|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I refuse to accept the entire concept of killing a baby to save the world or killing baby Hitler. Neither situation should ever exist. It is a meaningless mental exercise. As for means justifying the ends for some Paladins the means and the ends are one in the same and I guess it somewhat depends on his deity. This all being subject to the overall code. If you have to ask the question of means justifying the ends then perhaps you shouldn't be playing a paladin or dming one either.
I refuse to accept the entire concept of killing a baby to save the world. Neither situation should ever exist.Unwilling Shield is a 6th level spell. Its very believable that a powerful demon who seeks to destroy the world carries around such a scroll and an infant. He then casts the spell on the baby. In order for the Paladin to kill the bad guy, he would have to kill the baby in the process.
My antipaladin actually used this method to defeat a Paladin. If you are willing to invest, a few magic items make carrying around a baby pretty easy.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/unwillingShield.html
There was also a villain in the BoVD that did this. The Chained Emperor or some such (had 4 innocents chained to him that he could suck the life out of ).
Also, this thread hasn't had a new (relevant) point made in like 75 posts.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My earlier posts satirising God as a fallen paladin were intended to ridicule. Not to ridicule God or the concept of God, but to ridicule the hyper-literal interpretation of the PF paladin code. The concept of God in a monotheistic belief system is that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent. Yet God himself could not play a paladin without falling with that hyper-literal interpretation!
In our game worlds, paladins exist! Many manage to exist without falling! Therefore, it must be possible to be a paladin without falling, while negotiating the various hazards of a paladin's life! But the hyper-literal interpretation does not allow a paladin to walk down the street without falling from paladinhood!
My father is a priest and he holds a doctorate in theology. We have had many late-night debates about Christianity and religion in general. When discussing the Bible I've asked him about a Fundamentalist (hyper-literal) interpretation of various parts. For example, how can God have created the universe in literally six days, when a day is the time it takes the Earth to spin once on it's axis, so there can't have been 'days' before the Earth (or Sun) existed?
His answers included:-
• The Bible is not, nor was intended to be, a scientific textbook. It's purposes were about inspiration, not physics. It's not a valid criticism to point at what it isn't!
• Since God is omniscient, it cannot be imagined that the Bible, nor any book however large, can fully contain the entirety of God's wisdom. It cannot be expected to hold the answer to every conceivable question, only to inspire a mindset that can approach answers with a certain moral outlook
Thus, the hundreds of thousands of books on the subject of religion, morality, etc.
This is in our real world, and just focussing on monotheism. Compare our game worlds:-
• Not one intelligent species, but a multitude, all with their own religious ideas
• Not one religion, but many
• Not one god per religion, but many
• Not 3000 years of evolving religious thought, but tens of thousands of years
• Not a God of uncertain existence, but many gods of provable existence, power and direct intervention
....and instead of hundreds of thousands of volumes of religious texts, one ambiguous paragraph, interpreted so literally that it makes it impossible for the thing it is intended to regulate to actually exist?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly it is intended that people be able to play Paladins, or they would be relegated to an NPC-only role.
My personal take on the Paladin's Code is quite simple, really: Good above all. Honour above all else.
The nuances of that interpretation of the Code allow for matters of honour (lying, cheating, using poison and so on) to take a back seat, provided that the actions the Paladin chooses to take promote and aid Good.
"But it says on my character sheet that 'The ends justify the means."
End=Being delayed a few minutes or annoyed
Means=Killing someoneI don’t think the ends justify the means in this particular case. How does being delayed justify killing someone?
For a paladin do the ends justify the means?
I think the answer is fairly simple: no.
Not true. Let’s take the opposite extreme.
End: Saving million of lives
Means: Lying to someone.
I would hope that a Paladin would lie in this instance, even if he had to atone later.
Btw, that’s why atonement is there, so that when a Paladin is faced with two bad choices, he can still save face by picking the best option that’s available (in his OPINION, which will vary from person to person and even from deity to deity). Lawful good people are not clones of each other, I’m sure many lawful good people would come to blows over a decision like this. This includes paladins as well. There is no “correct answer”.
The problem with a lot of the situations you’re putting the poor paladin, is that there is no “good” answer, the only answer the paladin can do is “less wrong”. And less wrong is based on opinion only, and it's like they say, just like a--holes, everyone's got one. So there's going to be a variety of responses, and none of them are wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not true. Let’s take the opposite extreme.End: Saving million of lives
Means: Lying to someone.I would hope that a Paladin would lie in this instance, even if he had to atone later.
Btw, that’s why atonement is there, so that when a Paladin is faced with two bad choices, he can still save face by picking the best option that’s available (in his OPINION, which will vary from person to person and even from deity to deity).
This means the Paladin fell and made the wrong choice.
Just because he later atoned doesn't mean it was right choice.
The problem with a lot of the situations you’re putting the poor paladin, is that there is no “good” answer, the only answer the paladin can do is “less wrong”. And less wrong is based on opinion only, and it's like they say, just like a--holes, everyone's got one. So there's going to be a variety of responses, and none of them are wrong.
No, less wrong is never the choice.
You tell the truth. Because goodness is its own reward.|
|
I refuse to accept the entire concept of killing a baby to save the world. Neither situation should ever exist.Unwilling Shield is a 6th level spell. Its very believable that a powerful demon who seeks to destroy the world carries around such a scroll and an infant. He then casts the spell on the baby. In order for the Paladin to kill the bad guy, he would have to kill the baby in the process.
Ready action to smite after the wizard dispels magic.
Not true. Let’s take the opposite extreme.End: Saving million of lives
Means: Lying to someone.I would hope that a Paladin would lie in this instance, even if he had to atone later.
Btw, that’s why atonement is there, so that when a Paladin is faced with two bad choices, he can still save face by picking the best option that’s available (in his OPINION, which will vary from person to person and even from deity to deity).
This means the Paladin fell and made the wrong choice.
Just because he later atoned doesn't mean it was right choice.
The problem with a lot of the situations you’re putting the poor paladin, is that there is no “good” answer, the only answer the paladin can do is “less wrong”. And less wrong is based on opinion only, and it's like they say, just like a--holes, everyone's got one. So there's going to be a variety of responses, and none of them are wrong.No, less wrong is never the choice.
You tell the truth. Because goodness is its own reward.
In Pathfinder terms, lying is not intrinsically Evil, although it is when done for selfserving or malicious reasons. It IS intrinsically dishonorable and non-Lawful. Paladins and other lawful good people do tend to conflate lawfulness with goodness (I am by no means a paladin, but have to watch for this bias in my judgments nonetheless), but lawfulness is not morally good in and of itself.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is more than one way to interpret the paragraph detailing the 'code'. It is easily possible to interpret it so that it is possible to play a paladin without falling, while making falling also possible. Neither the inability to fall, nor the certainty of a fall, is a desired game construct.
Although it is possible to run paladins as doing whatever they like without risking a fall, this is definately not desirable. But the opposite extreme, where a paladin falls everytime he walks down the street, means it's impossible to play a (non-fallen) paladin for more time than the DM takes to mess with you:-
Paladin: 'I'm walking to the shops, and I give some coppers to a beggar'
DM: 'You mean, you chose to deny charity to the other beggars? Fall!'
DM: 'Only coppers? You have some money left, and there are still hungry people in the world? Fall!'
DM: 'Choosing to destabilise the economy of a lawful society, eh? Fall!'
DM: 'Walking? What about the taxi service? So, you're deliberately depriving an innocent taxi-driver of his livelyhood, eh? Fall!'
DM: 'Did you know that walking on the cracks in the pavement can damage the paving slabs? Willful destruction of city property! Fall!'
DM: 'Did you know that walking on the crack breaks your mother's back? Murderer! Fall!'
DM: 'Walking on the cracks is a chaotic act. So you are now chaotic. Fall!'
DM: 'Did you know that walking on the cracks on Saint Leonard's Day, without a sprig of heather in your lapel, unless your mother's maiden name has a 'q' in it, without being left handed, unless you are leading a lame donkey with your left hand, without a written exemption from two of the three popes, is illegal under a now forgotten and unenforced ordinance put in place by the insane Pope Radish the Seventh? YOU DIDN'T?? Ignorance of the law is no excuse! Fall!'
Regarding the morality of lies, Mark Twain (a past master of truths and untruths alike) wrote a short story on the subject that is worth the reading: Was it Heaven? Or Hell?
In my games, I just house rule it. I make it clear to my paladins that they can be as gritty and earthy and clever and Machiavellian as necessary, as long as they can always make a strong argument for the fundamental rightness of their crusade.
--Marsh
IOW, you do allow Paladins to use the ends to justify the means. I'm not saying that's a problem, just that it's one interpretation of morality. For the most part, the morality of the campaign is going to be totally up to the GM and you may want to square it with him/her at the beginning.
For my part, I agree totally with what mplindustries said back in the beginning of the thread: the ends never justify the means. Ever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark me into the 'sometimes' catagory. Depends on the means... depends on the ends... Like was said earlier, you ARE allowed to work with Evil characters for a greater good.
THAT alone is CRB sponsored 'Ends justifying the means.' Would I ever have (or allow) a Paladin to go 'evil' to justify a good? Not a chance. No sacrifcing children, no torturing innocents... that's just insanity.
White Lie? Withholding evidence? Standing by and saying nothing while someone else lies or makes assumptions on your meaning??
I don't know... if the stakes are high enough, I can see a paladin doing that. The paladin code forbids you from committing an evil act. However, there are a LOT of neutral and Chaotic options that are a bit 'grey' to the code...
Unbelievably unimpressed with the hypothetical paladin's selfless sacrifice of class features + innocent child. The exact same logic that gets you that far will take you as far as you want to go. Ten babies, one hundred, one thousand, ten million. We're talking the whole world here! Heck, you could sacrifice most of the human race, to "save" it. In Watchmen, Adrian Veidt was a hero who succumbed to that logic and in so doing became a monster. It certainly wasn't "selfless" of him.A true paladin could kill the child to save the world and selflessly sacrifice his paladinhood.Kill an infant to save the world? No. A paladin could not do that and remain a paladin. He or she would be putting the continued existence of the world before doing what is right. The continued existence of the world may be highly desirable, but it is not a moral good.
Besides, that slope is greased all the way down. What if killing one baby is not quite enough to do the job? What if it takes two? Only two and hundreds of millions are saved. That's still a relatively small sacrifice... Or maybe it takes ten. Or maybe that infant needs to be tortured to death.
This end justifies the means thing has been covered a million times, but as no one has yet mentioned it yet, I'll post a link to The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. I don't have any doubt about how a paladin would feel about that situation either.
Chill out, the response was to one, not 10 million, and if you sacrifice everyone to save no one, that is quite a different choice. If the paladin painlessly sends an innocent on to the afterlife, and saves the world, I don't see the great evil.
If a magic chop, coup de grace obliterates the head of child, no pain, the pallie will fall, no doubt, but this isn't the worst sort of evil, and has just saved the day.
I don't really like or care for children though. As a dm I use them as an incentive to motivate good characters, but think of the children, meh.
I think the rules as written do box in the Paladin in unfortunate ways. The heroic knight of romantic literature -- a legitimate part of the fantasy canon -- behaved nothing like the Paladin that has evolved in D&D mythology.
Knights were gritty, worldly and flawed. In romantic poetry and literature, they sought to fulfill various ideals, but they were also ribald, flawed and capable of acts of cunning and malice.
I understand why the rules were written. It's a huge role-playing challenge to square the ethics of "adventuring" with the ethics of saving the world for goodness. But they still kind of stink.
In my games, I just house rule it. I make it clear to my paladins that they can be as gritty and earthy and clever and Machiavellian as necessary, as long as they can always make a strong argument for the fundamental rightness of their crusade.
--Marsh
Good stuff. Although a bit gamey, I prefer the 3.5 knight to the paladin. They also had their code of honour and certain actions made them lose challenges for the day, as did losing a fight after using a challenge. Quite interesting, if they ran out and went to neg challenges they didn't cease to be knights (they took years of training to get to this point), they were simply humiliated, disgusted with themselves and on some penalties for a bit.
So you could be a bit dishonourable, or go with the flow and burn challenges. So perhaps you use some poison, perhaps you take a flank, perhaps you are a bit of a rogue and less of a knight? Possibilities there, not just a you fall paladin, you weren't perfect. I did want to play a knight with poison that really ran the line between honourable and dishonourable.
|
|
Wow this has been an interesting thread to read.
I was curious what people's opinions were about wether the ends could justify the means for a paladin.
I guess I guess i picked a paladin, because, I thought that there was some general agreement on what a paladin is and generally how they should behave.
Over time I think i have noticed a shift or a trend away from, white hat heroes and black hat villains, to more shades of grey where heroes have flaws and villains may have likable or traits that would make one sympathetic to them.
Not that I think this is a bad thing. One of my favorite paladins was Priam Agrivar from the AD&D and Forgotten Realms comics from the late 80s
I have also noticed a shift in overall attitude towards torture. It seems to me that over the last decade it has become more acceptable for the "hero" to use torture. Now I may be looking at he past with rose colored glasses, but i seem to remember a time in the not to distant past in movies books etc when torture was the tool of a villain.
As an aside I love the scene in Goldfinger, where our hero James Bond is strapped down to slab, and a laser is cutting its way towards him and he asks Goldfinger " do you expect me to talk" and Gold finger's reply " No Mr Bond I expect you to die"
And of course a for a hero their use of torture (means) is justified by either preventing a horrible catastrophe ( nuke going off 24) or some sort of greater good (ends).
So I thought I would ask that question for a paladin does the ends justify the means.
But please continue to share your thoughts.
I'm sorry but an earlier poster and I don't remember his name, who answered one of my previous posts mentioned that it could be a fund role playing situation when the GM and Player are collaborating and an impossible situation where a paladin can have only bad options to choose from.
I do agree about that, and the key is the collaboration between the player and GM.
I guess I just get tired of some tendencies to pull a "Gotcha" on you as a player who is playing a paladin by putting a paladin in an impossible moral conundrum.
Unbelievably unimpressed with the hypothetical paladin's selfless sacrifice of class features + innocent child. The exact same logic that gets you that far will take you as far as you want to go. Ten babies, one hundred, one thousand, ten million. We're talking the whole world here! Heck, you could sacrifice most of the human race, to "save" it. In Watchmen, Adrian Veidt was a hero who succumbed to that logic and in so doing became a monster. It certainly wasn't "selfless" of him.A true paladin could kill the child to save the world and selflessly sacrifice his paladinhood.Kill an infant to save the world? No. A paladin could not do that and remain a paladin. He or she would be putting the continued existence of the world before doing what is right. The continued existence of the world may be highly desirable, but it is not a moral good.
Besides, that slope is greased all the way down. What if killing one baby is not quite enough to do the job? What if it takes two? Only two and hundreds of millions are saved. That's still a relatively small sacrifice... Or maybe it takes ten. Or maybe that infant needs to be tortured to death.
This end justifies the means thing has been covered a million times, but as no one has yet mentioned it yet, I'll post a link to The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. I don't have any doubt about how a paladin would feel about that situation either.
Chill out, the response was to one, not 10 million, and if you sacrifice everyone to save no one, that is quite a different choice. If the paladin painlessly sends an innocent on to the afterlife, and saves the world, I don't see the great evil.
If a magic chop, coup de grace obliterates the head of child, no pain, the pallie will fall, no doubt, but this isn't the worst sort of evil, and has just saved the day.
I don't really like or care...
I'm not at all heated; we're just talking hypothetical infants, not real ones. But you see, it really is the same logic, whether it's one or ten million. If you can justify one because it's only one, you can justify two because it's only two, and three because etc. In fact, the logic of sacrificing a few for the greater good continues to apply not only up until a sacrifice of 1/2x-1, where x is the total population, but even past that. If the species is in danger, sacrificing a majority that some may live could be considered the greater good. Are there men and women who would make and accept that calculation? Yes. But it will not be paladins throwing infants into the fire to appease the demon god or whatever it is forcing this seeming Hobson's choice..
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That whole do you kill the baby to save the universe bit is awesome in its story potential. Divinations are notoriously vague. Do we find out that the "baby" grows up within an evil organization(death cult)? and they nuture and drive the kid to fulfil some prophecy? Maybe during the course of events, that kid can be rescued and taken to a better environment.
If it literally boiled down to nothing more than kill the kid to save everything, then the kid's a goner, wouldn't even lose sleep over it. Apparently every attempt i made to find out more about the big picture failed and results in a black and white choice.
So, if i made the choice to not allow millions of innocents to die needlessly by killing the kid, i fall.
If i let millions die needlessly, by not killing the kid, i fall.
Honestly, if my god allowed that to happen as a part of some BS twisted test of my faith, i would take my fall, pack my bags and look into adding some Anti-Paladin levels and proceed on a whole different type of holy crusade.......
Such as eradicating every member of my former faith that i could find.
If this is me adding to a session of "beating a dead horse", i apologize ;)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding Omelas:
I still don't see why none of those walking away just took the kid out of there. Sure, you're no longer taking part in a society founded on one child's suffering, but you're still leaving the kid to suffer.
Take the kid, try to give him a decent life for once. As for Omelas? Well now they get the same chance the kid has.
A utopia built on inflicting hell on an innocent is no utopia worth keeping.
The faith of beating a dead horse!
|
The problem with a lot of the situations you’re putting the poor paladin, is that there is no “good” answer, the only answer the paladin can do is “less wrong”. And less wrong is based on opinion only, and it's like they say, just like a--holes, everyone's got one. So there's going to be a variety of responses, and none of them are wrong.
No, less wrong is never the choice.
You tell the truth. Because goodness is its own reward.
The millions of innocent people (or the Jews in your attic) who just died for your honour won't appreciate it.
The world being destroyed is not an intrinsic evil. Death is not usually intrinsically considered a moral evil, Tolkien's world actually viewed it as a gift. Even pagan cultures of yore had a neutral impression of it. Most death gods tend to not be sniggering vampiric jerkasses like Greyhawk's Nerull, but rather stoney faced bueracrats like in the Chinese Celestial Bueracracy, or dour regals like the Babylonian Nergal (who wasnt any more crazy or evil then the rest of that cadre of psychopaths in that pantheon).
What if it's oblivion on the line? Total destruction of everything Is that an end bad enough to justify killing one innocent?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This means the Paladin fell and made the wrong choice.
Just because he later atoned doesn't mean it was right choice.
So by your logic, a Paladin choosing to let millions of people die because he's too selfish to break his Code and risk losing his powers is making the right choice?
No, less wrong is never the choice.
You tell the truth. Because goodness is its own reward.
Goodness is no reward whatsoever, In fact, goodness is generally nothing but a never ending stream of sacrifice for the good individual.
In this case, the Paladin is sacrificing his magic powers to save millions of people.
If he does not do so, he is not good. He's neutral at best, neutral evil at worst.
The real best way to get past this is for him to have a neutral or evil ally who hits me. That way the paladin can attack because the baby is no longer in the picture.
I'm pretty sure the real best way would be to call upon his Bonded Weapon to get the Merciful Property and then go to town on the guy with nonlethal. Nonlethal is not hit point damage, so it won't transfer.
Of course, this assumes the BBEG isn't undead or a construct or plant or something...
Regarding Omelas:
I still don't see why none of those walking away just took the kid out of there. Sure, you're no longer taking part in a society founded on one child's suffering, but you're still leaving the kid to suffer.
Take the kid, try to give him a decent life for once. As for Omelas? Well now they get the same chance the kid has.
A utopia built on inflicting hell on an innocent is no utopia worth keeping.
Yeah, that the kid stayed behind always bugged me too, even though it was clear even when I was a kid that the whole story is meant to be taken as a hypothetical case.
This means the Paladin fell and made the wrong choice.
Just because he later atoned doesn't mean it was right choice.So by your logic, a Paladin choosing to let millions of people die because he's too selfish to break his Code and risk losing his powers is making the right choice?
Y'know... it's easy to say 'the paladin would rather die'... but that's just as much a loss. Paladins make hard choices, and accept whatever punishment comes their way.
They shouldn't ever treat their code as 'optional'... but SOMETIMES they may consciously choose to be 'less than noble.' The difference is they know what's at stake.
Sometimes it's the loss of powers.
Sometimes it's the loss of life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding Omelas:
I still don't see why none of those walking away just took the kid out of there. Sure, you're no longer taking part in a society founded on one child's suffering, but you're still leaving the kid to suffer.
Take the kid, try to give him a decent life for once. As for Omelas? Well now they get the same chance the kid has.
A utopia built on inflicting hell on an innocent is no utopia worth keeping.
+100.000.000
And, as for the baby vs. world argument:
Does killing the baby results in loss of paladinhood? If so, then it's evil.
Does not killing the baby results in loss of paladinhood? If so, than it's evil.
I think we all agree on that. The only issue here is: is it the right thing to do a lesser evil for a greater good?
According to me, a paladin who's not lawful stupid wouldn't mind slightly breaking his code for a much, much greater good (lying to save many lives, for example)- IF he or she is the only one to suffer.
But when SOMEONE ELSE has to suffer, this can not be accepted. Calling "selfish" a paladin because he or she wouldn't kill an innocent is unfair. He's not refusing to do that not to lose his powers. He's refusing because he doesn't want to kill the baby!
Now- as many of you said, an abstract and general example is not fair too. So let's hold to the practical example: the world-destroying demon who cast Unwilling Shield (or some other similar spell).
As a player, if I were in such a situation I'd believe that there has to be another way. If not (as already said), it would be really poor DMing. But let's put apart that and assume that there's not a DM or a game, and it's all true (in other words, let's take on the character's viewpoint, and not the player's).
Let's also assume that any attempt to dispel the spell is failed (we're starting to assume many, many things here).
The spell lasts 1 round/level.
This means I just have to keep the demon engaged for some minutes before it expires- and see that it can't be cast again.
So I'd try to steal the baby and let him in care of the party's cleric. Then I charge the demon. I wound the demon. The baby gets wounded. The cleric heals him. The demon's not healed.
Or: I manage to take the demon as far from the baby as it's needed to prevent the spell to work.
Or something else. I'd believe that there's ALWAYS another way. This is what a true paladin would do.
[+100.000.000
And, as for the baby vs. world argument:
Does killing the baby results in loss of paladinhood? If so, then it's evil.
Does not killing the baby results in loss of paladinhood? If so, than it's evil.
Actually... I kind of disagree with both of these ;)
Fighting a demon and Failing... will result in death usually. Not 'falling.' A paladin should be required to FIGHT evil... but not be forced to 'win'.
If he refused to kill a child to 'possibly' save the world, but fought the evil on HIS terms... he's upholding his code.
The world may be destroyed... but ya win some you lose some >.<
As for killing the baby?? Like you say, there are a LOT of assumptions going on here. I am not familiar with his 'unwilling shield' spell, but it sounds like they share damage... Ok fine.
I (as a paladin) did not strike the child. I Stabbed a demon. The DEMON is the one who killed the child with HIS spells...
The paladin would have to know that this spell is in effect. The demon TOLD him that it was??? Demons LIE. Demons lie CONVINCINGLY... As a Paladin player, I would have a difficult time believing ANY sense motive rolls against a demon.
If I can't detect magic, I can't spellcraft what's going... why would I let a world destroying demon walk becasue he MIGHT share damage with a baby??
A paladin has to WILLINGLY commit an Evil act. I do not WANT the child to die... I will never HIT the child. All blame for that death is at the feet of the demon.
Now if it was wearing the dreaed 'newborn armor'... THAT would be more problematic. But as long as the Paladin is trying his hardest to get EVERYONE out alive... he's still doing his best.
As for the cleric with heals standing by? That should not work. How many HP does a baby have? 1? What's his con? 1? Sooooo if he takes more than 2 hp damage he's Dead dead and the cleric can't heal 'dead dead' Nor could he heal damage before it happens... Does Regeneration still bring you back from 'dead dead'?
He could RAISE dead... that has potential for a backup...
You have many a point too, but as a paladin character I'd feel restrained even if there's a slight chance that the demon told the truth. It doesn't matter to me (paladin) if it's me or the demon killing the baby, I simply don't want the baby to die!
Ok, about the cleric, you're right. It was only one of the possibilities I was contemplating. ^_^ One other way could be killing the demon through Constitution draining, as that is not shared with the victim (I'm assuming that, being in this world-saving situation, we are an high level party, so either I or someone else in the party have a high Spellcraft level). Let the baby die and then resurrect him could be still another way, but maybe not one that a paladin would be too eager to take. ^_^
This means the Paladin fell and made the wrong choice.
Just because he later atoned doesn't mean it was right choice.So by your logic, a Paladin choosing to let millions of people die because he's too selfish to break his Code and risk losing his powers is making the right choice?
No, less wrong is never the choice.
You tell the truth. Because goodness is its own reward.Goodness is no reward whatsoever, In fact, goodness is generally nothing but a never ending stream of sacrifice for the good individual.
In this case, the Paladin is sacrificing his magic powers to save millions of people.
If he does not do so, he is not good. He's neutral at best, neutral evil at worst.
Think we are on the same page. To be truly good means sacrificing yourself for others, and doing one evil act to save the world, and thus polluting yourself, losing your granted abilities and compromising your place in the afterlife, well for a paladin it sounds for the greater good and self-sacrificing to me.
Although if it was of worldly importance, the paladin's god/goddess could send down an angel at the last minute to reap for the paladin.
Shame the innocent had to go along for the ride, if only the pal could just kill themselves instead, but that wasn't what this was about, not the situation.
A dm might say, you did an evil act, evil evil evil! I am more interested why they did such a thing, what is their reasoning, who they are, what they will now become, how will they take it. There is enough of dms changing pcs alignment, don't need more of it. Doing evil for good, I don't buy that it makes you instantly evil.
I think they can be pretty useful, and a source of good stories!
As long as we all don't get carried away.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should point out, that, officially, Saerenraen paladins do not have to fight honourably to non-honourable foes (Faiths of Purity, page 27). Similarly, Paladins of Torag can lie to protect the dwarven race or their interests. So the absoluteness of the Code isn't true unless you are reading it as negatively as possible.
As for the baby killing example: If the prophecy is 100% true, then you can't kill the baby because that would cause the prophecy to be falsified which means it's not 100% guaranteed to be true, or you killing him is the event that causes the world to end. After all "the babe shall be responsible for the end of the world" doesn't mean thety're the one directly causing it. If the prophecy is not 100% true, i.e. it's an on the balance of probabilities or can be altered by events, then you can't kill the baby or you will fall but should work to make sure he does not caus e the end of the world. Raising the kid yourself or in the hands of trusted others is perfectly ok under code and prevents all the baby-killing drama.
For the army of innocents, that's what the flat of the blade was invented for. You may not be as efficient, but you won't be leaving dead peasants in your wake as you wade through the army to their generals.
For the baby and Unwilling Shield option, dispelling weapons or allies with dispel magic are your best bet. Antimagic shell also works. Grappling, non-lethal damage, nets, anything that holds the demon up until the spell expires would be acceptable for the paladin. Just because you would be sub-optimal does not mean you can do nothing.
Look, if you're not able to stick to the straight and narrow, regardless of what the event is, don't play a paladin, it's not a class designed for you (which is why I don't play one). Similarly, if you're just going to try to make the paladin fall through Hobson's choices as a DM, just ban them or make them NPC classes as the player will not enjoy that (or ask them first. Some players like the dancing along the edge of falling that paaldins can do in a grey alignment game).
EDIT: If you do like Hobson's choices, at least reward the Paladin for doing the 'right' thing.
Why are people trying to figure out clever ways around the baby example? That is not the point of that thought experiment. The point is to determine if, as the title of this thread indicates, "do the ends ever justify the means"?
Let's take out any examples to make this simple.
Let all rights and wrongs be equal in value.
Is it okay for a paladin to commit one wrong to create two rights?
Is it okay for a paladin to commit one wrong to create ten thousand rights?
It seems there are one group of people who think the code is hard and committing even one wrong violates it, no matter the cost.
Then there are others who think that it is okay to commit wrongs, as long as the rights outweigh the wrongs heavily.
Everyone should be able to agree that a paladin could commit rights, neutral actions, or non-actions in pursuit of rights.
The actual specifics of any situation really aren't pertinent.
|
|
The sylllogism for this argument seems to boil down to...
Pro:
The quantity of good outweighs evil as if on a scale by weight, number of individuals effected, etc.
Performing a minor evil act sometimes allows for a greater good to be accomplished.
Maximizing good is the ideal.
Ergo, a minor evil is an acceptable course of action.
Con:
Good represents a state where evil is not permitted.
Performing even a minor evil act results in damage to this 'State of Good.'
Achieving a state of good is the primary focus.
Therefore, performing even a minor act should be avoided.
My syllogisms are probably off, but I think we should try to narrow this down to precisely the core of the two arguments, rather then throwing scenarios back and forth. Since we're four pages in and we've got sidetracked into religious discussions, Dr. Who and questions about baby combustibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The ends justifies the means" is pretty much the antithesis of paladinism.
I disagree. The code in the Core Rulebook says that some times the ends does justify the means. They make provsions for working with evil people if it's for the greater good.
EDIT:And I missed 4 pages of this argument. Sorry if this has been covered.
The other question I have is why is this always about Paladins? Can a Druid damage nature if it's for the greater good?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are never sure about the "end" of a course of action, so the "means" is what you really have power over.
I think that the code of the paladin is somehow comparable to the code of a samurai, the code dictate how you live, not what you have to accomplish,
For a samurai it would be better to lose a battle and die than to win the battle dishonorably and take his life through seppuku to keep their honor.(Dying is the end always)
In a similar way if I were a Paladin, I'd rather fail at stopping evil, than turning evil to stop it. (That's the role of a "good" Inquisitor I guess).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin is a character just like any other, with just as many varied opinions. Like some posters above, he might feel that the end never justify the means. Or he might feel that a specific end justifies some specific (evil) means, as do other posters in this thread.
And he is supposed to act on this. Even moreso than any other class, the Paladin should be a class of strong convictions, of considering what the proper action is and then acting on it. If possible, he will try to get guidance about his deity's wishes, but a true Paladin would not ever take into account whether his action will make him fall or not (ie, his own selfish interest).
Doing otherwise smacks to me of complete Metagaming on the part of the Paladin's player.
The consequences of his decisions (fall or not fall) then lie completely in the hands of the Gods (ie, the GM).
"The ends justifies the means" is pretty much the antithesis of paladinism.I disagree. The code in the Core Rulebook says that some times the ends does justify the means. They make provsions for working with evil people if it's for the greater good.
And, if you work with evil people, you need atonement. Thus, it is against the code, but acceptable under certain circumstances (if you atone and only do so for the absolute minimum amount of time necessary). Some people have a problem with lying, then falling, then atoning. This sequence of events makes sense to me, but many are arguing that if the lie is for some good you don't fall and don't need to atone afterwards.
The other question I have is why is this always about Paladins? Can a Druid damage nature if it's for the greater good?
Damaging nature to help nature is part of the way nature already works. A forest fire is not a negative event, from the point of view of nature (it is a problem for humans living near forests, of course).
I can't think of any way to truly damage nature that is for nature's greater good (or at least any that would come up in gameplay).
If, for some reason, such a situation existed I think a druid would be fine with it. A druid doesn't have the strict lawful element which complicates the paladins moral universe.
I disagree on separating theory and practice in this case.
There's not a theoretical answer other than "yes", "no" and maybe "it depends on the case".
There ARE individual cases that a character could face, and it should be his/her decision how to behave better in each one.
I disagree on separating theory and practice in this case.
There's not a theoretical answer other than "yes", "no" and maybe "it depends on the case".
There ARE individual cases that a character could face, and it should be his/her decision how to behave better in each one.
If the fundamental question is "can a paladin commit evil in order to create good" then the particulars are not important if we want to understand the paladin's moral universe. They just confuse the underlying issue.
If you decide that 'yes, yes they can commit some evil to create good' then examples might be useful to tease out exactly how much evil a paladin can commit.
[evil meaning anything against the paladin's moral code, which includes simple things like telling lies].
Then, if that's what is requested, I guess that my answer is:
The paladin can slightly break his/her code if this harms no other. If it does, then he/she can't, and must find another way to accomplish his/her goal.