In reading all the lore I can find out there, its clear that Ilmater approves of violence under some circumstances... but the stipulations and justifications are so narrow as to be exceedingly rare. So rare, that what would be considered "standard" paladin behavior would probably be right out. I don't have a problem with this, I'm just wanting to understand where things stand, especially by the Ilmatari church in Damara.
Any time I've convinced myself that "just" violence in the name of the suffering or oppressed would be condoned, I re-read the info and I go right back. Sure, if the morality of the situation is crystal clear and you are only lessening suffering by it, it works; but add any kind of fuzziness to it, it falls apart quickly.
My campaign is set in a frontier town in Vaasa (much like a abandoned Deadwood); and situations therein are never clear. Everyone is a victim, everyone is a oppressor. Even the goblins and orcs are just scrapping by, everyone is just doing what they can to survive. If starving orcs attack the town; what does a paladin of Ilmater do? What if its starving brigands, or starving farmers from the next village over (when you barely have enough to feed your own people)?
Any advice would be much appreciated... thanks guys!
So how to make the right choice will depend on Ilmaters dogma, which largely revolves around standing up for the oppressed and suffering. I can imagine the paladins of Ilmater are adept at weighing all kinds of suffering against each other to come up with the one who'll cause the most grief. To starve or to persevere in the face of hunger is a small virtue. To attack others to be able to feed your fellows holds no virtue and causes more suffering. The case should be quite clear for a paladin who defends a starving hamlet from hunger driven raiders. The Orcs must be stopped at wathever cost the Ilmateri palladin can muster.
-The Orcs are hungry? The farmers need protection? Boom. The Orcs protect the farmers in exchange for food, and the farmers grow food for the Orcs, in exchange for protection.
I can imagine a situation in which you are essentially trapped in a small village during the winter months. Vaasa is a horrible place to live. The village doesn't have enough food to survive the winter, starvation of at least half of the villagers is a certainty, and they are plagued by starving Orcs and other raiders.
In such a situation, what really are the paladin's options? Well as a Paladin of Ilmater, you'd be concerned primarily by suffering. You'd want to take on the burden of suffering from others as much as possible. The village needs you to protect them from the hungry raiders. But do they really need Old Nan? She can no longer contribute to the community due to age, and is another mouth to feed. Sometimes you must simply face practicalities.
In such a situation, the Paladin of Ilmater could weigh his two options: Let them die slowly, or give them the gift of mercy. Setting up a place and beheading those too weak (the old, the sick and the infirm) in the community may be required. Of course, you'd give them the option: gift of mercy or starvation. Then you'd only eat what you required to stay alive, and not a mouthful more, while fighting off raiders for the duration of winter. The extreme rationing of food would be necessary as well, as you'd only want to offer "the gift of mercy" to as few people as required to survive.
When the raiders come, you'd fight and kill them. You'd want to do that as painlessly as possible, and in essence, you're offering them the gift of mercy as well.
In the end, emotionally, spiritually, physically, you would want to ensure that you suffered as much as you could for the well being of the people. Ilmater is also the deity of martyrdom, so if necessary, you'd die in this quest - perhaps allowing yourself to starve to death slowly. You'd also do your best to shield the villagers from deaths of their friends and family. Any that accept the gift would likely receive it in some enclosed building, alone with you, to protect the others from what you'd do.
I'd think carefully of what such a character would be like, after having gone through that ordeal. (Assuming they survive.)
Meldread... I think you've posted my favorite answer to this, and I've posted this question in two other websites (enworld and candlekeep).
I will post my response to those threads... but I think Meldread has answered my question to the individual choice, and my answer below deals with the group/organizational choice:
Thanks for all the responses guys! Good stuff
A friend and I were discussing the issue and we came to this conclusion. When it comes to both the clerical, paladin, or monkish orders, it all depends on the level of involvement the organization wishes with the outside world. How much does the organization weigh the needs of the group over the individual?
The church of Ilmater in Heliogabalus might be much more interested in keeping social good over the needs of a few individuals. It will seek to keep the rule of law and the social order intact so that the most people can be helped over a longer period of time. They would likely attack any aggressors, regardless of motivation. Since they are essentially good, non-lethal methods would be used against citizens, etc; but the judging of right and wrong will be left to qualified individuals after the fact. The paladin is there to enforce the law, and social good trickles down to the masses from that very act.
The other end would likely be the Monks of the Yellow Rose... they are much more interested in the individual, not the group. They deal with each individual in a direct one to one basis. Is the creature before me suffering? If so, they'll be helped... the overall picture of the situation is of little relevance. Treat the here and now; not what might be.
The thing for me is to figure out where the paladin's order stands on this line of individual vs group.
-Arravis