Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
You are missing the major point, that pally's are still people.
People make mistakes.
Nobody is saying that a pally won't immediately try to do what is right, no matter what. Of course they will.
But they make mistakes. They are not all seeing and all knowing.
They will do what they THINK (operative word) is right. But they could be wrong. They might not have all the appropriate information. They may have been mislead or tricked. AND - any of these things happening does not mean that you will have played your paladin wrong if you do the "wrong" thing. It means you played it very right, as Iron said, insofar as you will have played a human who happens to BE a paladin. You will have played someone who has faults, who isn't perfect, all knowing, and all seeing.
A paladin could also be unintelligent, or uninspired. They might not immediately come up with an answer that will fix everything. They could hesitate in trying to decide which course of action is the most right. NOTE - hesitating to decide what is right, is NOT the same as hesitating over DOING what they THINK is right. If faced with multiple options, multiple possibilities, the bottom line comes down to, paladins are people. They are not all knowing, and all seeing, and so they might have difficulty deciding between two choices which seem similar in terms or right or wrong - most ESPECIALLY if time is a factor.
I don't think anyone is disputing that a pally will always TRY (again, operative word, because it is possible they might actually fail sometimes) to do the right thing. The dispute seems to be over whether a pally will always KNOW what the "rightest" thing is in any given situation. The world isn't black and white, yes or no, right or wrong. Absolutes DO exist, but not every situation is going to provide you with nice simple absolutes to choose between, nor will every situation give you all the information you need in order to figure out which options lead to which absolutes.
It's not always....or often....going to be a simple case of "kill the evil guy to save the world".
_________________ Role with the Punches...
Elan: A 10% chance is pretty unlikely, but everyone knows that a one-in-a-million chance is a sure thing!
Absolutely not. It's actually FR that's based my idea of the true Paladin. I'm not going to bulldog it forever, I will eventually just say ~whatever~ and allow everyone to play a comfortable Fighter who is immune to Fear and can cast a few spells. Hey, it's your choice. I didn't bring the argument in here I'm just trying to save the faiths of the realm from crashing down and becoming some strange wacky adventure free-for-all.
A Paladin has to be freakin' insanely devout. Has - to - be.
Quote:
...these abilities are granted at the behest of the paladin's patron and paladins are bound to serve this patron. If a paladin violates the code of conduct laid down by his or her patron than they are typically deprived of their divine abilities. A paladin cannot regain these abilities without appealing to their patron and atoning for their “sins” in the appropriate manner.
Now look at that closely, if a double take is necessary then do check again. "If a Paladin violates the code of conduct laid down by his or her patron then they are typically deprived of their divine abilities".
It's not about the man, he's not a man anymore. He's a Paladin, a holy warrior - he's willingly given it all to his god and he WILL remain absolute.
If he doesn't - he will fall from the god's favour, he should also be utterly ashamed of himself and give himself a good thrashing for being a buffoon.
_________________ "O God of Earth and Altar, Bow down and hear our cry, Our earthly rulers falter, Our people drift and die, The walls of gold entomb us, The swords of scorn divide, Take not thy thunder from us, But take away our pride."
I actually believe I'm shoving forward a contrast of what you were saying Iron, you're trying to say it can't be black and white, and I'm trying to say that it absolutely has to be black and white.
That's not what I'm talking about, though. There's a difference between what a paladin has to be, on a subjective level and in relation to his deity, and what applies to all paladins on an empiric, objective level. The two should not be mixed, because they're two different things.
Surely: a paladin is subjectively compelled to do the one right thing. However, it is not necessarily clear. Hells, it rarely is! Wisdom is one of the main stats of a paladin: they clearly must be well-educated and contemplative to carefully consider right and wrong, so that they might do what's good. A paladin who recklessly rushes into a situation, making a judgement based on his gut intuition of what must be obviously right, is not going to be a paladin for long. A paladin must be wise and critical: he does not have some special ethics that are different from everyone else and seem retarded. (I'll return to this in my next post.*)
The devotion and personal certitude (as opposed to objective certainty) of a paladin might be black-and-white - though there's no reason it has to be; the opposite is certainly imaginable, and you've presented no irrefutable logical or empiric evidence to infallibly prove otherwise. Be that as it may: the personal certitude of a paladin does not mean the world is black-and-white, simple and clear. I agree with you in this respect: the mindset of the typical paladin is one where there is only one possible option, only one right solution, one categorical imperative to do the right thing.
However, I am speaking on a general, objective, meta-gameworld level: there is no certainty that the certitude of the paladin reflects the world as is. It may be that the paladin believes that Act X is absolutely a wrong thing to do - and it might be, for him in his unique situation. However, it does not necessarily mean that all acts which resemble Act X (such as different incidents of killing, revolt or vigilantism) are also wrong for all paladins in all possible situations. There may be two situations, seemingly quite similar on the outside, yet not 100% identical, in which a paladin was leading a revolt against a goodly ruler - yet one could be justified and expected of the paladin, while the other paladin fell. Two actions are never identical, they're never the same thing. That's why you cannot categorically state that "paladins will never do Act X," whatever Act X might be. You might say, "so far paladins have generally not done Act X, and therefore it seems wise to refrain from doing so." However, it's always judged case by case, by the god and the DM.
That's what I critisize: the tendency to give simple, absolute OOC rules about what a paladin can or can't do: it's always up to the DM and no one else, and always in a unique situation. Humans cannot know every possible combination of circumstances to make detailed rules to cover all scenarios beforehand. Therefore it's wise to refrain from categorical, normative generalizations: you simply cannot know the conclusion until you know the whole situation.
No matter how many examples of typical paladins you list, the fact remains that a single counter-example is enough to disprove a theory. I think many example cases where things aren't simple and clear have been presented above.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Last edited by IronAngel on Tue, Nov 17 2009, 19:19 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Since I'm switching the subject here, I thought it best to make a seperate post:
* On paladins and having special ethics: A paladin must be wise and critical: he does not have some special ethics that are different from everyone else and seem retarded. On the contrary, he must be the epitome of what is good and right for everyone. Whether that's deontological, consequentialist or virtue ethics, or something else, is up to player and DM interpretation. The game does not dictate the plethora of ethical problems as clearly as people seem to think. Some research in ethics will show that the usual argument of "D&D has absolute Good and Evil, so philosophy does not apply" is utterly false. The guys who wrote that in a D&D books were uncivilized, uneducated ruffians who held a populist image of philosophical ethics - like all too many D&D players, I wager. However, that does not diminish the truth of the argument that there's more than one viable, perfectly useful and believable theory of ethics to apply, even in a world where Good and Evil are supernatural forces that define the cosmos. A great minority of ethical questions actually deal with this problem. It is the realm of meta-ethics, and normative ethics are quite unrelated to it. The debate between moral relativism and moral realism is not the only, or even remotely the most important subject of discussion. Even if we have a clear answer to that, there are still tens upon tens of thousands of pages written about ethical questions far more complex than people usually make them out to be.
So, my message is this: people should generally show some more humility in regards to questions of ethics, even if this is a game. We have certain rules in place for the setting, and we're right to keep them in mind. That does not, however, give us the excuse to dismiss all unrelated ethical problems as inconsequential and stick to our dogmatic opinions. We really need to consider these things time and again, because they're no easier in RP than they are in the real world.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
In addition, I don't see any but a seriouslly bleeding-heart paladin would let the whole world crumble at the expense of one child. Again, it depends on dogma in addition to personal character and numerous other factors. It's completely possible a paladin could not bring themselves to allow an innocent child to die, even if it ment the world, but that still doesn't mean it's not the wisest course of action. For instance, would not a wise paladin have to think of all the hundreds of innocent children that would die if he doesn't make that tough call?
I mean, take for instance Tantras in the Time of Troubles. Torm himself, through absorbing the souls of his adult followers, was directly responsible for the orhpaning of hundreds of children. Why? Because he had to do it in order to even have a chance at defeating Bane on Toril. He weighed the loss and such and saw that if he didn't absorb the souls, and by extension orhpan the children of his followers, more than likely he would no be able to deafeat Bane's avatar, which would then go on to create even more horror and evil and suffering in the world.
Do you think Torm would fall a paladin given some exact circumstance where if they did not allow a child to come to harm, some 1000 x worse situation would happen? Again, depends on the circumstances.
What I'm getting at is that paladins' can, and in all likelyhood have to if they RP well, make hard-as-hell choices. And when they do make that choice, it's not always "You're going to fall no matter what you do! Muhahaha!". I seriously doubt DM's would purposely put you in such a situation. By all means, there is no gaurantee in any answer you take, that's up to the DM's and lore interprited.
In closing, it really does little if any good to ask DM's "well, what if X Y and Z + paladin's choice?". I've figured that out over the years. You;re better off just RPing your paladin to the best of your ability and to the best of their character, not what you think a paladin ought to do. Your PC is a person trying to be a paladin, not vice versa. Play how you think they would, and enjoy the ride for what it is.
But that's the thing! All those Torm-folk 'willingly' gave their lives, that's the madness of being a Paladin or devout faithful. I mean swinging the turd out of FR lore you can even see aspects of the same within our own world! Just look at Jim Jones' - heck, just look at Scientology!
Swinging back in, it's possible for a Paladin to mess up - it happens, sometimes they get tired of being rockin' and fall to the nasty-side. Human nature, because most Paladins are Human. Perhaps through failing their god, they fall further in an emo-dark corner. Yes, it happens. But it shouldn't, there's always going to be a difference between what a Paladin ~should~ be, and what a Paladin ~will~ be.
_________________ "O God of Earth and Altar, Bow down and hear our cry, Our earthly rulers falter, Our people drift and die, The walls of gold entomb us, The swords of scorn divide, Take not thy thunder from us, But take away our pride."
Yeah...I never really liked the fact that people who are actually not playing paladins trying to tell someone how to play one. Just do your paladin rp how you actually enjoy it, but then do it well.
Threads like this are really not necessary.
Absolutely not. It's actually FR that's based my idea of the true Paladin. I'm not going to bulldog it forever, I will eventually just say ~whatever~ and allow everyone to play a comfortable Fighter who is immune to Fear and can cast a few spells. Hey, it's your choice. I didn't bring the argument in here I'm just trying to save the faiths of the realm from crashing down and becoming some strange wacky adventure free-for-all.
That's a Strawman argument, by the way. You suggest that by acknowledging the argument that different paladins of different gods in different situations might have different standards of right and wrong, we also have to accept that paladins can do whatever they want and become watered down.
This is not what anyone in this topic is suggesting. In fact, I am personally very demanding when it comes to paladins: I don't settle for the typical rulebook RP I see too often, I expect paladins to go beyond: to seriously think about right and wrong, to not only do the right thing but do it with deep understanding of why they have to do it. If a paladin's RP seems easy and mechanical, I will not reward it or consider it excellent RP.
However, my personal standards should not distort the arguments I present. I try not to persuade paladins to behave the way I want them to behave. As much as me saying everything I said above might make some people believe they are justified in playing watered-down, lazy paladins, it's still what I believe to be true and well-argued. It should be no concern of mine that people may abuse the (IMO) truthful knowledge I present. If they do, though, I daresay they misunderstand me: if anything, I expect higher standards of paladins than what the popular opinion is. I'm not satisfied with merely quoting the rulebooks and pleasing the general public: I demand actual critical contemplation of options, a coherent ideology that is justified by the paladin's unique worldview and circumstance.
But in the end, what I want is irrelevant to the quality of my argument.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
Lutra wrote:
Yeah...I never really liked the fact that people who are actually not playing paladins trying to tell someone how to play one. Just do your paladin rp how you actually enjoy it, but then do it well. Threads like this are really not necessary.
May be unnecessary, but it's good to engender discussion. It helps people learns and think about what they're doing ... debate breeds thinking, as it were.
_________________ 2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Okay, hypotheticals and generalizations are not getting anywhere. So here's an absolute:
You are a paladin of Torm.
You come to conciousness in a slightly dark room. There is an illusory image of a lich named Ayreon floating in front of you. The moment you regain conciousness he speaks:
"You are in an anti magic, heavily fortified, underground cell. In the cell beside you is a deaf, blind, mute, entirely innocent young girl. For my own amusement, I provide you a choice. Kill the girl with the sword in front of you, and that will be the end of this - there will be no further consequences, and you will go free. If you do not kill her, I will kill her myself, and you, and I will hellball Wharftown killing possibly everyone in the town. You have ten seconds."
And with that the image goes silent, but stays observing.
What do you do? You have 10 seconds.
***As a note - Iron can confirm based on reading the DM-forums write up on Ayreon, who is the mad lich-king of The Electric Castle, that Ayreon genuinely would do something like this, for absolutely no other reasons other than his own enjoyment, and the challenge he puts in front of you. This is a very possible scenario, and no, it's not exactly fair. That's the nature of existence - it isn't always fair.
_________________ Role with the Punches...
Elan: A 10% chance is pretty unlikely, but everyone knows that a one-in-a-million chance is a sure thing!
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Location: Jyväskylä, Finland, Europe
Gagis's paladin response would be not to kill the girl, and tell the lich to stfu and stop trying to blame others for his own actions. It is the evil party that murders, not the paladin who refuses to play their games. Playing with the terms of the evil party means you have already lost, and in a situation like that the hero is already as good as dead and at the whim of the bad guy, who is responsible with however they use their position of power.
_________________ Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar Silwe, the elf
Last edited by Silvarus on Tue, Nov 17 2009, 20:01 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Incidentally, after there's a few responses up to this, I'll provide some feedback. Possibly, as I have to go to work soon, I won't be able to post responses until approximately 7 hours after the time of this post.
_________________ Role with the Punches...
Elan: A 10% chance is pretty unlikely, but everyone knows that a one-in-a-million chance is a sure thing!
Gagis's paladin response would be not to kill the girl, and tell the lich to stfu and stop trying to blame others for his own actions. It is the evil party that murders, not the paladin who refuses to play their games.
One girl's life and paladin keeping his paladiny dignity is more important than a whole village's peoples lives? Well, that is an approach, too.
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Location: Jyväskylä, Finland, Europe
Nekhy wrote:
Silvarus wrote:
Gagis's paladin response would be not to kill the girl, and tell the lich to stfu and stop trying to blame others for his own actions. It is the evil party that murders, not the paladin who refuses to play their games.
One girl's life and paladin keeping his paladiny dignity is more important than a whole village's peoples lives? Well, that is an approach, too.
That is how I play my paladins. They have little tolerance for petty "lets make the paladin fall" games, that have nothing to do with the paladin actually doing evil or good. Choosing to play the game with the rules of the bad guy, or being forced to, means you have already lost. In that kind of situation it is more paladiny to refuse to do any evil yourself even if it means committing suicide. The bad guy can choose to do whatever evil things he can and all the paladin can do is to try to find a way out of such a weak position and make them pay for whatever they do.
EDIT: In other world I am strongly in favour with the attitude in Coris next post. That makes a paladin. A hero who chooses otherwise can be a hero, but won't make much of a paladin in my eyes. There is a significant difference between a tormented hero and a paladin who carries the weight of his oaths.
_________________ Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar Silwe, the elf
Last edited by Silvarus on Tue, Nov 17 2009, 20:08 PM, edited 2 times in total.
Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Nekhy wrote:
Silvarus wrote:
Gagis's paladin response would be not to kill the girl, and tell the lich to stfu and stop trying to blame others for his own actions. It is the evil party that murders, not the paladin who refuses to play their games.
One girl's life and paladin keeping his paladiny dignity is more important than a whole village's peoples lives? Well, that is an approach, too.
So what would you do then Nekh? I'd love to see a lot of responses to this situation, from DM's included.
Me: I'd stand up, cross my arms and say "No, I won't do this. I'm calling your bluff. I can't guarantee you wouldn't kill everyone anyway, so I won't do evil to try and stop ~you~ from doing evil."
Incidentally - I'll also provide an equal response to my own actions, later. So don't just decide that my answer must be the right one. It's just what I'd do, if I were this paladin.
_________________ Role with the Punches...
Elan: A 10% chance is pretty unlikely, but everyone knows that a one-in-a-million chance is a sure thing!
My paladin would rather take fall as a possible consequence of killing the girl and lose her holy shine, than allow more innocent people die. Because pride is disposable, lives are not. She knows she could continue her life with another way of serving her ideals, whether the lich was bluffing or not.
I think it would be hubris to pretend to know an easy answer that applies to everyone. The consequences of the paladin's decision would depend on the internal justification of his actions and, ultimately, player and DM judgement in that unique case.
When some people think the paladin will definetely do one thing, others think he'll do the other, a few think either option is viable and yet some believe the paladin will Fall no matter what he chooses, I don't see how anyone can possibly claim there's no "gray area."
Personally? My PC's decision would depend on the PC and his personality, as well as his relation to his deity. In general, though: I think my paladin would acknowledge that he will Fall if he kills the girl, and that he will commit an atrocious act of evil. (And he probably would Fall if he believes so; I reckon it can be self-inflicted as well.) However, he would still do it, and save the village. Unlike Silvarus's paladin, he'd be above petty dignity and willingly sacrifice his honor, favor, oaths and afterlife so that he may do what must be done. He will make the utmost sacrifice and become a martyr, even if he will be cursed for it. Because, in the end, he did the greater good.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
This is personally what I love to see with pepople talking about paladins.
Everyone's pointing out the contemplation and the validity of both sides. We all can see that just because two answers are posed, there's a valid "good" behind both of them, not just "black and white". I'd dare say that either answer it truly understandable so long as the choice reflects the individual paladin's reasoning and how they ICly interprit the circumstances. This is when you don't worry about "ooh, am I gonna fall or not, what is the right answer" and just take the challenge of the RP for what it is. In relation to playing your paladin PC well, it's not so much what you choice to do so long as you have valid reasoning for it.
I am in NO shape or form saying that your reasoning won't lead you to a choice that may fall you, but to keep from falling should not be the objective when you're playing a paladin, IMO, it should be to have good RP as a paladin. Why bother playing a game if you know exactly what to do to win 100% of the time? Why pick up the controller if you can just hit Up, Up, Circle, Down and beat it every time? Sounds pretty boring to me.
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Location: Jyväskylä, Finland, Europe
IronAngel wrote:
He will make the utmost sacrifice and become a martyr, even if he will be cursed for it. Because, in the end, he did the greater good.
Is accepting responsibility for the actions of others really greater good or is giving up principles really martyrdom rather than accepting defeat? I do not see it as a case of Pride vs. The Greater Good at all.
_________________ Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar Silwe, the elf
Joined: 14 Dec 2004 Location: Kohlingen, and a Basement in Canada
This isn't an easy scenario.. but all the answers are valid.
An interesting alternative, especially if you take the slant of a Samurai's way of thinking into the Paladin way.
The Paladin takes up the sword and ends his own life, citing that in his position to kill the girl would be dishonourable as his duty is as much to her as to the whole of Wharftown, but to fail to decide would dishonour his deity.
The Paladin would take into account the village defenses, he's a trained combatant and knows warfare - such is his training, Paladin - Holy Warrior. If there was nothing else for it then he might perhaps go to the defense of the village rather than spend all his time and effort saving the girl. Upon saving the village he would of course be obligatory for him to return to the psycho's castle, kill the madman - save the girl or at least move the body away and pray for her, apologise to the family and hope they understand.
Baring in mind also that the Paladin is a conduit for divine energy, where a Cleric might be granted spells and so on from this and that (relevance to the deity and domain), a Paladin is truly touched by the patron. It's unfair to disbelieve the power of his prayers in countering the situation - depending on the spirit he might have Joan of Arc moment after the realization that the girly just died and totally freak out and go on a personal crusade, whip-chop-crack he's won the day - all because he was strong in his faith, and the gods were pleased by his resolve.
I have played a Paladin in the past, he spent a lot of time praying and preaching more than physical championing of baddies. I've even played non-Paladins who are based on the Paladin class if you can get your head around that one, who on at least one occasion saved the day by doing something that was considered awesome by the ~powers~. The end shouldn't justify the means at all, the Paladin should just do things as he's ment to do them.
It doesn't happen overnight, I'd at least assume that a Paladin character had spent time training through all the crappy days of paige and squire and all that nonsense, and ultimately became the character before you - a Paladin, true and proper. I wouldn't accept 'buts', I wouldn't even accept a damn good reason for it - if the Paladin I encountered was doing something even mildly iffy.
It's all about duty, it's all about goodness. If it wasn't then every deity would allow Paladins, not just the few that are exemplary in their rockin'.
_________________ "O God of Earth and Altar, Bow down and hear our cry, Our earthly rulers falter, Our people drift and die, The walls of gold entomb us, The swords of scorn divide, Take not thy thunder from us, But take away our pride."
Silvarus: I suppose it depends on whether "responsibility" is a concept that has any moral value. I guess this boils down the unique personality and temperament of the paladin in question (and probably the player in question, because it's very difficult to escape your own fundamental values).
I don't see guilt and innocence as decisive factors, here: their impact on the real world is nonexistant. The people of Wharftown, the girl and the paladin would all be miserably dead regardless. I think it is the greatest sacrifice a paladin, a pure champion of good can make: to take the fault of others unto yourself, to suffer the consequence and do the greater good.
I suppose you can also consider guilt a normative term with inherent moral value. In that sense, the evil and guilt is on the lich and not the paladin; indeed, the paladin might not fall if he refused to take action. However, I'd call that "playing safe" and avoiding responsibility. A true hero, the way my gut tells me, would take responsibility even where it isn't his to carry.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
I'd be doubting that the Lich would be true to his word and save the village if i killed the girl. I'd assume he'd laugh it off, kill them all anyway, and possibly allow me to live in misery or commit suicide. Conversely, if I didnt, he'd kill them all too. Classic no win situation. Kobayashi Maru.
So, I'd cheat. Go for the unsaid option 3. Pray for divine intervention. Let the Avatar of Torm sort him out!
It's not the greater good, IMO. It's the lesser evil.
I'm assuming that the situation where the paladin is with Ayeron is already a defeat, or will be a defeat in ten seconds time, because whatever you do you will lose. It's not defining moment of a paladin, IMO, because a paladin isn't defined by a single act but by a lifetime of acts.
Why would a paladin believe the words of a lich? Well, he shouldn't believe the lich. There's a chance the lich is lying. But there's also a chance he is not, and that he is after another goal, such making the paladin fall. Which is the smaller risk to take? If you don't care about the risks, but only about principles, are you prepared to sacrifice yours or not?
It's a quick choice to make, and really depends on many things what an individual paladin would choose.
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
IronAngel wrote:
I don't see guilt and innocence as decisive factors, here: their impact on the real world is nonexistant. The people of Wharftown, the girl and the paladin would all be miserably dead regardless. I think it is the greatest sacrifice a paladin, a pure champion of good can make: to take the fault of others unto yourself, to suffer the consequence and do the greater good.
I can see Silvarus' point, though, and it is a reasonable one - you can murder (lets not beat around the bush, it is murder) the girl with your own hands, or you can choose inaction in which case the liche is the one that does the killing.
_________________ 2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
Nekhy wrote:
It's not the greater good, IMO. It's the lesser evil.
I'm assuming that the situation where the paladin is with Ayeron is already a defeat, or will be a defeat in ten seconds time, because whatever you do you will lose. It's not defining moment of a paladin, IMO, because a paladin isn't defined by a single act but by a lifetime of acts.
Why would a paladin believe the words of a lich? Well, he shouldn't believe the lich. There's a chance the lich is lying. But there's also a chance he is not, and that he is after another goal, such making the paladin fall. Which is the smaller risk to take? If you don't care about the risks, but only about principles, are you prepared to sacrifice yours or not?
It's a quick choice to make, and really depends on many things what an individual paladin would choose.
Possibilities: He will kill the village anyway, he won't anyway
You kill the girl - he doesn't kill the village
This is the same whether he kept his word or wouldn't have slaughtered the village anyway ... or is it? Your intention was to save the village, but is the alignment of your action determined by the fact you are saving the village? If so, and he is lying,you just damned yourself.
You kill the girl - he does kill the village
You were all to die anyway. You committed the evil act ... but do intentions count? As it is, nothing would have changed for anyone, except that it was you that killed the girl. If intentions don't matter, then you're damned.
You don't kill the girl - he does kill the village
Exactly the same whether he intends to break his word ... or is it? Does reality affect the alignment? If he was telling the truth, you just allowed the lich to massacre a village ... is this wrong? If he was lying ... did you know this? Was your intention to call his bluff, or were you willing to see a village die in exchange?
You don't kill the girl - he doesn't kill the village
You just gambled the lives of an entire village ... is this morally justifiable? This is the best outcome possible, to be honest, but I'm sure the 'what if?' will haunt the paladin for a long time.
I think there are plenty of shades of grey in there.
_________________ 2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
I do see the point too, Yurell. I'm just not intuitively convinced by it: the result would be the same nonetheless. But this is a classic dilemma where one side cannot convince the other, no matter what argument you use. I wouldn't demand that our game, our DMs and our players made the decision when generations of human civilization have failed to do so.
Nekhy wrote:
It's not defining moment of a paladin, IMO, because a paladin isn't defined by a single act but by a lifetime of acts.
This is an excellent point, by the way. Whether it changes the paladin's decision or not.
_________________
On Joon, Kjetta wrote:
The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
IronAngel wrote:
I do see the point too, Yurell. I'm just not intuitively convinced by it: the result would be the same nonetheless.
That was the point I wished to address with my second post ... out of all the options that happen, there is no way possible to say that it's a simple black / white, although I'd encourage KingCreeper to respond to see his opinion.
_________________ 2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Yurell wrote:
IronAngel wrote:
I do see the point too, Yurell. I'm just not intuitively convinced by it: the result would be the same nonetheless.
That was the point I wished to address with my second post ... out of all the options that happen, there is no way possible to say that it's a simple black / white, although I'd encourage KingCreeper to respond to see his opinion.
At least the scenario I've put you in leaves nice black and white possibilities, even if the morals/repurcussions align-wise are less than black and white.
Hm hm. Hm hm hm.
_________________ Role with the Punches...
Elan: A 10% chance is pretty unlikely, but everyone knows that a one-in-a-million chance is a sure thing!
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
I kinda find it funny everyone's going back with "this is right for a paladin because of this" when the truth is, they're all valid IC reactions, so long as they're thought out. Note, I didn't say non-fallable actions, but valid.
Difference in opinions and courses of action are present in all clergy, even of the same god, even in the same temple no less. I'm really wondering why it's always expected there's a stark Rigth and Wrong answer when ICly, it's never even that clear. Anyway...
If only we could translate these OoC differences in opinions to IC differences in opinions among paladins. *dreamy look*
Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Aw, no more replies? Pity.
So, the "repercussions" of your choices (the end of this was already determined when I wrote the scenario out):
Choice 1 wrote:
You killed the girl to save the town. Congratulations! As the girls' life fades, and she falls to the floor dead, the illusion of Ayreon vanishes, and you find yourself teleported suddenly to Wharftown.
True to his word - this time - Ayreon has let the town live. The cost was murder, but eh, what's one little girl! Dare you to go tell the townsfolk about your heartless slaughter, and try to explain how it was entirely to "maybe" save them. Y'know, since you have no actual way of knowing whether Ayreon would've done anything he said. But the church should be happy and understanding, right? I mean, you just saved an entire town full of people! Have a good life, and I hope you can live with yourself.
Choice 2 wrote:
You refuse to kill the girl. Your ten seconds elapse, and you find yourself teleported to the tallest spire of the Electric Castle, with a nice open view of the tower opposite, as well as being able to see over the treetops of the surrounding Forest of Despair.
Alas, the forest is large, so you cannot actually see Wharftown. But you are able to clearly see the "innocent" little girl appear (apparently teleported like yourself) on the tower opposite you. You are also able to see clearly as "she" un-polymorphs into Ayreon.
You may have thought that Ayreon's words couldn't be trusted - too bad you never thought about the fact that it was Ayreon who told you the girl was innocent....or even a girl, for that matter. Ayreon laughs at you, then casts in the direction of Wharftown. An enormous flash of light is all you see, as Wharftown is reduced to ashes.
To think, if you'd "killed" the girl, it would've actually been Ayreon you stabbed! No evil act would've been committed, nor even a murder, since Ayreon is a Lich, and the town of Wharftown would've been saved! Oh well....how could you have known. It's not like you had time to say...detect evil, and realize that the only presence in the cell other than yourself was extremely evil. Surely anyone who hailed from Wharftown will be understanding of the fact that you allowed their friends and family to die, just so you wouldn't have to bloody your hands. And the church should be happy and understanding, right? You didn't commit evil....not that saving the town would've involved committing evil either, of course. Have a good life!
Take note: In option 1 - you'd not have learned that the girl wasn't actually an innocent girl. Where would the fun be for Ayreon in that? He's quite content to let you live out your life thinking you'd murdered a poor innocent girl.
And in option 2...well, *if* Ayreon was telling the truth about limiting you to only ten seconds, (noting it was Ayreon, not the DM, who told you you have 10 seconds), well, then you might not have had time to Detect Evil (depending on whether the DM would've stuck with PnP rules and called it an action taking 6 seconds of your 10. Personally...I wouldn't have counted it against the time limit. DM Discretion of course.).
And the repercussions as far as alignment and such? Well, the girl wasn't innocent, so in this scenario, killing her would not technically have been evil. BUT....do intentions matter? If they do, you intended to commit evil by murdering what you thought was an innocent girl. But again, your reasoning was "for the greater good". You decide: Is there an alignment shift? No change perhaps?
If you did nothing....well, you didn't commit an evil act, but by your inaction you allowed an evil act to be committed. Does that inaction, and thus allowance of mass murder that you could have prevented, count as not following your pally oaths to protect the innocent? Or does the fact you did....intend at least...to protect the innocent, by not killing the girl, matter more? And if so....does it then matter that it wasn't really an innocent little girl? Pretty tough, isn't it?
The point, and moral, of the exercise: there surely is a grey area. Not every scenario, even if presented as a "no win" like this one, *actually is* no win. And not every scenario is going to be black and white - indeed I'd hope that most won't be. So who then can definitively say (and provide proof in the form of source material references - no proof means it's only your personal opinion.) what the "proper" DM response as far as alignment and possibly a fall, is? I can't. I call it "DM Discretion" in this instance, and I would most assuredly take intentions into account.
I'd personally like to hear what a few DM's think they'd do? Would you fall the pally for either action, personally, as a DM? Or leave alignment alone and allow it remain strictly a matter of character development as the character struggles to come to terms with whichever choice they made? I'd cheap out and go with the latter, personally
_________________ Role with the Punches...
Elan: A 10% chance is pretty unlikely, but everyone knows that a one-in-a-million chance is a sure thing!
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
My one concern with that situation Cori is that before the situation had begun, you had already dertimine that the outcome would be a direct evil. You showed the grey area just fine, but if you chose first, you're assuming the girl was "real" and if you choose the second, it wasn't and it wasn't a real girl but a lich. The situation is contingent to make the paladin take the "worse" choice in either case.
If anything, the reality of the situation should be determined by the DM beforehand. It kind of seems like if a DM possed that situation where they'd change the ending to give you the "worst" of it they'd be trying to lead you astray, or ensure that you did. There's nothing wrong with having a hidden situation that might make the paladin take the possibly felling choice because of deception, but not really to change the ending to give the worse, IMO atleast.
Assuming the DM would only accept one of those two choices, not letting you try to find another path yourself(which I hope to heaven they'd never do), it's almost like saying "No matter what you do, you're shifting 5 points towards evil, because I want you to."
Sorry, know I'm not a DM, nor the offical on paladins, but felt like voicing that.
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
Dark Immolation wrote:
My one concern with that situation Cori is that before the situation had begun, you had already dertimine that the outcome would be a direct evil. You showed the grey area just fine, but if you chose first, you're assuming the girl was "real" and if you choose the second, it wasn't and it wasn't a real girl but a lich. The situation is contingent to make the paladin take the "worse" choice in either case.
No, in both instances the 'little girl' was the lich. Only in the first your character didn't discover this and continued to assume it was a little girl (since you didn't cast Detect Evil).
_________________ 2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
Meh, I'd have fallen the paladin in both instances. Sometimes it just sucks to be a Paladin. In one you still coldbloddedly murdered (or had the purposefuly intention of doing so) an innocent girl and in the other you did nothing and let a village burn.
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Yurell wrote:
Dark Immolation wrote:
My one concern with that situation Cori is that before the situation had begun, you had already dertimine that the outcome would be a direct evil. You showed the grey area just fine, but if you chose first, you're assuming the girl was "real" and if you choose the second, it wasn't and it wasn't a real girl but a lich. The situation is contingent to make the paladin take the "worse" choice in either case.
No, in both instances the 'little girl' was the lich. Only in the first your character didn't discover this and continued to assume it was a little girl (since you didn't cast Detect Evil).
Yurell is correct. I would not alter the situation to force evil upon you. I just won't reveal everything to you, neither in advance, nor after the fact, that you didn't earn the right to know.
So in both, the "girl" is actually Ayreon, the lich. But with the first option, you would not learn this fact. You'd be kept in the dark, thinking you'd killed a little girl. Ayreon would choose to do it that way, IC, and as a DM I would choose to keep you in the dark as well, because that's how character development happens.
_________________ Role with the Punches...
Elan: A 10% chance is pretty unlikely, but everyone knows that a one-in-a-million chance is a sure thing!
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
TormakSaber wrote:
Meh, I'd have fallen the paladin in both instances. Sometimes it just sucks to be a Paladin. In one you still coldbloddedly murdered (or had the purposefuly intention of doing so) an innocent girl and in the other you did nothing and let a village burn.
That being said, you likely wouldn't give the PC only those two options, would you Tormak? As in, if they try to say *attempts to wiggle out of chair* or *rolls Cha to see if I can persuade lich to wait and talk a second*, you wouldn't just categorically rebutle everything they say with a reason like *the binding would never come undone* or *keeps talking*... without rolls atleast.
What I'm saying is, a DM wouldn't force upon the paladin a situation in which they can only choose one of 2 options set forward without being allowed to try something on their own, would they?
Kinda like "I'm going to give this PC only 2 hard options, not allow him to contribute anything to this story, and fall him either way." Perhaps fall him in the end anyway, but at least let him try to do something outisde the two obvious choices, as in "pick his poison"? Notheless, yeah, sometimes being a paladin will be less than awesomesauce...
Of course. It's IC, and there's no binding option for the character to react how the NPC says according to his choices. But if it were me personally, both choices would lead to a fall. Sometimes it just sucks to be a Paladin.
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
Nupe. Fallen for either: Murdering an innocent, or, sitting by when you had the chance to save the town full of innocents but instead let it burn.
Nevermind that chice would have saved the village but made you fall too.
Being a Paladin sucks sometimes, it really does. Sometimes I think people forget that Falling can be small. In this case, the Paladin would fall but he'd still be LG. And I imagine atoning would be pretty simple. Not every fall is catastrophic, but it still happens because for that moment, the very deific rules that allow him to be a Paladin are shattered.
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
I prefer to think the deity has some discretion to him - "He got captured for a lich. He had zero choice - if I intend to Fall him no matter what choice he makes, I am simply Falling him for being captured, since beyond that point is entrapment."
I would never call losing all your abilities and not being able to progress in your class anymore just because some lich managed to stun you 'small'.
Besides, you didn't willingly commit an evil act - you were forced into it. No matter ow yo justify it, the god is still Falling the Paladin because they got caught, because beyond that point no matter what choice the Paladin makes the god intends for them to Fall anyway ... the last time the Paladin had a choice that didn't result in Falling was before they got captured.
_________________ 2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
How would a gray guard be 'graded' on their decision?
_________________
The Peacock wrote:
[GreatPigeon] is better than me.
Uncle-Opustus wrote:
Just before I fall asleep, I like to pretend it's just a public feat so Pigeon can succeed in politics and save the world from poverty... with his unicorn and shining armour and Excalibur.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
FAQ
Search
Login
You;re better off just RPing your paladin to the best of your ability and to the best of their character, not what you think a paladin ought to do. Your PC is a person trying to be a paladin, not vice versa. Play how you think they would, and enjoy the ride for what it is.
It is the evil party that murders, not the paladin who refuses to play their games. Playing with the terms of the evil party means you have already lost, and in a situation like that the hero is already as good as dead and at the whim of the bad guy, who is responsible with however they use their position of power.
