Granted, they wouldn't be able to get a Death Knight, or possibly the homebrewed undead you mentioned earlier, but that's not entirely the point. They still end up as enslaved perversions of all they stood for. They still remember all the information they had in life, which they now can be coerced to betray. They only have a reason to offer him a choice is if they have a pressing need for some special form of undead that requires a fallen paladin and/or the subject's cooperation. From the cleric' POV, they can easily fulfill their needs in separate places; offer some high-level evil warriors a new way to power for your undead warriors, and turn the Paladins into lesser things for information. If they need both, they would have to be smarter about it than this little charade, and at that point we could be sure they'd have it doing more than arranging shrubberies. For a Death Knight, they need Nerull's intervention, and any way to engineer a paladin's "fall from grace." What's more, since death knights are hard to control, they shouldn't give the newly-evil blackguard any reason to remember them unfavorably. This is the only undead I know of that profits from having been a Paladin. For a vampire, they don't need the Paladin's cooperation, only another vampire who's loyal. This has the added benefit of enthralling the dead paladin to a (hopefully) loyal ally, rather than relying on its good will. From the paladin's POV, he has nothing to gain by playing along. There is no reason for the paladin to turn his coat, since the consequences will be identical either way. For that matter, there is no reason for the paladin who refused to remain alive and uncorrupted, since the clerics can put him to use either way.
Crossover-Chronicler 10-11-03, 02:12 PM	Originally posted by aeon001 no, they tortued the old him, the past him, the good him. He's still the one who felt it, who remembers it. Now thats he is evil, he would have tortured himself too, and loved doing it. No; a monster is not necessarily a masochist. He would have tortured others, but would never accept that he deserved it. They both equal the same result - now your an agent of pure evil. Saying "I swear to serve Nerull" does not automatically make a character evil unless he makes good onhis oath. The goal would bet o escape before that transition occurs, but that is a side point. So now thats your an agent of pure evil, who loathes the very thought of lawful good paladins, why suddenly do you have the burning desire to kill your makers? Because they tortured him! Torture hurts. Because they possibly killed him, and often dying hurts. Revenge for making you a better person? Avenge the loss of a sick, disgusting, hated paladin who you would have gladly killed yourself? No, revenge for the agony and torment he personally felt. See, this is my take on it anyways - A lawful Good paladin would smite an evil black guard given the chance without hesitation, mercy or losing any sleep. Why would a chaotic/lawful/neutral/ Evil black guard type thing want vengence on the tortue and killing of a paladin, the most hated of all the good champions? He wouldn't. He's still the same person, just corrupt and evil. He doesn't remember "just some paladin got tortured." He remembers "they cut my hands off!" Also, Blackguards aren't righteous. There's a big difference between a Paladin stabbing someone because it is necessary, and a Blackguard accepting being stabbed because "he had it coming." Forgiveness is not a trait often associated with Evil. Vengeance often is, however. See when the paladin swears an oath, to me he dies and the evil creature takes over leaving behind no Paladin, but a black guard/undead who looked like him. With his memories, which would include everything the Nerullites did to him prior to and during his death. Also, your statement is only corect once some magic is worked; until that point, it's just the same guy who made some poor choices.
Lye Blackthorn 10-11-03, 02:52 PM	Originally posted by Scorpion_Shugenja i say let the peasants die!!!!!!!1 no really. how many peasants are we talking about here 12? what level is this guy? 10? a 10th level paladins can save way more than 12 lives over his career. a 10th sentient undead blackguard can kill way more than twelve people. consider the peasants casualties in the war against evil. their lives were not sacrificed in vain. consider an example. forget the paladin for a moment, and forget fantasy. it is an earth-like world. you, an ordinary citizen have somehow come into posession of a thermonuclear missile. now, terrorists have captured you and 12 others, and threaten to kill the others if you do not reveal the missile's location. do you allow the 12 to die? or save them, while giving evil people the capability to kill many thousands? what is the morally right choice? by becoming evil a paladin would be, effectively, giving the bad guys a super-powerful weapon. and, as a paladin he must make the morally right choice. We have a winner!!! But there is one problem, how would you excape? See, if you temporarily turn evil you would be free and the others would be free. And what is the ultimate evil deed? Why, killing your allies of course!! And who is your ally now? The people who granted you the great power of evil... And what would be the most evil act? Denouncing and defiling your god. So you see, you use the evil to achieve your ultimate goal of good. Then you can go about saving people again. Everyone wins.
ManTimeForgot 10-11-03, 08:28 PM	Temporarily turn evil and can never return to being a paladin ever again. Ok. That's your call. Apparently the whole a paladin who becomes evil can never become a paladin again went over you guys. Willingness to sacrfice the peasants is different than having a moral problem with the choice and eventually coming to the conclusion that resistance is best. Flat out throwing the peasants lives away without a thought is major evil. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM 10-11-03, 08:32 PM	KIll teh pesents!!!!!11111tehoneoneoneonetehone nO! b3 teh ebil!!!!!!!!11111111111111 :P Serious portion: I'm pretty sure the best idea here is to squint at the DM, and then ask him which is better. Then do the opposite, since he's playing the Cult of Nerull. There is no solution to this problem, and either way is wrong (though, which is more wrong is currently under debate). Tough luck for that Paladin. Luckily it's not a PC.
Crossover-Chronicler 10-11-03, 09:52 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Temporarily turn evil and can never return to being a paladin ever again. Ok. That's your call. Apparently the whole a paladin who becomes evil can never become a paladin again went over you guys. 1. Swearing an oath to Nerull does not automatically make you evil. At best, swearing a false oath is a Chaotic Good act, since it is a part of an effort to save the peasants' lives. 2. In 3.5e, the "you may never return once you fall" restriction is not mentioned. In 3.0, it only pertained to "willing and deliberate acts of evil." In most considerations, that would preclude compulsions brought on by a magical alignment change (see the comments on the Paladin's basic inability to rebel once "sworn in.") At worst, the paladin temporarily loses paladin powers for renouncing his deity. 3.I still think the scenario is flawed. The villagers can't be saved and the paladins' order's secrets can't be protected. Attempting to do either in this case is futile. The moment the paladins' bodies (dead or alive) fell into the clerics' hands, the order of paladins was doomed, as were any villagers the clerics had a mind to murder and reanimate. Whether the paladin goes willingly or fights to the last, the end result is the same, except that his CR as an unliving monstrosity is maybe 11 (devourer) instead of 13(death knight or "plaguebringer"). Since the consequences are immaterial, the validity of the paladin's choices must lie in his motives, and the motives for either choice could be moral. The only way to achieve a moral choice based on the perceived outcome of one's actions is to attempt some option other than the two proposed, which been eliminated from this discussion.
ManTimeForgot 10-11-03, 09:59 PM	OK people need to seriously read what has been posted already. THE PRISONERS LIVES ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT IF THE PALADIN CHOOSES TO SWEAR THE OATH. It is ridiculous how many people think otherwise, and I have no idea where you all get such a ridiculous notion to begin with. It is not certain that the prisoners will die if the paladin swears the oath, what part of that is unclear. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM 10-11-03, 10:17 PM	Yeah! Not all evil has to be "Kill All Y'All". There is a possibility that if the paladin swore the oath to Nerull, the peasents would be let go.
BladeVenom 10-11-03, 10:40 PM	Originally posted by Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM Yeah! Not all evil has to be "Kill All Y'All". There is a possibility that if the paladin swore the oath to Nerull, the peasents would be let go. No one would believe the word of known chaotic evil cultists. So what that the peasants die? They died standing against evil, so that should be a good thing from the Paladins perspective. A Paladin shouldn't fear death or the afterlife, and he should be a proponent that others shouldn't fear death in a noble cause of resistance against evil.
Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM 10-11-03, 10:43 PM	Originally posted by BladeVenom No one would believe the word of known chaotic evil cultists. So what that the peasants die? They died standing against evil, so that should be a good thing from the Paladins perspective. A Paladin shouldn't fear death or the afterlife, and he should be a proponent that others shouldn't fear death in a noble cause of resistance against evil. I didn't say a nescessarily LARGE chance of them being let go...
Crossover-Chronicler 10-11-03, 11:07 PM	Originally posted by Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM Yeah! Not all evil has to be "Kill All Y'All". There is a possibility that if the paladin swore the oath to Nerull, the peasents would be let go. This is true; the peasants would stand a chance were the clerics followers of Hextor, Gruumsh, or even Vecna. Followers of any of these deities might see some value in the peasants, or at least not find their very existence offensive. But followers of Nerull seek to curry the deity's favor by extinguishing life, which Nerull despises. So when asked "why did you kill that man?" a follower of Nerull (if he had no care for the consequences of confessing) might say, "he was breathing." Originally posted by BladeVenom No one would believe the word of known chaotic evil cultists. Nerull is Neutral Evil, meaning his followers range from Chaotic to Lawful. So what that the peasants die? They died standing against evil, so that should be a good thing from the Paladins perspective. Er, no (see below). A Paladin shouldn't fear death or the afterlife, and he should be a proponent that others shouldn't fear death in a noble cause of resistance against evil. Assuming that you get an afterlife instead of having your essence dragged back to the material plane as a spectre or other twisted undead. Originally posted by ManTimeForgot OK people need to seriously read what has been posted already. THE PRISONERS LIVES ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT IF THE PALADIN CHOOSES TO SWEAR THE OATH. It is ridiculous how many people think otherwise, and I have no idea where you all get such a ridiculous notion to begin with. It is not certain that the prisoners will die if the paladin swears the oath, what part of that is unclear. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot That is irrelevant. The villagers' lives are not automatically forfeit if the paladin chooses not to swear the oath; the clerics could be lying, after all. Nothing is certain except the broadly accepted argument that the paladin has only two choices in this matter: accept wholeheartedly (which IMO he is incapable of doing anyway, but that is a tangent to be pursued another time) or refuse. However, we do know a few things about these clerics: They serve Nerull, known as "the hater of all life," a "patron of those who seek the greatest evil for thier own enjoyment or gain," a neutral evil god of death. (PHB3.5, p.32, 107). As "all life is an affront to the Reaper" (Living Greyhawk Gazetteer p.177 or Deities and Demigods, p.84), it is highly dubious that they'd spare life, all things being equal. :b: They have no apparent reason to parley with their captives; almost anything they wish to do to/with the paladins and the villagers, they can do anyway. They do have reason to kill both the paladins and the villagers; the only thing Nerull is known to reward is murder, and these clerics have devoted their lives to serving him. What's more, should they be inclined to kill the villagers, the paladin can give them no apparent assistance that would dissuade them, or at least none that they could not take anyway. Identical resources are expended either way (a handful of spells). Should they not feel inclined to kill the villagers, there is nothing apparently withheld by the paladin's refusal that would change their minds, or at least nothing that they could not take anyway. In short, the paladin's influence over the situation is an illusion at best, and a sick mind-game at worst. They live and die by the clerics' whims, and nothing else.
ManTimeForgot 10-11-03, 11:29 PM	If you would have been paying attention to the whole of this thread, then you would know there are some certainties. Please try and read through the thread before trying to make an informed comment on it. This is why your commentary is false. If the paladin does not swear the oath, the peasants are guaranteed to die. If the paladin swears the oath he becomes evil. The paladin cannot swear a false oath. There is no other option other than the ones presented. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Crossover-Chronicler 10-12-03, 12:10 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot If you would have been paying attention to the whole of this thread, then you would know there are some certainties. Please try and read through the thread before trying to make an informed comment on it. This is why your commentary is false. No it is not. If the paladin does not swear the oath, the peasants are guaranteed to die. Only because they are guaranteed to die anyway. The followers of Nerull have no incentive to keep their word, whether the paladin agrees or refuses. They do have incentive to gratify Nerull with handy sacrifices, whether the paladin agrees or refuses. If the paladin swears the oath he becomes evil. A condition which has yet to be explained to my satisfaction. The paladin cannot swear a false oath. Only because "If the paladin swears the oath then he becomes evil," a condition which has not been explained to my satisfaction. There is no other option other than the ones presented.Only because the DM says there is not. Denying any attempt to provide an alternative with "that's not allowed" is lazy; by this argument the paladin is not even allowed to try anything else. If this is instead "any attempt at an alternative is doomed to failure," then the paladin may still be required to try, especially given that the consequences are basically identical to directly refusing or accepting the clerics' deal. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot Clerics of Nerull murder people and lie about it, it's what they do. No spell or power I know of can turn a living Paladin's alignment that quickly (at the moment of swearing an oath) except those that are in no way dependent on the Paladin's willingness to begin with. An epic spell might, but even that probably wouldn't require such an elaborate setup (any spellcaster wanting to create an epic spell to enforce alignment change wouldn't bother researching a spell that required the participant had to agree.) Those powers that can chande alignment are either atonement (which won't work because "no duress, compulsion, or magical influence can force the subject to take advantage of the opportunity offered if it is unwilling to abandon its old alignment"; I would consider hostages to fall under the definition of "duress") or some "cursed" magical items (which do not depend on willingness). No such power is inherent to the words "I dedicate myself to Nerull." Therefore, I feel that the paladin can act on the assmuption that he could swear a false oath, and that the villagers are doomed regardless of his own decision. Therefore, I consider the setup to be flawed. There are too many arbitrarily defined barriers in place to make it work; things work this way purely because the DM wanted them to for storyline purposes. At which point the "right" choice is whatever the DM had in mind, and debate is pointless. The paladin has been rendered powerless; as his power to influence the outcome is nil, his responsibility to influence it is vastly reduced. He might still be required to try to rescue the villagers, but he at least should have his choice of doomed suicide tactics. Also, where is the paladin's deity in all of this?
ManTimeForgot 10-12-03, 12:20 AM	You have no basis for your argument. No incentive does not mean guarantee. Just because the clerics have no incentive to keep the prisoners alive does not mean they are going to die if the paladin swears the oath. The reason why the peasants are going to die if the paladin refuses to swear the oath, is not because any incentive of the priests, but because it is part of the moral quandry. The condition of the paladin becoming evil doesn't have to be explained to your satisfaction. It's part of the moral quandry. If you must reason about it, then the paladin gets ritual which turns him into undead performed on him. No not because my DM says anything. The reason why there are no other options is because the guy who is created the thread posited as such. I've been posting here the whole time this thread has been up, so I know the ins and outs of the argument and the prompt. It is obvious you did not know the prompt in its entirety and refuse to accept it now that you do. The paladin CANNOT swear a false oath, what part of that do you not understand. There is no false oath swearing. Thats part of the moral quandry. If you can't abide by the rules then don't bother posting. A moral quandry has no purpose if you just change the prompt at your whim. Every problem could potentially be answered if I could change the premise at my whim, but that isn't the point of problems. You solve problems; You don't change them to suit your liking. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM 10-12-03, 12:21 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot You don't change them to suit your liking. Unless you are a god with high Charisma, where you use Alter Reality and the problem never even occured. :D
Crossover-Chronicler 10-12-03, 12:54 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot You have no basis for your argument. Yes I do. No incentive does not mean guarantee. Just because the clerics have no incentive to keep the prisoners alive does not mean they are going to die if the paladin swears the oath. But they also do have incentive to kill them. Do the math: Either way, the clerics have no reason to spare the villagers. Either way, the clerics have a reason to kill the villagers. Either way, the paladin has no way to even attempt to protect the villagers should the clerics choose to kill them. The reason why the peasants are going to die if the paladin refuses to swear the oath, is not because any incentive of the priests, but because it is part of the moral quandry. The reason the peasants die, either way, is because they are in the hands of homicidal maniacs. The condition of the paladin becoming evil doesn't have to be explained to your satisfaction. Sez you. There is nothing inherent in the swearing of the oath that the clerics could not eventually extract without his consent anyway. It's part of the moral quandry.Which makes the answer every bit as counterfeit as the question. Determining what the paladin knows is necessary to evaluate his choice. If he doesn't know that the oath will transform and enslave him, then attempting to swear a false oath is still the "best" course of action. If you must reason about it, then the paladin gets ritual which turns him into undead performed on him. It's called create undead, and it doesn't require consent. No not because my DM says anything. The reason why there are no other options is because the guy who is created the thread posited as such. The guy who created this thread is a DM, using this as backplot in a game. I've been posting here the whole time this thread has been up, so I know the ins and outs of the argument and the prompt. It is obvious you did not know the prompt in its entirety and refuse to accept it now that you do. No, I understand the prompt, but I also understand the context, which is the D&D setting. The paladin is at the mercy of bloodthirsty thrill-killers who serve a deity whose eventual goal is the destruction of all life. They can kill him and make him an undead servant against his will, and extract any knowledge he has from his undead spirit. If they had their druthers, they would kill the peasants anyway, because that is what their deity, in whose service they will eventually give their lives, would have wanted. And they have no reason to spare them once the paladin is in their grasp. The paladin CANNOT swear a false oath, what part of that do you not understand. How he knows that. If he does not, then a third option is apparent even if it does not exist. There is no false oath swearing. Thats part of the moral quandry. If you can't abide by the rules then don't bother posting. I feel that I am as entitled to challenge the bases of the prompt as I am to challenge individual arguments built upon them. A moral quandry has no purpose if you just change the prompt at your whim. But that's just what happened. "Well, then swear a false oath." "No false oath swearing." "Seppuku!" "No suicide either." Why is it that the prompt can alter to exclude choices, but not to include them? Every problem could potentially be answered if I could change the premise at my whim, but that isn't the point of problems. You solve problems; You don't change them to suit your liking. By a certain school of thinking, that is what problem-solving is. However, I also responded within the frame of the prompt, which you ignored: The paladin should refuse to swear the oath. To the degree that the clerics need his cooperation, he should resist. He would be transformed into a weaker form undead (instead of whatever the ritual they had in mind would have produced), and mitigate the harm his continued existence would have upon the world. If he is lucky, there will be at least enough of his old self left to exact vengeance.
Wudan Monkey 10-12-03, 12:54 AM	Okay, let me see if I have this straight- Choice A: Pally swears fealty to evil god, becomes a nightmarish creature of great power and great evil. A group of innocents is spared. Choice B: Pally refuses to swear fealty. A group of innocents is killed. Rinse and repeat. It seems to me that regardless of how wrong it is to let innocents die, it would be the greater evil to let himself be corrupted and used for such a purpose. It's not enough to argue that letting innocents die is evil, because it is also evil to give yourself over to an evil god, whether under duress or not (this is not a civil case where the contract can be nullified by technicalities). It's also not enough to argue that the pally may someday be turned back to the light side. The pally could not justify the death and destruction he knows he will cause with that slim possibility. The pally's only option? In my opinion, he refuses to deal, whether they will kill him or anyone else, and instead beseeches all that is good and holy to intervene in this impossible situation until he dies, goes insane, or somehow is rescued or escapes. In any case, he most likely loses his powers. Unless he gets them back for one last burst of flaming holy glory that immolates his captors along with him and spares the innocent from further harm. P.S.- Unless the group really enjoys 6-hour debates over morality in the middle of a game session, this should never be done to a PC...
Flinch 10-12-03, 01:05 AM	Forgive me if this has been addressed earlier in this thread, but, I think that an important part has been glossed over. Paladins, at least in my interpretation, I've always viewed as defenders/policemen to an extent. As such, they are maintainers and upholders of the peace and are to protect the innocent. As such, I believe that paladins have an *obligation* to protect the innocent. If a paladin were to swear an oath to an evil god or cult or whatever, he'd be unable to uphold his responsibilities and obligations. Serving an evil god kind of inhibits your ability to defend the weak and uphold order, be a pillar of law in the realm, etc, etc. With the situation posed there, I'd imagine that any high level, high ranking paladin would not be stupid enough to think that as soon as he swore fealty to Nerull (or whomever) all bets are off and that being able to personally guarantee the safety of these peasants. If I were playing that paladin, I would attempt to find a way out of the deal, possibly asking for divine intervention, charging these individuals to try and take as many of these cultists/whatever down as possible. If the paladin suceeds, then he can continue on and attempt to save these individuals. Chances are he will fail, but in his last moments he will have gone down in a blaze of glory, fighting for what he believes in, and damaging the efforts of this cult. After all, why would these cultists kill these peasants *after* they killed this paladin? They were only using them as leverage over him. Besides that, his death might serve as a way of drawing attention of his comrades, who, together, may be able to save these peasants.
Crossover-Chronicler 10-12-03, 01:57 AM	Originally posted by Flinch After all, why would these cultists kill these peasants *after* they killed this paladin? They were only using them as leverage over him. Besides that, his death might serve as a way of drawing attention of his comrades, who, together, may be able to save these peasants. See my description of Nerull's religion. Nerull is a death-god, to whom all life is offensive. His clerics attempt to please him by killing as many people as possible before their inevitable discovery forces them to relocate and start anew. Why his followers would kill the peasants should be self-evident; that's a dozen more deaths to rack up on the Nerull-o-meter, with the added benefit of using them as leverage to corrupt a paladin first.
Hazzurath 10-12-03, 02:14 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot THE PRISONERS LIVES ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT IF THE PALADIN CHOOSES TO SWEAR THE OATH. It is ridiculous how many people think otherwise, and I have no idea where you all get such a ridiculous notion to begin with. It is not certain that the prisoners will die if the paladin swears the oath, what part of that is unclear. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot Why shouldn't we think otherwise. What do you think will happen to the prisoners if the Paladin does swear an oath to evil, remembering all the time that the prsioners are held in a temple dedicated to a god of evil filled to the brim with evil clerics. Will they be freed? HA! Don't make me laugh. This option forgets that the prisoners are being held by evil clerics. Once they have what they want any leverage the Paladin may have had is gone. Will they be sacrificed? More than likely. Remember, evil clerics have sharp knives, bloody alters and a death-god's hunger for death to satisfy. Wil they be held for another use? Another possibility. Prisoners are always handy for when the cultists' god gets snarky and starts demanding sacrifices. Or maybe another Paladin wanders within the cultists grasp. Innocent villagers are always a handy thing to have in the well-prepared evil cultists' temple.
ManTimeForgot 10-12-03, 02:16 AM	You all are two days late to be entering into this thread like this. IT has already been determined that the moral choice, given the premises as presented, would be to not swear the oath given the situation. You can't swear a false oath, because that is specifically forbidden. You cannot commit suicide because that is specifically forbidden. Where is the miscommunication? You did not list an incentive for the clerics to kill the prisoners. You listed a bunch of reasons why the clerics no longer need the prisoners. Those are not incentives. Besides incentive does not equal guarantee last time I checked. Ergo the peasants are not dead either way. Where are you getting this idea that the peasants are dead either way? Is your paladin superior to mine in that yours can always see into the future to know for certain the peasants are going to die? The clerics were not described as homicidal maniacs. You infer this without knowledge to support this. Alright let me elaborate on why you cannot swear a false oath. It seems that until I show you why you can't that you will not let this drop. You cannot swear a false oath because. You are bound, chained, tied to pole and/or cannot otherwise move at all. If you swear the oath to nerull, even if it is falsely done, then the priest's are going to begin their ritual on you whether or not it was meant in earnest. The nature of a prompt is to exclude choices. That is the function of a prompt. I don't know exactly what you are asking to do? Whenever one makes a choice one begins with the option to do everything. Anything and everything can be done. It's only when we apply premises that rule out certain options based on whatever conditions are prevalent that we rule out certain actions. Example Illustrating what I mean. Choose A or B. At this point A or B can be anything and everything in the world. Your choices can also result in anything. Then I say that in choosing A you cannot choose that which results in D. And likewise in choosing B you cannot choose anything which results in C. Thus we get. A not D or B not C. Such is the nature of choices. Until we rule out certain actions all actions are possibilities. Thus I do not know what you want to do when you say "why can't a prompt include possibilities." Until a prompt excludes an action that action is a possibility. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
ManTimeForgot 10-12-03, 02:20 AM	I am going to state this once, more and then I am done with this thread. I really am tired of people coming on and trying to tell me something I already know. Ofcourse its likely the Priests are going to kill the prisoners anway. Only a bloody fool would think otherwise. But you know what Hazzurath, Likely to happen =/ Guaranteed to happen. I do not know what is so unclear that everyone and their brother has to come on this thread and keep reitterating that the peasants are going to die any way. The peasants are not guaranteed to die. There is a chance, I don't care if the chance is .0000000000000000000000000000000001%, 2%, or 99%, there is still a chance that the peasants will live. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time FOrgot
Hazzurath 10-12-03, 02:43 AM	Ultimately it is entirely the Cultists' choice to kill the prisoners. No matter what the Paldin says. The Paladin refuses to swear service to their God. The Cultists kill the prisoners. Now, who killed the prisoners? Who gave the Paladin only two evil choices? What if the Paladin did swear service to the evil God. What would the former paladin do next. Well, believe he swore to serve an evil God so I guess evil acts is what he'll do (kill lots of people since he serves a god of death). So isn't swearing to serve an evil God equally an evil act? Again, who does the actually killing and turning into undead of the prisoners again? I don't believe the Paladin had any input into this decision? I don't think the Paladin has any powers that enables him to create undead. I am puzzled as to why the Paladin, by refusing to swear service to an evil god (I beleive that a Paladin should be incapable of doing so anyway) is to blame for the prisoners fate. The Cultists could have, upon hearing the Paladin's decision, said that they were just kidding and didn't really mean to do this...
Crossover-Chronicler 10-12-03, 03:02 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot You did not list an incentive for the clerics to kill the prisoners. Yes I did. "It would please their deity, to whom they have devoted their lives." You listed a bunch of reasons why the clerics no longer need the prisoners. That too. Plus they've seen the inside of the cult;s incredibly secretive temple. Those are not incentives. Besides incentive does not equal guarantee last time I checked. Ergo the peasants are not dead either way. But they are. The clerics have as much reason to kill the peasants if the paladin has converted as they do if he has not. If he has not, then they gain nothing by killing them since the paladin is probably doomed to death anyway; it's not like he's going to spread the word that they've gone soft. Plus if they kill him and spare the villagers they don't have to round up more to use with the next paladin. OTOH, if the paladin converts then the other paladins become a little more expendable, and there's less need for hostages. The hostages are material witnesses, so it'd be problematic to let them go. To assume that the peasants would live would be to assume that the clerics are defying pragmatism, religious convictions, and personal attitudes. Which would be exactly what would have to happen for the clerics to spare the villagers should the paladin refuse. Even if the likelihood of their death should the paladin play along were not 100%, and I will agree with you there, they have equally good chances should the paladin refuse to convert. Where are you getting this idea that the peasants are dead either way? They're in the hands of the cult of Nerull. It's a miracle they've been spared the knife this long, and even that is only due to a paladin they need to show some hostages. Is your paladin superior to mine in that yours can always see into the future to know for certain the peasants are going to die? Yeah. It's called "Intelligence 9 or higher." Any paladin of reasonable intellect would know that the simplest way to dispose of peasants who've seen too much is to kill them, and that Nerullites are not soft-hearted enough to seek other options. The clerics were not described as homicidal maniacs. You infer this without knowledge to support this. Actually, I quoted the PHB, Deities and Demigods and Living Greyhawk Gazeteer. Clerics of Nerull conceal themselves and kill people until discovered, then they move on and do it again; it's listed under "Clergy and temples of Nerull" in Deities and Demigods and under the description of Nerull's faith in Living Greyhawk. These actions are the accepted religious practices of the cult. Nerull's cult was named specifically in the prompt. Alright let me elaborate on why you cannot swear a false oath. It seems that until I show you why you can't that you will not let this drop. You cannot swear a false oath because. You are bound, chained, tied to pole and/or cannot otherwise move at all. If you swear the oath to nerull, even if it is falsely done, then the priest's are going to begin their ritual on you whether or not it was meant in earnest. But it is not the word but the will that resists such a spell. That being so, I can still resist the ritual. Unless they can force it upon me anyway, in whcih case my compliance is meaningless. The nature of a prompt is to exclude choices. That is the function of a prompt. I don't know exactly what you are asking to do? Whenever one makes a choice one begins with the option to do everything. Anything and everything can be done. It's only when we apply premises that rule out certain options based on whatever conditions are prevalent that we rule out certain actions. Example Illustrating what I mean. Choose A or B. At this point A or B can be anything and everything in the world. Your choices can also result in anything. Then I say that in choosing A you cannot choose that which results in D. And likewise in choosing B you cannot choose anything which results in C. Thus we get. A not D or B not C. Such is the nature of choices. Until we rule out certain actions all actions are possibilities. Thus I do not know what you want to do when you say "why can't a prompt include possibilities." Until a prompt excludes an action that action is a possibility. Read my post. I asked why the prompt could be altered to exclude options, but not to include them. When an option was proposed that was in any sense superior to the two offered by the evil cleric, a condition was then included to exclude it. After the "initial" prompt, which included no conditions that prevented a nobler form of self-destruction, nor anything that precluded lying through one's teeth, nor anything precluding an attempt at escape or battle. Then these options were proposed, and a condition included to exclude each option. The prompt changed in response to proposed solutions, artificially narrowing the list of options down to "A" and "B". Tha initial prompt did not even include anything as illustrative and simple as "assume for the sake of argument that these are the only two choices, because the paladins in question had no other options." Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Ofcourse its likely the Priests are going to kill the prisoners anway. Only a bloody fool would think otherwise. But you know what Hazzurath, Likely to happen =/ Guaranteed to happen. I do not know what is so unclear that everyone and their brother has to come on this thread and keep reitterating that the peasants are going to die any way. The peasants are not guaranteed to die. There is a chance, I don't care if the chance is .0000000000000000000000000000000001%, 2%, or 99%, there is still a chance that the peasants will live. There's a chance that the peasants will live if the paladin refuses, and it's just as high (see above). Either way, it would be the decisions of a bunch of evil clerics, who would make those decisions almost entirely independent of the paladin's decision. Plus, as I mentioned above, every paladin who dies uncorrupted makes hostages that much more vital because the corruption of the remaining paladins increases in importance.
Demon Lightfoot 10-12-03, 03:03 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot I'm going to stop saying this because I am tiring of explaining. But if the next person post here starts off their post with "the paladin is not responsible for the actions of the cultists" then I am going to flip out. The paladin is not responsible for the actions of the cultists. I am not responsible for your actions, and you are not responsible for mine. Read some of the thread before saying something that has been said and reitterated at least 30 separate times in this thread. Before I posted, I had read the thread, and it only served to further assure me that "the paladin is not responsible for the actions of the cultists" is the correct response. On the other side of this rant, I flat out disagree with that assertion. You are quite free to do so; you are also quite wrong. The moral responsibility rests in the paladins hands. The situation is completely outside the paladin's control; what he does or does not do will likely have no bearing on the actual fate of the peasants. The paladin's only obligation is to be the best possible paladin that he can. The paladin is charged to not do evil; possibly saving a handful of people by willingly becoming the evil tool of a cult of death-obsessed über-Goths hardly fits in with that ideal. His morality demands that he refuse. If you can't discern the difference between ethical and moral responsibility see the sister thread I posted for details. Que? How is it ethical or moral to let the cultists turn him to the Dark Side? And you can read my logic to see why I disagree with the assertion the paladin is not responsible, in the thread itself. I've done it; the "logic" of your assertions escapes me. The paladin is not the actor, the cult (and by extension the evil deity) is. The paladin is as much a victim as the peasants. The paladin is not responsible for the actions of the cultists Remeber people Pragmatism and Morality will NEVER be able to function together. Que?
Flinch 10-12-03, 03:11 AM	The Man That Time Forgot, I don't know if your comments were directed towards me, or not, but last I checked, this was a more or less public thread on a public forum...meaning anyone can check in and say what they like about this. Including you, including me. I thought my point was a little unique, (dying out in a blaze of glory and hoping that your deity will take note of your actions and either attempt to get help or provide some sort of divine intervention for the peasants, rather than letting them die or becoming a blackguard) but I guess it wasn't. Sorry to have bothered your time with my insight. In the future, I'll be sure not to do so, and in return I ask you don't bother wasting MY time with your prattle. Good day. ;)
Charles Phipps 10-12-03, 03:18 AM	What you are basically describing is a terrorist situation... The Paladin if he chooses to serve Nerull is repudiating his faith under duress. If it were this easy to do so then every evil order would do it. I suggest the paladin prays to his god for direct intervention. If Tyr doesn't help then is TYR responsible for their deaths? This happened in a game actually and my player's response was this... "You think you can corrupt me by trying to confuse the salvation of innocents with service to your foul god? You cannot transform me into a servant of evil no matter what you do. Even if I foreswore myself it would be to save the lives of innocents not because I will *EVER* do anything to serve the cause of evil." "Blood may be spilt because of your horrofic actions but you have failed to realize that a paladin knows that all life eventually ends FOOL. You invoke the WRATH OF MY GOD embodied in me and mark my words your challenge has emboldened me to escape and smite this DEN OF VILLAINY. You cannot harm the souls of the innocent and my god will cradle them to his breast while yours will eventually be burned in the flames of your god's hellfire." "My code is clear, a soul is more valuable than any amount of lives. I now offer YOU a choice. Fall on your knees BEGGING for my gods mercy or die eternally in the Abyss."
Flinch 10-12-03, 03:25 AM	Originally posted by Crossover-Chronicler See my description of Nerull's religion. Nerull is a death-god, to whom all life is offensive. His clerics attempt to please him by killing as many people as possible before their inevitable discovery forces them to relocate and start anew. Why his followers would kill the peasants should be self-evident; that's a dozen more deaths to rack up on the Nerull-o-meter, with the added benefit of using them as leverage to corrupt a paladin first. Fair enough, but I have to ask why do these cultists of Nerull have the commoners imprisoned in the first place? The original poster has said that they were already captured and already placed at the mercy of the cultists...presumably to be sacrificed to Nerull. But, if they've been held in captivity for awhile, it could be guesstimated that they might be holding onto these people for a particular reason...and that the paladin's actions would no more and no less endanger them. All the commoners are, at this point of the game, leverage to use on the paladin to try and coerce him into doing what the cultists want. Since they were alive before he was captured, there's only really 2 reasons the cultists are holding onto them. 1) They're going to be sacrificed or turned into minions for the cultists, which, at any rate, their goose is cooked anyways, as if the Paladin decides to embrace Nerull, he's going to abide by Nerull's 'death is good' dogma and wipe out these chattle anyways. So, if he refuses, they die, and if he accepts, they die. No good for Mr. Champion of Light & Justice. 2) There's another, more important reason why they're holding onto the commoners besides basic sacrifice. Which means that the cultists are bluffing. Now, this may or may not be true, but option #1 is not a worthy choice for any Goodness respecting paladin, so he must make a judgement call and gamble here. These people are not under his direct protection or care, and as such, he cannot do much to help them. Swearing to become a minion of Nerull does not help the commoner's survival rates, as once the paladin agrees to have a geas cast on him (or whatever it is that'll FORCE him to obey the cultists) I doubt he'll be giving 2 whits about the commoners. I view this whole situation as being very much along the same lines as thus: 2 cops are out hunting down a very dangerous serial killer. They're in an old abandoned warehouse, and are briefly separated. Mr. Killer is able to sneak up behind one of the cops and is able to put a gun to his head and use him as a hostage. The second cop encounters the Killer and his hostage and is instructed by Mr. Killer to drop his gun or he'll kill his hostage. The second cop knows that as soon as he drops his gun the Killer will shoot him and then his hostage, but is facing a moral dilemna because if he attempts any action against the killer, his partner is most likely dead. I view it as much the same thing, as once the paladin agrees to the cultist's demands, he's done for. Game over, thanks for coming out. Hence my suggestion at die trying a third option.
Demon Lightfoot 10-12-03, 03:25 AM	Originally posted by Charles Phipps What you are basically describing is a terrorist situation... [snip] This happened in a game actually and my player's response was this... "You think you can corrupt me by trying to confuse the salvation of innocents with service to your foul god? You cannot transform me into a servant of evil no matter what you do. Even if I foreswore myself it would be to save the lives of innocents not because I will *EVER* do anything to serve the cause of evil." "Blood may be spilt because of your horrofic actions but you have failed to realize that a paladin knows that all life eventually ends FOOL. You invoke the WRATH OF MY GOD embodied in me and mark my words your challenge has emboldened me to escape and smite this DEN OF VILLAINY. You cannot harm the souls of the innocent and my god will cradle them to his breast while yours will eventually be burned in the flames of your god's hellfire." "My code is clear, a soul is more valuable than any amount of lives. I now offer YOU a choice. Fall on your knees BEGGING for my gods mercy or die eternally in the Abyss." :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow::bow: :bow:
ManTimeForgot 10-12-03, 03:45 AM	List of actions that have been suggested far too many times to count: Abstain from choosing. Pray to deity for help. Attempt escape. (includes trying to kill cultists) Swear a false oath. Commit suicide. Now all of those have been FORBIDDEN by the premises of this discussion. I don't understand why everyone keeps coming and stating one of these. It was agreed that these would be preferable like a million times already. Morally the paladin is responsible because the paladin is the root cause of the act which results in the prisoners deaths. Ethically the cultists are responsible, but this does not shift moral responsibility away from the paladin. IF someone when given a knife would kill their parents, then you give them a knife, YOU are responsible for the parents death. The person is ethically responsible. You are morally responsible. Nice bit of deduction there flinch, but it doesn't take into account all possibilities. The prisoners could be there because someone in the cult likes torturing people. The prisoners could be there because a patriarchal/matriarchal figure likes to rape prisoners. The prisoners could be there as test dummies for spells. One cannot begin to speculate on the function of the prisoners. True there are only so many likely functions, but the paladin does not know anything for sure in that regard. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Yankee 10-12-03, 04:16 AM	I don't know that they've been forbidden, but letting that go for the sake of arguement... The paladin should not IMO lose his powers for refusing to serve evil. I do not agree that the paladin would be responsible for the deaths of the prisoners, morally or ethically. I think when people point out other options (forbidden ones, even) they are pointing out the underlying fact that just because the evil cultists say 'this is how it is' does not make it so. Even if we are limiting our discussion to the 'serve or don't serve' as the only courses of action, this point stays relevant. The priests saying that the paladin is responsible does not make it true. They can not force him to be responsible for an action they take. Their force = their responsibility. Therefore the paladin should refuse to serve (and should not lose his powers for doing so).
Demon Lightfoot 10-12-03, 05:08 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Morally the paladin is responsible because the paladin is the root cause of the act which results in the prisoners deaths. Ethically the cultists are responsible, but this does not shift moral responsibility away from the paladin. IF someone when given a knife would kill their parents, then you give them a knife, YOU are responsible for the parents death. The person is ethically responsible. You are morally responsible. The root cause of the prisoners' deaths is the cultists' desire to kill them -- because the death-cult is, well, a collection of people, who like to commit murder, bonded to an unspeakably evil deity who encourages them to be serial-killers. The paladin isn't giving the cultists anything; the cultists have always had everything that they needed (including motivation) for slaughtering the prisoners. He's not responsible for the actions of the cultists in any way, shape, or form, morally or ethically. Unless in the throes of mental illness, each person is responsible for his own actions. The only moral and ethical thing for the paladin to do is refuse to murder his father in a blind fury and join the Emperor as his apprenti- ...you get the picture... Nice bit of deduction there flinch, but it doesn't take into account all possibilities. The prisoners could be there because someone in the cult likes torturing people. The prisoners could be there because a patriarchal/matriarchal figure likes to rape prisoners. The prisoners could be there as test dummies for spells. One cannot begin to speculate on the function of the prisoners. True there are only so many likely functions, but the paladin does not know anything for sure in that regard. They sure as hell ain't there for cookies and punch.
Al2902 10-12-03, 06:03 AM	This is an amazing thread, and I'm severely dismayed that I got here a few days later than everyone one else :( . Still, now I'm here, I'll just add my 2p (I'm British). There are two aspects to this moral dilemma: A: The fate of the peasants B: The fate of the paladin and two choices, choice 1 (don't swear) and choice 2 (swear). Dealing first with A, contrary to what MTF believes, there is no difference in A regardless of whether choice 1 or choice 2 is taken. There is an infinitesimal chance in both cases that the peasants are spared- the adventurers break down the door, the cultists have heart attacks etc. Yet the direct actions of choice 2 have no impact upon A. Let us suppose that the paladin does swear the oath. What incentive do the cultists now have to spare the paladin? None whatsoever. As has been raised before, these cultists are (presumably non-lawful) Nerullites. Crossover-Chronicler has already eloquently detailed the fundamenal tenets of Nerull. The peasants are leverage, and nothing more. Given that the clerics of Nerull have the Trickery domain, it is likely to be an elaborate bluff. The peasants will not be spared, and never will be spared. However, the cult simply uses their temporary lives in order to force the paladin to atone. It has been argued that if the paladin doesn't swear, an additional X peasants will then be captured and killed. However, there is a fundamental problem with this string of logic...if the Nerullites have the capability to capture these additional X peasants, they would do so in any case. The primary role of Nerullite cults is the capture and/or killing of peasants. The actions of the paladin have no bearing on the actions of the Nerullites, since they have no notions of honesty, honour or even a basic contractual exchange (unlike e.g. some strains of lawful evil). Having established an equivalence with regard to A whichever choice is taken, we must turn to outcome B: the fate of the paladin. It is probable that if he refuses to turn, he will be killed. The Nerullites gain nothing from keeping him alive except possibly torturing him, and there is a small chance that he might be rescued or looked for. He may or may not rise as sentient undead, but this is a non-argument. The power of sentient undead is not linked to the previous power of the living creature. Thus, in terms of 'evil power' created, having the paladin turned into a wraith and the peasants into zombies is precisely equal to having one peasant turned into a wraith and the paladin (and other peasants) into zombies. However, if he turns, the cult has made a clear gain. They gain a powerful (CR10) ally, presumably loyal through the use of the ritual (we must assume that he cannot then betray the cult). Furthermore, they still have the resources to turn at least one peasant into a wraith (or stronger undead), the rest into zombies and still sparing the cost of a zombie (since they've created 1 wraith and 11 zombies instead of 1 + 12). The cult's strength, and hence their capacity to do evil, is thus greatly enhanced. In summary: Outcome A is unaffected by either choice. Outcome B is negatively affected by choice 2. Thus, the moral choice is choice 1 (i.e. don't swear the oath).
Crossover-Chronicler 10-12-03, 12:00 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot List of actions that have been suggested far too many times to count: Abstain from choosing. Pray to deity for help. Attempt escape. (includes trying to kill cultists) Swear a false oath. Commit suicide. Now all of those have been FORBIDDEN by the premises of this discussion. I don't understand why everyone keeps coming and stating one of these. It was agreed that these would be preferable like a million times already. Apparently, not everyone has come to that agreement yet. Morally the paladin is responsible because the paladin is the root cause of the act which results in the prisoners deaths. Ethically the cultists are responsible, but this does not shift moral responsibility away from the paladin. That makes absolutely no sense. The cultists will do what they do, and other than the unsupported argument that the paladin cannot consider the likelihood that the cultists are lying, it has not been demonstrated that the paladin's decision will have any impact on the outcome on the other prisobers' fates. IF someone when given a knife would kill their parents, then you give them a knife, YOU are responsible for the parents death. The person is ethically responsible. You are morally responsible. That person is morally responsible. The fact that they got a knife from me in no way lessens that person's responsibility. What's more, the paladin gave the cultists no knife-equivalent. They already had both means and victims in their graso, and already operated with murderous intent. The paladin has been deprived (by the added restrictions of the prompt) of all agency and bility to stop them. The deal they offer is dependent upon their own good nature, which they lack. His moral responsibility is nil. Nice bit of deduction there flinch, but it doesn't take into account all possibilities. The prisoners could be there because someone in the cult likes torturing people. The prisoners could be there because a patriarchal/matriarchal figure likes to rape prisoners. The prisoners could be there as test dummies for spells. One cannot begin to speculate on the function of the prisoners. True there are only so many likely functions, but the paladin does not know anything for sure in that regard. He knows that their chances of ever seeing the outside the temple again are about as good as his own.
Flinch 10-12-03, 02:19 PM	Yes, the commoners could be there for any number of heinous reasons...which still means that their fate is still going to be a negative one no matter what the paladin does, hence, he should try to minimize the amount of evil that is committed as a result of his (in)direct actions. Hence, I believe he should not swear the oath, which means these commoners would be sacrificed, but it would allow him another opportunity at being able to try something else to avenge the deaths of these poor innocents. I *am* advocating a 'third' option which apparently has been 'outlawed', but, I do not understand what is stopping the paladin from taking action AFTER he has made his decision. Are we to assume that time will stop immediately after the paladin makes his decision and his deity will strike him dead? Or what? ;p
Lord Stigius 10-12-03, 02:23 PM	Crossover-Chronicler: A moral quandry has no purpose if you just change the prompt at your whim. But that's just what happened "Well, then swear a false oath." "No false oath swearing." "Seppuku!" "No suicide either." Why is it that the prompt can alter to exclude choices, but not to include them? . May I quote myself in answer:In the end they give him a "choice": either he swears service to their god (esentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead), or a dozen of random commoners, who are imprisoned within the temple, would be painfully killed and then animated as undead. I believe there was no statement about "either he swears, or he tells the priests to kill the peasants ". Definitely not in my post. What I said was that the paladin is in their absolute power. When I set up the situation, I did not write about the impossible solutions , simply because they are not solutions at all. The paladin may refuse to do and say anything; he may try commiting suicide, either by hanging himself, or by attacking the captors (doomed to fail). Well, technically he could not, but even if he did, he would not change anything. Suicide is a way of refusing to swear, nothing more, nothing less. So any attempt to delay. There are still only two solutions; though one of them theoretically could be reached on different ways: he may refuse to swear either by saing: "kill the peasants, I don't care", or by doing nothing, or by saing what Charles Phipps proposed (great!), or by trying to find a situation where he could attack the priests, hoping to force them to kill him (during some preparations to the faked oath, or whatever). The peasants would be killed anyway.
waystone 10-12-03, 03:53 PM	Hi folks :) I'm coming a little late to this thread, and will admit that out of 9 pages of posts I've only read four... so my apologies if this has been said before. The paladin does have one redeeming factor in his favor, no matter what his choice - he's /trying/ to do the right thing. Instead of considering either choice to be a possible failure, turn it around and consider each as a possible success: a) Success A: The paladin reasons that the commoners are not within his power to save - they're being held by captors who are far from trustworthy on matters like releasing innocents. He prays that his deity accept their souls into the appropriate place of eternal-all-things-nice-and-good, and is strengthened in his belief that this diabolical cult be resisted at all costs - and that while these particular commoners he cannot save, he can save those he /would/ inevitably kill as a dark slave. He stands his ground, not out of pride, but out of an understanding of his own powerlessness. Later on, assuming he escapes, he smites cultists left and right, sorrowfully buries any remains, and gives the local temple a pouchful of gems to support the widows and orphans on - and in the meantime, goes on a quest to find the resources to Raise Dead on those poor corpses. While the deaths are saddening, his god, and/or a just court, are impressed by his steadfast reasoning in a horrific situation, and their esteem for him rises. b) Success B: The paladin reasons that while he cannot divine the future well enough to know what he may or may not do as a dark slave, these commoners, here and now, are lives that need saving. Any atrocities committed by his physical body once his soul has departed are regrettable, but not under his control. He chooses the ultimate sacrifice of himself in the hopes that the high moral ground will justify the possible atrocities his undead self may perpetuate. While his sacrifice is a dangerous gamble, his god, and/or a just court, are impressed by his readiness to sacrifice his very soul for the ideals he is sworn to, and their esteem for him rises. Same solutions, different perspective. You see what I mean?
ManTimeForgot 10-12-03, 08:16 PM	The Peasants are guaranteed to die if you choose not to swear the oath. That is how it is, accept it, it was laid down in the prompt by the thread starter. It is 100% certain that the peasants will die if the paladin refuses to swear the oath. End of that discussion. Crossover it is irrelevant whether or not you agree those have been forbidden, they have in the prompt by the thread starter. Don't agree with the rules go some where else to argue or start your own thread where those are still options. You can disagree with me about moral responsibility all you like. I am arguing that the paladin is morally responsible. The paladin is what made the choice which ended up in the destruction of the peasants lives (gave said person a knife). Giving the person the knife, is what caused the parents to be killed. Hence moral responsibility. You disagree. Fine. End of that discussion. The paladin knows nothing of the sort about the peasants, and if you stopped for one second to examine how many inferences you are making, then you would realize just why you are wrong about the lives of the peasants. Even if you believe the cultists have reasons to kill the peasants (this is a fact which CANNOT be known thus taking it into account is skews all decision making), it does not matter. Even if you somehow come to the conclusion that the peasants are 99.99% likely to die if the paladin does swear the oath, 99.99% is NOT the same as 100%. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Crossover-Chronicler 10-12-03, 09:06 PM	Originally posted by Lord Stigius I believe there was no statement about "either he swears, or he tells the priests to kill the peasants ". Definitely not in my post. What I said was that the paladin is in their absolute power. When I set up the situation, I did not write about the impossible solutions , simply because they are not solutions at all. The paladin may refuse to do and say anything; he may try commiting suicide, either by hanging himself, or by attacking the captors (doomed to fail). Well, technically he could not, but even if he did, he would not change anything. Suicide is a way of refusing to swear, nothing more, nothing less. So any attempt to delay. Sorry. My comment was in respons to ManTimeForgot's interpretation of the prompt, in wich he stated "it has been agreed" that discussion of these options (doomed as they may be) is disallowed. There are still only two solutions; though one of them theoretically could be reached on different ways: he may refuse to swear either by saing: "kill the peasants, I don't care", or by doing nothing, or by saing what Charles Phipps proposed (great!), or by trying to find a situation where he could attack the priests, hoping to force them to kill him (during some preparations to the faked oath, or whatever). The peasants would be killed anyway. I do not disagree with any element of this statement. But, all results being equal (see my arguments on why the cultists would kill the villagers anyway) we are talking about the most moral choice the paladin can make, are we not? All results, be they agreement or refusal, end with the death of the paladins and all other prisoners, and the paladin's prolonged condemnation as an unliving mockery of his former self. The question then becomes: If doomed, what ideal should the paladin die clinging to? Should he sell out in the name of mercy, or refuse in the name or pragmatism? Should he attempt to lie his way out with desperate optimism, or refuse in hopes of lessening the evil the clerics can eventually do? Which decision, when he comes to be judged, would he most prefer to defend? Originally posted by ManTimeForgot The Peasants are guaranteed to die if you choose not to swear the oath. That is how it is, accept it, it was laid down in the prompt by the thread starter. It is 100% certain that the peasants will die if the paladin refuses to swear the oath. End of that discussion. I am not under any obligation to accept anything merely because you tell me so. To quote the aforementioned thread starter: Originally posted by Lord Stigius In the end they give him a "choice": either he swears service to their god (esentially becoming a blackguard or some sentient undead), or a dozen of random commoners, who are imprisoned within the temple, would be painfully killed and then animated as undead. Now, what the paladin should do? Note: This is not a situation I'd put a PC into. But all of these happened to a NPC, and now I want to have him judged. By a just and righteous, unprejudiced court. These are the decisions given the paladin by the clerics. Nothing in the original prompt demands that the paladin play by the clerics' rules. Crossover it is irrelevant whether or not you agree those have been forbidden, they have in the prompt by the thread starter.No they haven't: Originally posted by Lord Stigius I believe there was no statement about "either he swears, or he tells the priests to kill the peasants ". Definitely not in my post. What I said was that the paladin is in their absolute power. When I set up the situation, I did not write about the impossible solutions , simply because they are not solutions at all. The paladin may refuse to do and say anything; he may try commiting suicide, either by hanging himself, or by attacking the captors (doomed to fail). Well, technically he could not, but even if he did, he would not change anything. Suicide is a way of refusing to swear, nothing more, nothing less. So any attempt to delay. There are still only two solutions; though one of them theoretically could be reached on different ways: he may refuse to swear either by saing: "kill the peasants, I don't care", or by doing nothing, or by saing what Charles Phipps proposed (great!), or by trying to find a situation where he could attack the priests, hoping to force them to kill him (during some preparations to the faked oath, or whatever). The peasants would be killed anyway. Saying "the consequences would have been the same" is not the same as saying "the option is disallowed." Don't agree with the rules go some where else to argue or start your own thread where those are still options. First, you do not define the "rules." Second, when debating a situation in which the options to be considered become artificially limited, I feel that even by the "rules" I can object to those limitations. You can disagree with me about moral responsibility all you like. I am arguing that the paladin is morally responsible. The paladin is what made the choice which ended up in the destruction of the peasants lives (gave said person a knife). Giving the person the knife, is what caused the parents to be killed. Hence moral responsibility. You disagree. Fine. End of that discussion. But the paladin did not give the cultists the knife. He gave them nothing nor did anything that facilitated or instigated the villagers' deaths. Rather, he did not allow them to make him quite as instrumental in the deaths of countless others as well. The paladin knows nothing of the sort about the peasants, and if you stopped for one second to examine how many inferences you are making, then you would realize just why you are wrong about the lives of the peasants.Would I, now? Why would I do that? Even if you believe the cultists have reasons to kill the peasants (this is a fact which CANNOT be known thus taking it into account is skews all decision making), it does not matter. Even if you somehow come to the conclusion that the peasants are 99.99% likely to die if the paladin does swear the oath, 99.99% is NOT the same as 100%.[/B] Let's assume that this paladin is mildly competent as a holy warrior and therefore has a few ranks in "knowledge: religion." The DC for a "basic" question is 15. The paladin can have as many as 13 ranks in the knowledge, but that's not entirely important. The typical modus operandi for temples of Nerull is to set up a hidden temple and kill people until discovered, at which point they pick up and move. The basis for their religion is that their deity hates all life. This is in the books. Because the clerics are eventually discovered, these methods are not a secret exclusive to the cult. Because it is a basic and universal practice of the faith, I'd say that it falls under the "basic question" DC. Assuming the paladin has had prior contact with Nerull's followers, he might not even need to roll. Even at a "general knowledge" level, Nerull is a death-god who holds among his common titles "The Hater of All Life." The worship of Nerull is illegal in most civilized areas. The peasants have seen the inside of this temple (and unless they were each blindfolded prior to being brought, they have seen the way to get there) and the clerics have no assurance of their silence. Unless the clerics are masked (not stipulated) then the villagers could point them out. Even then, they might recognize their voices. After the paladin is in their power, they have nothing to gain by sparing the villagers. If the paladin refuses and forces his own death, then corrupting the other paladins becomes more important, and therefore the villagers become more valuable. If the paladin agrees, then the clerics already have a corrupt paladin and the need for more is lessened, making the villagers less valuable. Unless they only really need one, in which case their lives have just become worthless. To assume that the followers of Nerull would spare the villagers should the paladin agree would be to expect them to defy both their reliogious ethos and common sense. To assume that the followers of Nerull would spare the villagers should the paladin disagree would be to expect them to defy both their religious ethos and common sense. Therefore the conditions of the villagers' safety are dependent on the same factors: defiance of ethos and ignorance of common sense. Therefore they have the same chance either way: next to zero.
ManTimeForgot 10-12-03, 09:44 PM	You are under no obligation to accept anything because I tell you to, but you are still ignoring the very fact that part of the prompt is if the paladin refuses to swear an oath the peasants will be killed. That is 100%. There is no denying that. End of that Discussion. The creator even said yes the peasants are guaranteed to die if the paladin does not swear. No more arguing. Saying otherwise means you are wrong. It doesn't matter if it is against their ethos, morals, common sense, reality, code of conduct, oath to Nerull, or anything else. The peasants dying under the "paladin swears the oath situation" is not guaranteed. The cultists could all be insane. The cultists could all be drugged up. I don't care if it is 99% certain that they will. 99% is not 100%. End of Story. And yes the paladin is giving the cultists the knife. The paladin facilitates the peasants demise by choosing the option which he knows results in the peasants termination. Moral responsibility. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Flinch 10-12-03, 09:48 PM	:bow::bow::bow: Thank you, Crossover Chronicler, that's more or less what I was trying to convey in my less-than-eloquently worded post. The only other thing I could say to help refute the other on-going argument is that this thing about certainities and percentages is only viable IF all participants decide to play by the rules. Since we've esthablished that the paladin doesn't necessarily has to, it goes without saying that a CE group of individuals, who have far less scruples than the paladin, would be inclined to play the game by the rules they created for their game. Especially when they're the ones running the show. And, going with 100% true statements, I thought you were finished with this thread, ManTimeForgot ;)
Lord Stigius 10-12-03, 09:53 PM	Crossover-Chronicler I must say I support wholeheartedly your statement abot the paladin not being responsible morally for the cultists killing the peasants. Now, I don't think that whether the cultists are to keep their word or not should have any bearing on the matter. Tha paladin's choice should be the same, no matter if he expects the peasants to be killed, or to be released after he swears. I find it to be a question of morality, not of pragmatism. Should a LG man value the life of a healthy person over the life of one who is terminally ill? No. And similarly, this is not the question "1 paladin or 12 peasants", or "12 peasants now or 1.000 in the future". It's about not siding with Evil, no mater the duress. I admit I based this story on the one about Arthurian knight, Sir Bors, (brought by one of the posters here): basically, commiting a deadly sin, or witnessing the lady commit it. And I had to translate it from medieval Christian morality into more modern one. The knight chose right, ManTimeForgot. . Right according to the standards he lived by. And, though the morality of D&D paladin is far more general than the ideals (mind you, I don't mean reality) of medieval knighthood, it is still based on these foundations. So the answer is: No pacts with evil, no matter the circumstances. But did he swear the oath guided by compassion, he would be forgiven (the choice still being wrong but not evil). Similarly, did he refuse to swear out of sheer pride, or cowardity, his choice would be evil morally.
Crossover-Chronicler 10-12-03, 10:11 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot You are under no obligation to accept anything because I tell you to, but you are still ignoring the very fact that part of the prompt is if the paladin refuses to swear an oath the peasants will be killed. That is 100%. There is no denying that. End of that Discussion. The creator even said yes the peasants are guaranteed to die if the paladin does not swear. No more arguing. Saying otherwise means you are wrong. It doesn't matter if it is against their ethos, morals, common sense, reality, code of conduct, oath to Nerull, or anything else. The peasants dying under the "paladin swears the oath situation" is not guaranteed. The cultists could all be insane. The cultists could all be drugged up. I don't care if it is 99% certain that they will. 99% is not 100%. End of Story.Back up. We are working with the Paladin's knowledge here. As far as he is concerned, the termination of the villagers is based on the clerics religious attitudes and their practical motives, with maybe a little good old-fashioned homicidal mania tossed in just for fun. Such motives (and mania) will remain after the paladin's corruption, with the added circumstance that the villagers are no longer useful alive. To the paladin, the certainty of each outcome is the same: the peasants are going to die unless the clerics ignore common sense and violate the tenets of their faith. And yes the paladin is giving the cultists the knife. The paladin facilitates the peasants demise by choosing the option which he knows results in the peasants termination. Moral responsibility. No. The paladin in no way facilitated or commanded the villagers' deaths. Those were the results of the clerics' choices and their motives. He had no ability to stop them from doing whatever they wanted. Besides, it's more along the lines of "I have a gun. Give me a knife so that I can stab you and your parents to death, and I won't kill these two strangers over here." The clerics demanded something of him to facilitate more killing, or they threatened to kill more. By this logic, the paladin is morally culpable for the crime of having even been asked for the knife, regardless of his answer.
Yankee 10-12-03, 10:59 PM	Okay. Accepting that to do anything other than immediatly swear an oath kills the peasants, I still think he should not swear. He does know that they will die. He is still not morally resposible. The fact that his situation is not one of his choice - a situation which he resisted to the best of his ability - so he is not culpable. Since the situation (as stated in the original post) does not allow for any willing action, the only right thing to do is fail to act. I don't like the undercurrent of hostility against MtTF (maybe I'm imagining it though), but I do disagree that moral responsibility can exist without valid choice. If one is to use the line that evil cultists can't be held responsible 'cause thats just what evil cultists do, then equally the paladin can not be held responsible for refusing to serve evil. A binding oath not to do so is part of what makes him/her a paladin.
Charles Phipps 10-13-03, 02:07 AM	This is from my Star Wars campaign, this is my player character Fuji talking to a character about the dangers of the Sith.... "But what if the Sith threaten innocents in order to get me to serve the Dark Side?" -one of Fuji's many padawans. "This is something that all Jedi must eventually come to terms with that there will be those who may possibly suffer because of our actions who do not deserve to. Now don't look at me like that boy, you look graver than a rakaghoul on Korriban." "Whenever we eat a Jedi can ask himself, if this food were not eaten by me would it be feeding a starving child? Were not my parents giving me toys as a child might others have been sheltered? If a Jedi kills a man does he eliminate all that mans future descendants who might be good?" "A Jedi Knight's most powerful trial is the freeing oneself of guilt and the quenching of compassion. This may strike you as bizzare but there is something to be said that even an abundance of the highest virtues of all can be an enemy to a true Jedi's heart." "Many a Jedi Knight has fallen because he gave himself up for the short term good. There are stories of Jedi who have died nobily for the sake of a single wounded life on a battlefield and Jedi who have locked themselves in monastaries...wasting away that they harm not even a single blade of grass." "This is foolish waste." "A Jedi Guardian is a keeper of the peace not a warrior idealy but a Jedi who involves himself in any form of martial conflict is eventually going to encounter a situation where someone is going to get hurt. I have killed hundreds if not thousands in my existence....some with blasts from my starship and many personally with my lightsaber. Always they were in the defense of the innocent or for the cause of peace but nevertheless I harmed the Force by my actions and somehow someone is suffering for the loss of a friend." "A Jedi may feel sympathy and should be ENCOURAGED to show compassion whenever possible but those who take up the sword for the cause of good must also realize that the greater good does not mean a lesser evil. When you direct an army and order it not to engage the enemy because of the terrain and the enemy wipes out a village.....you have indirectly participated in the death of every one of those beings." "You may use this fuel to redouble your commitment but if it was honestly to save lives and to end the greater threat. Then you have sinned not, it is simply a fact of the world that must be accepted. We cannot rid the world of evil, we cannot save every life, and we cannot live lives that will be entirely free of regret or sadness. We only strive to do so every day. In a decision with the Sith you must realize that the roads to the Dark Side is pathed with the best of intentions but you cannot win by playing their games. Those who accept this become the greatest of all Jedi." "Those who do not, fall the farthest." The padawan abandoned his training that very day, then returned three months later to become his greatest disciple. A paladin will in my mind not lose his status for refusing to become a servant of evil. Ironically if he doesn't become an undead servant (which is irrecoverable for) I would also say foreswearing his god is only a chaotic act because its to try and save lives. However in FR it would allow Nergal to make a claim on his soul that Wee Jas would have to take into consideration. (i.e. I'd allow an atonement for paladinhood) It's a grossly PAINFUL and horrofic decision for most paladins with people reacting differently, Fuji's advice may seem cold and stoic but its a recognition that in life you have to make hard choices. Reckless heroism that suceeds is great but a paladin is not failing for doing what causes the least harm in a situation to the best of his knowledge He may feel responsible and in part he is for starting his crusade against Nergal that led to this situation but according to the Jedi Master he can only suck it up and try to save their lives by escaping or avenging them so others can. Of course his "greatest student" would repudiate and try and smite them as well but then again he's probably the Neutral of Jedi good. The gods are more understanding though in my game than people give credit to.
BladeVenom 10-13-03, 02:53 AM	... or to put it more succinctly, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Charles Phipps 10-13-03, 04:48 AM	My PC is also known as "Jedi Master Blowhard"
Al2902 10-13-03, 05:12 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot You are under no obligation to accept anything because I tell you to, but you are still ignoring the very fact that part of the prompt is if the paladin refuses to swear an oath the peasants will be killed. That is 100%. There is no denying that. End of that Discussion. The creator even said yes the peasants are guaranteed to die if the paladin does not swear. No more arguing. Saying otherwise means you are wrong. It doesn't matter if it is against their ethos, morals, common sense, reality, code of conduct, oath to Nerull, or anything else. The peasants dying under the "paladin swears the oath situation" is not guaranteed. The cultists could all be insane. The cultists could all be drugged up. I don't care if it is 99% certain that they will. 99% is not 100%. End of Story. And yes the paladin is giving the cultists the knife. The paladin facilitates the peasants demise by choosing the option which he knows results in the peasants termination. Moral responsibility. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot However, as Crossover has repeatedly demonstrated, the fate of the peasants is in no way contingent on the actions of the paladin. Given that the clerics in question worship Nerull (God of Death, Hater of Life) and have the Trickery domain, it is highly likely that even if the paladin swears the oath, they will kill the peasants. Look at it this way: if the paladin has sworn the oath, and you were a Nerullite cleric, why would you *not* kill the peasants? Being (probably) NE, there is no need to honour one's word, nor is lying condemned by Nerull. Nor is the newly evil paladin going to feel aggrieved: if anything, he is likely to enjoy and participate in the slaughter. However, there is an incentive *to* kill the peasants, as the fundamental creed of Nerull is to extinguish life wherever possible, hence you are pleasing your god...and quite probably your own sense of misanthropy (what kind of person become a Nerullite in the first place?) From a pragmatic point-of-view, keeping the peasants alive risks them escaping, and they are more useful as undead (or just dead) than they are alive. In order to make the assumption that the peasants are more likely to survive if the paladin swears the oath, you must provide an incentive for the cultists to spare their lives in the event that the paladin swears the oath. As far as I can see, there is no such incentive. The paladin can therefore rightly assume that his decision makes no bearing on the fate of the peasants, and refuse to swear the oath.
Leap 10-13-03, 07:13 AM	To turn to evil, because it requires a values shift into disdain for the dignity of sentients rather than simply being akin to a change of t-shirt, is an evil act. To fail to protect the innocents by refusing to turn to evil is NOT an evil act, is simply an unfortunate repercussion of doing the right thing. A system of morals that expects ‘perfection’ in 'imperfect beings' living in an 'imperfect world' is not a Good one.
ManTimeForgot 10-13-03, 07:42 AM	You all confuse pragmatism with morality. It would not be wise to aspire to perfection in the real world, but aspiring to moral perfection is exactly what moral individuals seek to do. Those who can prevent an action that is evil, yet do not, do evil in not preventing the evil. The paladin in choosing to not swear the oath is telling the priests "Go kill the prisoners because I will not swear the oath." The paladin is morally responsible here. Arguing that it is likely the prisoners will die anyway just proves why pragmatism cannot mix with morality. One cannot argue it is 100% certain that the peasants will die if the paladin swears the oath. It is certain they will die if the paladin does not. 99% chance the prisoners die anyway versus 1% chance that the paladin swearing the oath convinces the cultists to let the prisoners live. Banking on that 99% chance is the pragmatic thing to do, but the moral thing to do is bank on the 1% chance. In swearing the oath the paladin does not DO evil. The paladin swears the oath in the hopes of saving lives, and that is not evil. The paladin becomes evil LATER on because of what the priests do to the paladin (undead transformation ritual etc.) The paladin cannot swear the oath falsely, does not mean that the paladin has to abide by the oath. He can be willing to break the oath in his heart, it's just that he gets turned into undead so it doesn't matter. So in his heart the paladin has not betrayed anyone, it is the priests doing evil to the paladin that results in the paladin becoming evil. The only reason why the moral issue is muddy now, is because Stigius has clarified that the paladin is guaranteed to become evil if he swears the oath (something which Crossover denies as possible). Well because of the paladin becoming evil, one must then morally weigh the lives of the prisoners now against the lives of possible people later. That is something I am not equipped to morally weigh: the lives of people now against people later. As such I default to pragmatism, but without that knowledge the moral thing to do would be to swear the oath. I understand that none of you even see what I am saying. This is the end result of western thinking being so hopelessly inured in individual responsibility, autonomous individuality, independent thought, and pragmatism that most people in the western world fail to see a difference between pragmatism and morality. Respond to this if you all like, but I will not even bother to look at the thread now, so do so only at your own waste of time. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
the_heart 10-13-03, 07:55 AM	not all of our arguments are about pragmatism, mine is about where the moral responsibility lies, and i would say that the paladin, as a soldier of good, is morally bound to oppose evil.and any moral responsibility for the deaths of innocents is upon the bad dudes.(but that has all been said) but consider also at what point does the greater good become the lesser of evils! and does the death of our mortal form = the corruption of our immortal soul? (idle questions only just OT) i see no failure(beyond that of allowing himself to be captured), and no reason to atone if the paladin doesn't swear the oath. (addmittedly all this is easy here, but how easy would all this come if we were actually in that position?! )
The Vampire 10-13-03, 08:37 AM	If the paladin breaks his oath = its up to him If the peasants die = its up to the cultists Think of a clasical movie, the BBEG shows the hero hostages, the hero surrenders on the grounds they live, once he has surrenderd the BBEG (CULTISTS) kill them any way. The paladins only main option being a paladin is to surrender, its a catch 22 situation the peasents will most likely die (they might live) but in the end the paladin is screwed due to his ethics but the peasents if screwed are so due to the cultists.
Charles Phipps 10-13-03, 12:02 PM	My problem isn't with the 1% chance to save lives. My problem is the fact that transformation into an undead monster is an ireversible establishing of a connection to the negative material plane. The rules will likely make him instantly chaotic evil and furthermore repudiating his god will also give Nerul a hold on his soul which is something that is not his to sacrafice. This is not his being selfish this is an honest concern about doing greater evil and the fact that it is against the paladin's code. The paladin can try to negiotiate with the Dark Ones, can pray, can so forth But even if he fails....he tried and that is what is important. Rather like a paladin refusing to kill a little girl to save 12 people. I mean that's the next logical step in this. Or rape a woman or they'll rape twelve.. theoretically in the numbers game the paladin is doing the Utilitarian thing but I somehow think that it goes against the spirit of the class to submit to becoming evil's puppet so they can dance to its strings on the vague chance it will be be for the betterment of their lives
Rotipher 10-13-03, 12:54 PM	FWIW, the latest episode of "Teen Titans" -- yes, I watch it; it's great satire of varied comic book generas trying to coexist; so sue me -- addressed *precisely* this kind of scenario. Slade, the archvillain of the series, had secretly implanted nanobots into four of the Titans, and was forcing Robin to serve as his apprentice in crime, or else doom his friends to a hideous, remote-control death. Eventually Robin (who realized he was starting to enjoy the thrill of stealing, and that he would indeed turn evil if he continued committing crimes) defied Slade by injecting *himself* with the nanobots. This meant that Slade couldn't kill the other Titans without also killing Robin ... thus losing his "apprentice". Slade still hoped to corrupt Robin by some other means in the future, so he fled without activating the nanobots' kill switch. Perhaps the paladin's only defensible way out of his predicament is to convince the Nerullites that he might someday be converted to evil ... but not *this* way. He WON'T swear the oath, and if they kill the peasants they'll have to kill him to stop him from avenging the hostages' deaths; but if they spare the peasants and let the paladin go, he'll be in their debt and (so the evil clerics assume) susceptible to future temptation. The paladin might have to atone for negotiating with such vile people, but persuading the cultists to think this way might be the *only* means for him to escape the moral dilemma he's in.
Leap 10-13-03, 01:30 PM	Hmmmm ………The Paladin According to the Gospel of Common Sense; Role – a convincing communicator (high charisma) and a trained warrior (high combat skills) who seeks to promote living in an orderly and reliable society created by responsible people doing what is right (what is right being a matter of themselves understanding and adhering to certain core ‘rules’; mutual honesty and good-sportsmanship ( do not cheat, betray or backstab. It is better to win with honor than to lose, but it is better to lose with honor than to win by cheating ), forgiveness of minor slights ( living in a community, in a society, we are all trying to get along, and friendships once broken are hard to repair, so forgive the slight things and save your rancour for genuine dishonour or maliciousness. For all but the worst of crimes, punishment must also be tempered by the understanding that we are not ‘perfect’ and that it is only normal to trip and fall occasionally and so failings and weakness are no reason for contempt and cruelty) and a general understanding that These things hold society together. That by Dishonour ( bad-sportsmanship, cheating, weaseliness, betrayal, treachery, dishonesty ), by refusing categorically to understand and to forgive weakness ( instead holding contempt for failings and weakness, or forgetting the ongoing (friendship) in the heat of the petty moment ) and by Workaholicism or Parasitic idleness alike, we destroy trust and intimacy and instead embrace chaos and evil, threatening the very root of good society). To a Paladin, and indeed all Lawful Goods, this is why we should endeavour to ‘play fair’, to tell the truth, to keep our word, to not be so harsh with others when they may occasionally make mistakes or do wrong and to work to live not live to work. It is this code which forms the foundation of good society and allows us to compete without destroying community. Without this code, friendship falters and community crumbles. All this post however seems to focus on Paladins being some kind of potential sacrifice for evils twisted little schemes and deceits; ready to ‘take the plunge’ at the drop of a hat all to “save a few innocents”. LGs save innocents by fighting evil and preserving good society, not by being patsies to some dodgy cult. Is this really so hard to agree on or have I missed something really relevant?!! (no comments about PHB alignment please, I'm sure we all know it is about as useful as a chocolate teapot in its current incarnation!) :)
Lye Blackthorn 10-13-03, 01:42 PM	Just sell your soul then kill your captors. Use your power to get into the inner circle of evil and destroy it. Then kill yourself for being corrupt. It's simple as that.
OGRE-MJC 10-13-03, 03:12 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot You all confuse pragmatism with morality. It would not be wise to aspire to perfection in the real world, but aspiring to moral perfection is exactly what moral individuals seek to do. Those who can prevent an action that is evil, yet do not, do evil in not preventing the evil. The paladin in choosing to not swear the oath is telling the priests "Go kill the prisoners because I will not swear the oath." The paladin is morally responsible here. Arguing that it is likely the prisoners will die anyway just proves why pragmatism cannot mix with morality. One cannot argue it is 100% certain that the peasants will die if the paladin swears the oath. It is certain they will die if the paladin does not. 99% chance the prisoners die anyway versus 1% chance that the paladin swearing the oath convinces the cultists to let the prisoners live. Banking on that 99% chance is the pragmatic thing to do, but the moral thing to do is bank on the 1% chance. In swearing the oath the paladin does not DO evil. The paladin swears the oath in the hopes of saving lives, and that is not evil. The paladin becomes evil LATER on because of what the priests do to the paladin (undead transformation ritual etc.) The paladin cannot swear the oath falsely, does not mean that the paladin has to abide by the oath. He can be willing to break the oath in his heart, it's just that he gets turned into undead so it doesn't matter. So in his heart the paladin has not betrayed anyone, it is the priests doing evil to the paladin that results in the paladin becoming evil. The only reason why the moral issue is muddy now, is because Stigius has clarified that the paladin is guaranteed to become evil if he swears the oath (something which Crossover denies as possible). Well because of the paladin becoming evil, one must then morally weigh the lives of the prisoners now against the lives of possible people later. That is something I am not equipped to morally weigh: the lives of people now against people later. As such I default to pragmatism, but without that knowledge the moral thing to do would be to swear the oath. I understand that none of you even see what I am saying. This is the end result of western thinking being so hopelessly inured in individual responsibility, autonomous individuality, independent thought, and pragmatism that most people in the western world fail to see a difference between pragmatism and morality. Respond to this if you all like, but I will not even bother to look at the thread now, so do so only at your own waste of time. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot MTF (yeah, got it right!), The problem I are having with your theory is that I can't understand your assigning free will to the paladin and not to the cultists. When you say the original post states that the cultist will kill the peasants, you are correct. But that is because the DM has made the decision for the NPCs, not that the cultists(DM) are incapable of making other decisions. The whole concept of free will and responsibility are wrapped-up in this.The cultists are not free from the responsibility of killing the peasants just because they try to pass it off to the paladin anymore than the guards at Autswitz (the death camp, I can't remember how to spell it.) could say they were just following orders. The paladin in this case isn't even the one giving the order to kill the peasants, It's the BBEG who is giving the order. What information the BBEG uses to make his decision is the BBEG's look-out, not the paladins. The paladin in this case would be saying "I'm not swearing an oath to your god and I can't stop you from hurting the peasants." that is a far cry from saying "I approve and condone your killing of the peasants, I just have commitment issues right now." That is not to say the paladin would not FEEL responsible, but the question is weither he IS responsible. If you allow for the cultist to have free will, then the answer is ultimately no. God (or Allah, or some Enlightned Philosopher, or Whoever codified your morality) gave us morality from practical reasons. There are practical reasons why stealing is wrong. There are practical reasons why murder is wrong. Trying to separate reason and practicality out of morality is like trying to separate hydrogen and oxygen out of water. You can do it, you just can't take a bath in what you have left.
Iry 10-13-03, 03:59 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot I don't care if it is 99% certain that they will. 99% is not 100%. End of Story. Even though we both agree that Pi (3.141592654) is churning out wrong answers whenever it's plugged into an equation, the entire world of mathematics gets by just fine. I'm certain your introspections can follow through..
Crossover-Chronicler 10-13-03, 04:40 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot You all confuse pragmatism with morality. It would not be wise to aspire to perfection in the real world, but aspiring to moral perfection is exactly what moral individuals seek to do. On the contrary. Actions are defined in part by their consequences. Dropping a bowling ball off a cliff is not evil... unless there is a family picnicking below. Or to use your own example, handing a guy a knife is not evil... unless you know that he is going to commit murder with it later. Those who can prevent an action that is evil, yet do not, do evil in not preventing the evil. But the paladin has no power to prevent the clerics from doing whatever they want. The paladin in choosing to not swear the oath is telling the priests "Go kill the prisoners because I will not swear the oath." The paladin is morally responsible here.[.quote] Yes. And under the weaight of the responsibility that has been thrust upon him, the paladin still made the proper decision. [quote]Arguing that it is likely the prisoners will die anyway just proves why pragmatism cannot mix with morality. No, it proves why it must. Otherwise morality becomes divorced from the actual deed of doing good; in effect the paladin has increased the moral decay of the world (depleting good by switching sides, increasing evil at the same time) and making the world more dangerous (with the presence of another undead blackguard) while at the same time achieving no good. One cannot argue it is 100% certain that the peasants will die if the paladin swears the oath. It is certain they will die if the paladin does not. It is equally certain either way; the villagers' chances for survival are about 0.0001% no matter which way te paladin chooses. 99% chance the prisoners die anyway versus 1% chance that the paladin swearing the oath convinces the cultists to let the prisoners live. A paladin is not even required to die in the name of that kind of long-shot; why would he be required to accept a"fate worse than death" for it? Banking on that 99% chance is the pragmatic thing to do, but the moral thing to do is bank on the 1% chance. No, the moral thing is to deprive the mass-murderers of their chance to create a plague-bearing undead blackguard with intimate knowledge of his former order's secrets. In swearing the oath the paladin does not DO evil. The paladin swears the oath in the hopes of saving lives, and that is not evil. The paladin becomes evil LATER on because of what the priests do to the paladin (undead transformation ritual etc.) But by your own argument, in swearing the oath, the paladin is responsible for that as well, and therefore for everything the cult and their new enforcer do afterwatds. The paladin cannot swear the oath falsely, does not mean that the paladin has to abide by the oath. He can be willing to break the oath in his heart, it's just that he gets turned into undead so it doesn't matter. So in his heart the paladin has not betrayed anyone, it is the priests doing evil to the paladin that results in the paladin becoming evil. Could you reword this part? I really think I'm missing something. The only reason why the moral issue is muddy now, is because Stigius has clarified that the paladin is guaranteed to become evil if he swears the oath (something which Crossover denies as possible). Actiually, I claimed that the setup was flawed because no such way currently existed within the ruules. Then I argued that even accepting it as so, the paladin probably wouldn't know about it, meaning that swearing a false oath appeared as a solution. Assuming transformation into an evil undead, I actually claimed that such a transition was completely possible and did not even require the paladin's consent, in which case the setup was flawed because the clerics had no reasons for demanding his oath. Therefore I assumed that they wanted his consent to make him into a more powerful (or useful to them) form of undead not allowed by standard spells; on this assumption (backed up by Stigius' comments) I went about actually addressing the answer. Well because of the paladin becoming evil, one must then morally weigh the lives of the prisoners now against the lives of possible people later. That is something I am not equipped to morally weigh: the lives of people now against people later. As such I default to pragmatism, but without that knowledge the moral thing to do would be to swear the oath. I disagree; the moral thing to do in this case is attempt to prserve life, in this case by not delivering into the death-cult's hands another powerful tool. I understand that none of you even see what I am saying. This is the end result of western thinking being so hopelessly inured in individual responsibility, autonomous individuality, independent thought, and pragmatism that most people in the western world fail to see a difference between pragmatism and morality. Respond to this if you all like, but I will not even bother to look at the thread now, so do so only at your own waste of time. Right. Of course, the paladin is a western concept (rather different code of conduct from the samurai), as is D&D, so western moral attitudes are still valid. Also, an east/west argument is irrelevant until you demonstrate western thought to be in some fashion morally inferior.
MightyMightyThundarr 10-13-03, 05:28 PM	Eh, I would argue that NO paladin, or anybody else for that matter, could willfully become evil for the sake of saving the lives of others. You can't devote yourself to selfishness by committing a selfless act. Even if the paladin decided to make the oath, in his heart he simply could not *be* evil for this purpose. The atonement spell would fail, and the peasents would die. If the paladin DID commit to being evil, then on some level he wasn't really pure to begin with. To truly be evil, you have to want something for YOURSELF, not for others. Choosing to become evil is ALWAYS a selfish act, and a paladin placed in this situation is not acting on a selfish impulse by any stretch. If he had ulterior motives for becoming evil (regardless of the peasent's plight) and genuinely become evil upon taking the oath, then he wasn't a paladin to begin with. And the whole argument becomes moot. So it boils down to this: is the paladin willing to commit to a very un-paladinlike pragmatism (the cynical belief that "the villiagers are going to die anyway, so it doesn't matter what I do"), or does he foolishly attempt to surrender his soul to Evil in an act of an absolutely Good sacrifice? Either way, he fails and the villiagers die. The question of judgement depends on the deity the paladin worships. Are they going to be more upset with him for making an intellectual decision to allow an evil act to be carried out, or are they going to be more upset by his (failed) moral decision to prevent an act of evil by forsaking his oaths? This is up to the DM's discretion, and YMMV. I applaud Lord Stigius for presenting the paladins in the example with a moral dilemma that only some truly Evil badguys could come up with :) I must say that I disagree with allowing any of the paladins to actually become evil as a result of that dilemma, however. You can tempt somebody to choose evil, but you cannot force them to choose evil without magical compulsion. And that isn't the case in this scenario.
Al2902 10-13-03, 06:56 PM	...does not, frankly, exist. MTF has cleverly engineered a situation whereby he can assume that the chances of the peasants dying is greater if the paladin agrees to swear the oath than if he doesn't. This is a convenient assumption for him, since he is able from this assumption to postulate a morality vs. pragmatism argument. Unfortunately, rather than get bogged down for seven pages as to the specifics of the morality vs. pragmatism (I'd probably side with pragmatism in this case, but that's by the by), we must question his *core assumption*- the fabled 1% chance. MTF has categorically failed to provides evidence for this 1% chance. He just asserts that it exists, and fails to prove why. Given the tenets of Nerull, given that the cultists have no incentive to keep the peasants alive after the paladin's decision and given that the paladin will be evil or dead after his decision (and hence not care about the fate of the peasants) it is a reasonable deduction that the cultists will kill the peasants irrespective of the actions of the paladin . There is no 1%, or 0.1%, or 0.01% margin. The chances are identical and infinitesimal. Unless MTF can demonstrate why the paladin swearing the oath will lead directly to the cultists being less likely to kill the peasants, the premise upon which his entire argument rests must fold. He is certainly a highly articulate poster, but I doubt that even he can rise to this challenge.... PS MightyMightyThundarr, you assert this approach to be "cynical". Hardly- paladins may be lawful good, but they must also be realistic...there is a fine line between conviction and foolhardiness.
MightyMightyThundarr 10-13-03, 08:00 PM	It is cynical because it forces one to weigh X number of lives against Y. No matter what conclusion you come to, it ends up being callous. It also ignores the fact that the paladin is still permitting the cultists to do evil. Yes, it is fantastically obvious to all but the most simple of paladins that the cultists will likely kill the peasants anyway. The paladin may even convince himself that he would end up killing more people if he joined the cultists than this mere dozen. However, it remains that by making the choice not to join them, the paladin is allowing the cultists to commit an evil act without doing anything about it. The fact that it may be the lesser of two evils is insufficient reason, because to stand back and allow ANY evil act such as this to pass is a failure on his part. If he has ended up in a situation where fighting back is impossible, he has already failed them once. Allowing the cultists to kill them would mean he has now failed them twice. The decision may be realistic given the circumstances, but it is amoral nonetheless. As others have mentioned, this is by no means a fair situation. Whatever the paladin chooses, he will lose his powers at the very least. By siding with the cultists, he breaks his vows even if he does not succeed at becoming evil. By refusing them, he is condemning innocents to death. Neither prospect is very appealing, but then again the paladin shouldn't have gotten himself caught like this in the first place. And by the way.. don't give me any malarky about the paladin not being responsible for the peasent's deaths. Most (if not all) paladins have sworn an oath to protect the innocent, have they not? He may not be the one who swings the axe, but standing by while it happens is just as bad as far as the vows are concerned.
Crossover-Chronicler 10-13-03, 08:01 PM	Originally posted by MightyMightyThundarr I applaud Lord Stigius for presenting the paladins in the example with a moral dilemma that only some truly Evil badguys could come up with :) I must say that I disagree with allowing any of the paladins to actually become evil as a result of that dilemma, however. You can tempt somebody to choose evil, but you cannot force them to choose evil without magical compulsion. And that isn't the case in this scenario. I agree. In fact, I am thinking of stealing elements of this setup for a variant scenario. While I don't necessarily see it as flawless, it's certainly the kind of head-game a BBEG would pull out in the course of his longer-term plans.
aeon001 10-14-03, 02:44 AM	A few thoughts, after thinking about this I hink this will clear a lot of the uncertainties up. - the paladin cannot swear a false oath - the ritual is designed so that only if you willingly partake does it take effect. (at elast how I understand it) So, if your lying, your not willing and therefore the ritual fails to effect the paladin and the 12 villiagers die. Not even the highest bluff roles are going to make your life flow from your body and your flesh rot and pull back as negative energy fills you making you a horrid fould undead thing. 2nd - the cult can easily defend themselves from the paladin using subdual damage, knock out paladin, put him back in his cell and ask him tomorrow - Join us, or they die. All efforts of attack them so they kill the paladin will fail - they control when the paladin dies. Also, they captured him once, they already beat him...the paladin has no real chance of beating them. 3rd - MTTF has one point, while not agreeing with another The paladin swears the oath to save the peasants. All the paladins actions up to that point are Good Intended. After his fate is decided by the actions of the undead version of him (which he has no control over) The paladin does not swear - 12 lives he could have saved are lost and it is because he decided they should die. He had the power to stop it and chose not too. In all truth - Both actions are Good and Evil at the same time. He swears - saves the innocents - Guaranteed Good Action Goes on to kill 1,0000's more innocents - Unknown Bad Action He doesn't swear - He is not forced to be an agent of evil killing 1,00000's - Guaranteed Good Action Innocents die - unknown bad Action ( lcould be lies, illusions, paladin has no way of knowing if they are even real prisoners) Now lastly, the kicker in all this is the fact that the Paladin in question is no longer a paladin, champion of good and justice and protector of innocent life.....he is a prisoner. Plain and simple, he is a prisoner just like the others. He is as helpless as they are, and the thing about being a prisoner is you are no longer free, and when your not free, you don't have freedom of choice. Without freedom of choice these 2 questions are not moral dilemas at all, they are being the victoms of evil at it's worst. The only moral resposibility the paladin has to take is how and when he was captured in the first place, because thats the only time he actual had freedom to effect his life and those around him.
Charles Phipps 10-14-03, 03:53 AM	As Fuji would say, what DM would take away a paladin's status for doing what he is sure is the best option in a situation with no perfect answer?
Falkus 10-14-03, 08:54 AM	saves the innocents - Guaranteed Good Action But if the paladin has no reason to believe that the cultists will spare the peasants even if he does swear the oath?
the_heart 10-14-03, 08:58 AM	Plain and simple, he is a prisoner just like the others. He is as helpless as they are, and the thing about being a prisoner is you are no longer free, and when your not free, you don't have freedom of choice. exactly.
The Vampire 10-14-03, 09:21 AM	Reading this post through agian I can see that this debate cannot be solved, why not because everyone sees LG and the way paladins act the same, to one person they my say surrender, its in the code/morals/beliefs of the paladin. to another they might say never give in as it wont help and any way its in the code/morals/beliefs of the paladin. In all honesty its down to the player and the DM on the night we can only advise, constantly saying the other person is wrong will lead to flaming, which in turn will lead to A Wizo shutting this thread too (thats another paladin thread). I'm not having a go at all, im just suggestin we give advise to the person that needs it instead of arguin which wont help anyone. :D
aeon001 10-14-03, 12:41 PM	thats a good point vampire, outside of the aligment guidelines for lawful good, the class description for paladin and the code of conduct, thats where paladins similarities stop and personal bias starts. If you play by the rules givin in the PHB, that covers the basic paladin, each and every player and dm has their own personal idea of what a a paladin is and is not. The situation posted here has no right answer and no wrong answer. The answers are decided by ones own moral, ethical beliefs. And with the variety of different answers posted, we can see how 2 paladins can disagree and yet still both be paladins
NHdjinn 10-15-03, 02:06 PM	If I played in that campaign, and found myself in thisd situation I would just pray for death. The DM is obviously trying to nail you. Either way can be construed as a evil or good action. Worst case scenario, the villagers die. I would never allow myself to be turned into a instrument of evil destruction. Period. If letting 12 die is the price to pay so be it. Better 12 than 100's or more later. 1. Tell DM to go pund sand 2. pray for death 3. Roll up new character(build an Uber Min max Cleric/Druid...and ruin his campaign at every possible turn) Probably all three... NHdjinn
OGRE-MJC 10-15-03, 02:32 PM	Originally posted by NHdjinn If I played in that campaign, and found myself in thisd situation I would just pray for death. The DM is obviously trying to nail you. Either way can be construed as a evil or good action. Worst case scenario, the villagers die. I would never allow myself to be turned into a instrument of evil destruction. Period. If letting 12 die is the price to pay so be it. Better 12 than 100's or more later. 1. Tell DM to go pund sand 2. pray for death 3. Roll up new character(build an Uber Min max Cleric/Druid...and ruin his campaign at every possible turn) Probably all three... NHdjinn The origianl post did state that this was just an exercise in philosophy, not something he would do to a paladin in a game he was running. But it does highlight that there can be honest difference of opinions on what "Good" and "Paladin" mean.
Lord Stigius 10-15-03, 02:34 PM	It happens that I'm the DM there, and the paladin in question is a NPC, NHdjinn. I had already chosen what the paladin would do. This choice was the right one IMHO, but I would't too hastily decide if it was indeed the right one. That's why I posted it here. (And BTW, I have mentioned all af these already. But I guess this thread is getting too long to read it thoroughly:D ) Thanks to everybody who contributed!:bow: