| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a great idea for a business - a (paid) service where a team of people (preferably with some degrees in psychology, ethics and the like) would answer paladin-related questions and provide advice on The Code.
Also, you could ask for a detailed interview where specialists would award you "I can play a Paladin" and "I can GM a party with a Paladin" certificates.
Judging by these threads, it's a gold mine waiting to happen.
As a graduate student who does work on ethics, I can tell you there won't be much agreement amongst such specialists.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a graduate student who does work on ethics, I can tell you there won't be much agreement amongst such specialists.I have a great idea for a business - a (paid) service where a team of people (preferably with some degrees in psychology, ethics and the like) would answer paladin-related questions and provide advice on The Code.
Also, you could ask for a detailed interview where specialists would award you "I can play a Paladin" and "I can GM a party with a Paladin" certificates.
Judging by these threads, it's a gold mine waiting to happen.
As a PhD who is working on two grant projects I can tell you that scientists will agree readily if you tell them that money depends on their cooperation ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a PhD who is working on two grant projects I can tell you that scientists will agree readily if you tell them that money depends on their cooperation ;-)As a graduate student who does work on ethics, I can tell you there won't be much agreement amongst such specialists.I have a great idea for a business - a (paid) service where a team of people (preferably with some degrees in psychology, ethics and the like) would answer paladin-related questions and provide advice on The Code.
Also, you could ask for a detailed interview where specialists would award you "I can play a Paladin" and "I can GM a party with a Paladin" certificates.
Judging by these threads, it's a gold mine waiting to happen.
Corrupting students and professor of ethics is definitely an evil act. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there are statistics.
I've come to notice over the years that every "side" has their "experts."
I no longer trust in most experts as a result.
A true paladin would find a way to sacrifice himself in the child's stead.Yes. If the Paladin had to kill an infant to save the world, the Paladin would do it.
He would also fall like stone and get the breath knocked out of him when he hits, but he'd also feel like he deserved it. That's basically what a Paladin is, they can make the hard choices, but they'll also feel wretched about it afterwards.
If that were an option, of course he'd do it, but that just complicates the scenario. If this were the only option (killing the child) then he would take it.
The only scenario that leaves but one option is a contrived one.
So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?Nope, it isn't. The means must justify the ends not the other way around.
The ends using your hands to drink water isn't justified to kill that man.
But the ends quenching your thirst, by drinking water is justified.
The 'ends' in this case means 'drinking water'. Does 'drinking water' justify the 'means' of 'using your hands as an improvised drinking vessel'?
If the answer is 'yes', then the statement 'The ends never justify the means' is false.
Who said anything about killing anyone?
If you aren't doing an aligned act then you didn't need to justify the end.
So I mentioned killing a man as you wouldn't need to justify otherwise.So the statement remains true.
If the statement only applies when 'doing an aligned act', or 'when discussing morality', then the (unqualified) 'never' is inaccurate, therefore so is the statement!
If the phrase had been, 'When discussing morality, the ends never justify the means', I wouldn't have quibbled!
This is why I said the original statement made no sense, because it did not limit its scope to questions of morality, or even limit itself in any way. Thus it could be proved to be nonsense as soon as I went to the sink and couldn't find a cup!
You are using the word justify as if it had only one meaning. It has multiple meanings. The two dictionary definitions which some might apply in this instance are these:
1.Show or prove to be right or reasonable.
2.Be a good reason for.
Definition 2, in which "good" has nothing to do with Good/Evil but instead refers to logic, could certainly allow you to say that the means of using your hands to drink is "justified" by your end of quenching thirst. The fact that it is logically justified, however, has nothing to do with morally justified, as drinking water is not a moral action. The statement that "the ends do not justify the means" is not meant as saying that ends do not provide reasons for means. So Definition 2 is out.
So we're looking at Definition 1, which is truly two definitions combined:
1a. Show or prove to be right.
1b. Show or prove to be reasonable.
The statement that "the ends do not justify the means" is not generally meant to say that ends do not make means reasonable, an extremely loaded term. (Definition 1b). Reasonable to whom? It is meant as saying that ends do not make means right (Definition 1a).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only scenario that leaves but one option is a contrived one.
Of course it is.
Though there are really two options: Kill the baby and save everyone, or don't and everyone dies.
|
|
It is meant as saying that ends do not make means right.
Ah! Definition 1a! Now it all makes sense!
So, just to be clear:-
• the ends don't justify the means under definition 1a
• the ends might justify the means under definition 1b
• the ends might justify the means under definition 2
I hope you can see why the statement 'The ends never justify the means' was difficult for me to...er...justify.
You're still assuming perfect pre-knowledge of the results of your dilemma.
And still massively, massively wrong about what it is to play a paladin.
That's your opinion.
My opinion is that someone doesn't need perfect pre-knowledge to make a decision, otherwise the Paladin would be paralyzed at all times with indecision.
Perhaps it would clarify matters if we went back to the original source of the phrase. "The ends justify the means" is believed to be a simplified paraphrase of something Nicolo Machiavelli wrote in The Prince (with related material in his Discourses). Here is one translation, with emphasis added:
Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.
And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion. Therefore it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then to know how to set about it.
For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.
For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on.
Is the ideal prince described above eligible to be a paladin?
|
|
Is the ideal prince described above eligible to be a paladin?
Excellent quote, Zog! And, of course, 'Machiavellian' is the polar opposite of 'paladin'!
Quibbles about semantics aside, I find the statement 'The ends always justify the means' to be equally absurd!
'Always' and 'never' are both foolish absolute statements when discussing how morality interacts with the complexities of any 'reality'. That is why I offered the alternatives; 'the ends sometimes justify the means', or 'the means must justify themselves'.
Forget 'always', forget 'never'! The paladin must use his own judgement in situations like these, and he is judged on how he chooses to act!
It's entirely possible to play a paladin (and DM for a paladin) using RAW, but if the 'code' is read in a hyper-literal way then it becomes impossible to play a paladin for longer than it takes for the DM to mess with you.
Why would that be the way forward?
There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there are statistics.I've come to notice over the years that every "side" has their "experts."
I no longer trust in most experts as a result.
Wise, you may also be interested in John Ralston Saul's satirical dictionary and what he has to say about the re-emergence of courtiers.
The only scenario that leaves but one option is a contrived one.I provided a fairly reasonable scenario earlier. BBG is moments away from finishing his plan to destroy the world. All he has to do is stay alive for the next minute. Party appears. BBG cast Unwilling shield cast on an infant. Party is out of Dispel Magic. Only choices are to attack the guy(and kill the infant) or let him kill the party.
Other than casting unwilling shield(and the party being unlucky with dispel magic), I consider this a pretty standard climactic battle.
Yeah in one vietnam game I played in, there was a necromancer buddhist monk that was near immune to damage because it went to children instead. A party member executed the kid, it was a great scene, they were really challenged, and we could finally take down the monk with a lot of fire and bullets.
It's contrived because the DM specifically has to design the encounter to take away all the other solutions, like grabbing the infant and running out of range ... I'd kill the kid and join the BBEG if the DM pulled that crap.
It isn't crap, it is a choice. However evil should be smart and shouldn't just rely on alignment to protect itself from harm, that can get a bit meta I suppose.
Ha! Paladin, you cannot act or you will fall.
Well, I guess I fall then, but you will now die, didn't you think of this?
Er...
'Always' and 'never' are both foolish absolute statements when discussing how morality interacts with the complexities of any 'reality'. That is why I offered the alternatives; 'the ends sometimes justify the means', or 'the means must justify themselves'.
That is your opinion and you're welcome to it. However, believe it or not there are people who hold to such strict standards. It is just clearly implied that the only time you would be talking about ends and means is in regards to moral matters. If you're talking about ends and means and not talking about morality then you are quibbling over semantics in an effort to achieve a 'gotcha' moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only scenario that leaves but one option is a contrived one.I provided a fairly reasonable scenario earlier. BBG is moments away from finishing his plan to destroy the world. All he has to do is stay alive for the next minute. Party appears. BBG cast Unwilling shield cast on an infant. Party is out of Dispel Magic. Only choices are to attack the guy(and kill the infant) or let him kill the party.
Other than casting unwilling shield(and the party being unlucky with dispel magic), I consider this a pretty standard climactic battle.
Use nothlethal. Once BBEG unconscious, use water to drown BBEG (drowning/suffucation doesn't transfer through Unwilling Shield).
That is correct, I chose the third optionn. Because that is how a Paladin rolls.
|
|
'Always' and 'never' are both foolish absolute statements when discussing how morality interacts with the complexities of any 'reality'. That is why I offered the alternatives; 'the ends sometimes justify the means', or 'the means must justify themselves'.That is your opinion and you're welcome to it. However, believe it or not there are people who hold to such strict standards. It is just clearly implied that the only time you would be talking about ends and means is in regards to moral matters. If you're talking about ends and means and not talking about morality then you are quibbling over semantics in an effort to achieve a 'gotcha' moment.
This is fair comment, and I get that now.
I didn't get that when the 'never' phrase was first posted. Without the 'definition 1a' explanation, the phrase seemed absurd.
Fairly quickly after my 'it doesn't make sense' post, mplindustries made her position clear, and it made sense then.
My recent posts (partly tongue in cheek) were meant to clarify the source of my earlier confusion. The semantics have now been clarified, and I'm satisfied.
There was never any intention from me to 'win' the broader argument about ends/means using mere semantics, just a desire to understand how the 'never' phrase could make sense (I get it now!). That's why I originally offered alternatives to the 'never' phrase, so that I could understand what she really meant, because I could not understand how the 'never' phrase made sense. Now, especially with the benefit of 'definition 1a', it all makes sense.
I still don't agree, though. I think it's a judgement call every time; it's a paladin's duty to make such judgements, not hide behind a 'code' whose intent is to make the paladin make the world a better place.
'I can't save you! Well, I could, but I have a code that means I have to tell the Nazis that you're hiding in the attic. Not my fault! I'm just following orders!'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Not trying would be a violation. If he tries and fails - even if he doesn't pick the option that the omniscient DM has decided is the most optimal, such as if he chooses to fight evil instead of kowtowing to evil's ridiculously contrived torture-a-baby-for-survival schemes - that's not fall-worthy.
Exactly. A sin of omission is still a sin. Failing to protect innocents when it is within your power to do so is a violation of the paladin's code.And this is where the Lawful Stupid stereotype comes into play, where the paladin knows what the only chance is and decides to take the (utterly hopeless and pointless in this scenario) "Durrr I hit it wit mah sward!" option.
How is it not? He has no reason not to do so except fear of breaking his Code and falling, and some squeamishness about making the hard decisions.Since when did taking the easy, evil way out of alignment dilemmas become "making the hard decisions"?How is that the easy way out? The easy way out would be to not do anything and then die along with the rest of everyone else.
A quote from another piece of literature I find applicable here "Death is lighter than a feather; Duty is heavier than a mountain."
Your duty is to serve the overall Good, that good is not served by you pussying out at the last second because you can't bear to kill that one innocent to save millions more.
The path that you have laid out for the paladin is nothing more than the path of succumbing to evil because of the fear that resisting evil would be too difficult and too costly.
So instead you would have your paladin an appeaser - make himself a collaborator with evil out of pure fear of the consequences of resistance. The easy way out.
This is not a paladin's way. A paladin is without fear. A paladin exists to oppose the forces of evil, not to appease them. In these sorts of scenarios, a paladin takes a third way. If there isn't an obvious one, he finds one. And if he cannot find one, he makes one.
And if even that is denied to him - if the evil entity that has set up these ridiculous schemes is utterly omnipotent and there is no way to exist in its world without surrendering to its whims - then perhaps the paladin can find some solace in courage, even if it is doomed courage. Perhaps, to a paladin, that would even be better than condemning those millions to scratch out a continued hopeless existence in a universe where there will never be any chance of Good.
nonlethal damage becomes lethal once the targets nonlethal damage equals their current hp. If the boss has more health than the baby, it won't work. Please check the rules before saying things like this.
Grapple and containment.
How exactly is the BBEG destroying the world? Is there a ritual you can disrupt? A mountain you can drop on him? Is there a weapon he's going to use? A sacred scroll?
Look at every 'Devil is coming to destroy the world' movie... You can't kill the devil, but you CAN disrupt his plans. :)
nonlethal damage becomes lethal once the targets nonlethal damage equals their current hp. If the boss has more health than the baby, it won't work. Please check the rules before saying things like this.The only scenario that leaves but one option is a contrived one.I provided a fairly reasonable scenario earlier. BBG is moments away from finishing his plan to destroy the world. All he has to do is stay alive for the next minute. Party appears. BBG cast Unwilling shield cast on an infant. Party is out of Dispel Magic. Only choices are to attack the guy(and kill the infant) or let him kill the party.
Other than casting unwilling shield(and the party being unlucky with dispel magic), I consider this a pretty standard climactic battle.
Use nothlethal. Once BBEG unconscious, use water to drown BBEG (drowning/suffucation doesn't transfer through Unwilling Shield).
That is correct, I chose the third optionn. Because that is how a Paladin rolls.
Ah, but you can just heal the baby while beating the crap out of trhge BBEG (after all, the baby has at least Con before death, not counting racial HD if not class HD depending on if babies use RHD or class HD)
This logic works well in a book(where the omnipotent author can have the Paladin always think up a plan), but in my experience Paladins don't have particularly good wisdom or intelligence. At best they will have a 14 in either stat. By comparison, a Balor has Int 24, Wis 24, Cha 27.
I don't see why its so difficult to imagine a demon outsmarting the Paladin and forcing him into this situation. I think that either the DM or the player are roleplaying incorrectly if the 10 int and wisdom Paladin is consistently outsmarting his 20+ int and wisdom enemies. At best, the character gets lucky.
And what happens to a Paladin who gets outsmarted, outmaneuvered and outwitted by a demon into committing some terrible act?
He falls.
We're debating whether it is the right course to appease evil, though, not whether some poor sap Paladin might plausibly, through being tricked and manipulated, through succumbing to despair, or whatnot, fail to take the right course (whatever it may be). Individual paladins will sometimes fail to live up to their paladinhood when the chips are down, and they will fall for it. It's a narrow road.
Ah, but you can just heal the baby while beating the crap out of trhge BBEG (after all, the baby has at least Con before death, not counting racial HD if not class HD depending on if babies use RHD or class HD)
I wouldn't count on that. What kind of HP and con would you expect a baby to have?
Con 1... Hp 1?
Soooo as long as the baby doesn't take 2 damage, you can heal it... Other wise you'd better have a spell that STOPS death... NOt sure if Regeneration or fast healing or anything would help with that... but The line for a newborn between 'fully alive, and Dead/dead. is PRETTY slim.
|
|
nonlethal damage becomes lethal once the targets nonlethal damage equals their current hp. If the boss has more health than the baby, it won't work. Please check the rules before saying things like this.The only scenario that leaves but one option is a contrived one.I provided a fairly reasonable scenario earlier. BBG is moments away from finishing his plan to destroy the world. All he has to do is stay alive for the next minute. Party appears. BBG cast Unwilling shield cast on an infant. Party is out of Dispel Magic. Only choices are to attack the guy(and kill the infant) or let him kill the party.
Other than casting unwilling shield(and the party being unlucky with dispel magic), I consider this a pretty standard climactic battle.
Use nothlethal. Once BBEG unconscious, use water to drown BBEG (drowning/suffucation doesn't transfer through Unwilling Shield).
That is correct, I chose the third optionn. Because that is how a Paladin rolls.
Forms of harm that do not involve hit points.....are not affected.
Non-lethal damage would not get transferred to the baby.
It is not “real” damage.
If you're worried about the final blow that knocks the BBEG unconscious doing so much non lethal damage that it becomes lethal and thus transmits to the baby, just how much damage would that final blow have to do to create that danger?
Ah, but you can just heal the baby while beating the crap out of trhge BBEG (after all, the baby has at least Con before death, not counting racial HD if not class HD depending on if babies use RHD or class HD)I wouldn't count on that. What kind of HP and con would you expect a baby to have?
Con 1... Hp 1?
I think an average baby would be round about Con 6, hp 1, perhaps. While a baby is not at the stage of human life most noted for toughness, it is not utterly incapable of surviving any injury or illness whatsoever.
I think an average baby would be round about Con 6, hp 1, perhaps. While a baby is not at the stage of human life most noted for toughness, it is not utterly incapable of surviving any injury or illness whatsoever.
Ah, but you can just heal the baby while beating the crap out of trhge BBEG (after all, the baby has at least Con before death, not counting racial HD if not class HD depending on if babies use RHD or class HD)I wouldn't count on that. What kind of HP and con would you expect a baby to have?
Con 1... Hp 1?
What an 'average' adult commoner? 10 con 6 hp?
Personally, I think 6 con is WAY too high for a baby... That's like... a single ability drain difference between a PC and a newborn infant...
I haven't looked at the bestiary before... Do they list any animals or creatures that have low cons like that? Anything to compare it to?
Looks like there is a 'Young' Template that gives something a -4 to it's con...
So a 'Young' human would be con 6... For a baby keep going down.
Remember, daggers only do D4 damage... stats should NOT be TOO high... Though granted I imagine all that scenario would fall under coup de grace...
Remember, daggers only do D4 damage... stats should NOT be TOO high...
Last week here in Boston there was a story in the paper about a 6-month old who got ejected from a car during a collision and landed 20+ feet away. Survived with injuries.
Speaking of daggers, a quick search through Google for "baby stabbed" also turned up an infant in Baltimore whose mother stabbed it five times as the second search result. That infant survived and was currently back in good condition in the hospital according to the article.
So it would seem that not tough, but not utterly incapable of surviving injuries (even dagger injuries) would be an accurate description.
Fair enough. BBG is undead then.
I suspect you could continue along these lines indefinitely and to very little benefit. Putting aside morality for a moment a DM's job is to provide challenges, a PCs to come up with solutions, and the DM then adjudicates the results. A DM may shoot down a specific solution, but he's overstepping his authority if he proclaims that there exists no workable solution. Maybe the PCs try nonlethal. Maybe they cast antimagic field. Maybe they plane shift the kid away. Maybe the monk just grabs the bugger and run to break the spell's range limit so that the paladin can go to town on the bad guy.
A DM can shoot individual plans down ("bad guy is undead and immune to nonlethal") or call for rolls to decide others ("roll grapple to grab the kid away") and maybe the PCs win or maybe the kid gets killed in the crossfire. However a DM who presents a scenario in which he has decided in advance that he will cause anything the PCs do - no matter what it is - to fail, is not doing his job as DM.
But that's not the point of the scenario. It is an undeniably poorly designed and stupid scenario.
But. If the the Paladin were in that scenario and knew for a fact that his only option were to kill the child and save everyone else, or not kill the child and condemn the world to being sucked into the Abyss and incinerated or some nonsense, I believe a true Paladin would do it.
He would fall like a sack of bricks mind you because it is technically still an evil act and he did perform it willingly, but in my eyes not performing that evil act in this particular scenario only means that you don't fall because you die right before you get the chance to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not the point of the scenario. It is an undeniably poorly designed and stupid scenario.
But. If the the Paladin were in that scenario and knew for a fact that his only option were to kill the child and save everyone else, or not kill the child and condemn the world to being sucked into the Abyss and incinerated or some nonsense, I believe a true Paladin would do it.
Whereas I believe that a paladin who reached this conclusion would be wrong to do so. Despair, too, is a sin.
So here's a question:
Would anyone here actually throw such a scenario at good-aligned PCs, all the way down to circumventing every possible Third Option they try to take or make?
Hell no.
I like the drowning idea.
Get into the bucket villain!
So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?No, I mean the ends never justify the means. There is no circumstance in which the ends justify the means. You don't have to like my answer, but it is my answer and I did not mistype.The ends never justify the means.This makes no sense.
Perhaps you mean that the means must justify themselves, or that the ends do not always justify the means.
Nope, it isn't. The means must justify the ends not the other way around.
The ends using your hands to drink water isn't justified to kill that man.
But the ends quenching your thirst, by drinking water is justified.
Ends is "drinking the water", means is "using your hands".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ends is "drinking the water", means is "using your hands".So using your hands to drink a cup of water is not justified?No, I mean the ends never justify the means. There is no circumstance in which the ends justify the means. You don't have to like my answer, but it is my answer and I did not mistype.The ends never justify the means.This makes no sense.
Perhaps you mean that the means must justify themselves, or that the ends do not always justify the means.
Nope, it isn't. The means must justify the ends not the other way around.
The ends using your hands to drink water isn't justified to kill that man.
But the ends quenching your thirst, by drinking water is justified.
Seriously, you need to give up this whole line of thinking. If you're not applying ends and means to a moral situation then you're playing a lame semantic game and should not be taken seriously. Getting a drink of water, no matter how much you want it to be, is not a morally ambiguous situation. Like I said above, at this point you're just trolling for a 'gotcha.'
Whereas I believe that a paladin who reached this conclusion would be wrong to do so. Despair, too, is a sin.
And I disagree. That's the beauty of entirely subjective arguments, they can keep going forever as people try to explain their points.
Though I am curious as to where you get "Despair is a sin" from, would you mind quoting a passage for me, because I've never seen that.
So here's a question:
Would anyone here actually throw such a scenario at good-aligned PCs, all the way down to circumventing every possible Third Option they try to take or make?
I think Coriat said it best:
Hell no.
There was never any intention from me to 'win' the broader argument about ends/means using mere semantics, just a desire to understand how the 'never' phrase could make sense (I get it now!). That's why I originally offered alternatives to the 'never' phrase, so that I could understand what she really meant, because I could not understand how the 'never' phrase made sense. Now, especially with the benefit of 'definition 1a', it all makes sense.
It's one of those things that has as many points of view as there are people alive.
I still don't agree, though. I think it's a judgement call every time; it's a paladin's duty to make such judgements, not hide behind a 'code' whose intent is to make the paladin make the world a better place.
This is where the player and the DM really need to hash out the mechanics. If I were running the campaign, I would have a different point of view on it.
'I can't save you! Well, I could, but I have a code that means I have to tell the Nazis that you're hiding in the attic. Not my fault! I'm just following orders!'
From a Kantian point of view, the act of the Nazis using implied coercion puts an unjust constraint upon you which frees you of the necessity of telling the truth. Because they have started out by placing you in an immoral situation, you are no longer required to act morally in regards to that situation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a Kantian point of view, the act of the Nazis using implied coercion puts an unjust constraint upon you which frees you of the necessity of telling the truth. Because they have started out by placing you in an immoral situation, you are no longer required to act morally in regards to that situation.
I think you and I would get to the same result (Jews in the attic? No idea what you're talking about!) even though the semantics and/or philosophical journey might differ.
I think that saving them is the moral duty, and the immorality of lying to save them would not compare to the immorality of effectively handing them over to the Nazis.
IMO, in this case, this 'end' justifies this 'means'.
This in no way implies that 'the ends always justify the means' any more than it implies that 'the ends never justify the means', definition 1a included!
Seriously, you need to give up this whole line of thinking. If you're not applying ends and means to a moral situation then you're playing a lame semantic game and should not be taken seriously. Getting a drink of water, no matter how much you want it to be, is not a morally ambiguous situation. Like I said above, at this point you're just trolling for a 'gotcha.'
I see plenty of ways "ends vs. Means" is less 'moral situations' and more 'Risk vs. rewards'
Is quenching your thirst worth the potential health risks of using your dirty hands?
Is taking a shortcut past the dragon cave worth the added risk involved...
Is killing one worth the cost of hundreds dying.
It's always an either/or choice... but I don't see a need for it to ALWAYS be a moral quandry. There is always a RISK... SOmetimes it's physical, mental, or the ever-popular spiritual.
It doesn't mean the other risks aren't there.
Is XXXX worth YYYY is all the phrase really means. and since this is the internet, you'll get a dozen different opinons on whether XXXX is worth YYYY.