|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read many topics lately about what a paladin can and cannot do without losing his powers.
To be honest, this kind of argument is as old as the paladin itself.
Instead of listing a huge comprehensive list of things a paladin can or cannot do (which is stupid, and in any case would be wrong in one way or another) I wanted to address something in particular that comes up quite often.
The no-win situation.
The scenario were a paladin is facing two possible choices, both morally ambiguous.
Of course, this is just my opinion ... but I am totally right anyway, so whatever...
Let's define what is typically considered a no win situation (which will be exposed in a deliberate simplistic way)
The bad guys are holding some hostages and demands that the paladin personally execute a person the paladin know is innocent, otherwise they will start killing hostages.
If there are only two options that are both Bad from the paladin point of view, will he lose his powers?
My answer is no.
What i feel should lead to the fall of a paladin is either a heavily misguided morality or a deliberate betrayal of morality itself.
When facing with this kind of dilemma, there is no right answer, killing an innocent to save many, condemn many to save one single man, there is no morally high ground to be taken.
By removing a obviously right answer, I feel you automatically remove the wrong one.
I expect a paladin to grieve, to feel remorse and regret whatever decision he makes, but not to lose his powers or change alignment.
(this could affect his personality, his view of the world and eventually push him to do something that is indeed wrong, but that's if you are into deep psychological roleplay)
People may argue that a paladin should try to choose the lesser of two evil, but I feel that this statement is true only when the difference is enormous.
If a paladin have troubles deciding if it's better to stop the child who is stealing candy or the man who is burning orphanages, that falls into the heavily misguided morality.
I want to also address another situation.
Let's say a man is being persecuted and a paladin gives him shelter.
Then the persecutor come to the paladin searching for the fugitive.
They threaten the paladin and make sure he knows that if they ever find out that he is sheltering the fugitive he will die.
The paladin then hands the fugitive to them.
Should the paladin fall?
IMHO no.
If mechanically speaking the bad guys used intimidation and the paladin failed to resist it would become apparent, but even without the rolls...
I think this makes for a pretty lousy paladin.... but still a paladin.
I would consider it a failure on the paladin behalf in the same way as if he tried to save someone from a killer and just failed to save the victim in time.
It surely denotes weakness of character and determination, but I don't see a misguided morality (he knows he is supposed to defend the guy) nor a betrayal of his values (he sheltered him after all, he is not forsaking his values, he just surrendered to an evil that in his mind was going to win anyway, he just choose to survive to fight another day).
Now, let's change scenario a little and let's say that they don't threaten the paladin, and they don't seem particularly near to getting to the sheltered guy regardless of the paladin action.
Let's just say the bad guys let everybody know that they are willing to pay anyone who can hand them the guy.
If the paladin hands the guy for money, THAT is a betrayal of his morality.
Self preservation of any kind is never paid with the fall of a paladin.
The ultimate self sacrifice of course is still the most Iconic paladin action. But is the extreme, is not the minimum requirement of paladinhood.
Now, this way of thinking about paladin ways to fall serve for the paladin, but also serve for the bad guys.
In my experience there are a lot of evil or at least non good characters that cannot help but actively try to make a paladin fall.
The bottom line is .. you can't force a paladin to fall... you can tempt him to fall.
You offer an immoral but easy and convenient way opposed to the virtuous one.
You don't set things in a way that the choice is between two evil.
You set things in a way that a good way is very doable, but that the evil one is tempting enough that every man would consider it. and possibly, coat it with some falsely good justification that is ultimately not good enough (misguided morality).
In the end, you can't push a paladin to fall. You have to convince him to make the leap himself.
|
|
IMO, a paladin will always look for a third option if somebody tries to put him in an "evil or evil" scenario. Compel him to execute an innocent man, and the paladin may very well use trickery to make it seem that man has died. In the case of the fugitive, the paladin might pray to his god for guidance, persuade the persecutor to accept third-party judgment, refuse the persecutor based on the laws of hospitality, or oversee a duel between persecutor and persecuted.
Of course that's out of the question... I said I exposed in a deliberately simplistic way. there could always be a no escape situation, especially if is time based... for example, if in the one I exposed the bad guys claim they will start to kill hostages "right now" there is no much time to devise a plan C.
but aside from that .. the post is more about what makes a paladin fall, which i feel remains misguided morality and deliberate betrayal of moral principles. Making a bad choice in a bad situation is not causing the paladin to fall.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin would be doing evil by killing an innocent.
The hostage takers are doing evil by killing the hostages.
Of the two options, which does not involve the paladin doing evil's work for it?
There's your choice. It is THEIR choice to kill the hostages, not his. It IS his choice to murder the innocent man.
==Aelryinth
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Runs through thread
I understand you point I just completely disagree with your first example. In my view the paladin would no way kill an innocent. Even to save others. He would sacrifice himself before doing such an evil thing.
The train dilemma is a good example of what Scarletrose means by a binary choice. If the only way to save a group of five persons is by redirecting the train on a byway with five other persons(Insert reasons why it's binary). If the Paladin decide to not touch the lever, he should not fall IMO. Looking for a third way is nice but sometimes no third way exists
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand you point I just completely disagree with your first example. In my view the paladin would no way kill an innocent. Even to save others. He would sacrifice himself before doing such an evil thing.The train dilemma is a good example of what Scarletrose means by a binary choice. If the only way to save a group of five persons is by redirecting the train on a byway with five other persons(Insert reasons why it's binary). If the Paladin decide to not touch the lever, he should not fall IMO. Looking for a third way is nice but sometimes no third way exists
But outside of hypothetical scenarios, there's no way to know that no third way exists. If the train scenario happened in the real life, even if there was no third way, I think most people would scramble about looking for a third way (such as screaming yourself hoarse, looking for a radio to tell the engineer to look out and sound the horn, etc.).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No-win scenarios frequently require too much arbitrary BS to produce them.
Runs through thread
Get back here! I wasn't able to find a billy club to replace the one that broke, but I've got this sword here! 1,901,885th time's the charm!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Step 1: Paladin kills the least amount of innocents possible.
Step 2: Paladin commits seppuku in disgrace.
Step 3: Player bashes the GM upside the head with CRB.
I believe I recall Champions of Balance stating something along the lines of "You don't get forced to another alignment if you had no reasonable alternate options to doing what you did."
The statement was in regards to a survivalist Neutral character being presented with the options of either doing an evil thing that would save them, or dying because they didn't do the evil thing. The evil action apparently doesn't count as evil if it's your only reasonable choice.
I'd say you could apply a similar ruling to a no-win paladin situation. If the paladin's only options are to do the evil thing, or do the other evil thing, and there is no reasonable third option, then I wouldn't punish the paladin for being stuck in such a situation.
...Of course a paladin might be expected to give his life a bit more readily than a neutral survivalist would be, but I wouldn't expect the paladin to have to give his life in a situation where doing so would mean nothing.
Back in 2nd ed my group, I played with a group that had been playing for a long time. We came across a woman who was very pregnant, with what could only have been the spawn of a demon. This would be very bad because if it was born on the material plane the demon spawn would just go somewhere else on the plane and cause trouble. The groups answer? Say a small prayer, and have the paladin kill the woman, hope she has a better life in the outer planes. Reasoning, for the greater good. We had a paladin of Tyr by the way. The paladin himself may have felt bad, but do you think his god would see that situation and see a better resolution? Maybe if we had the cash on hand for a resurrection we could have done that, but it was relatively early on and we had very little in the way of spare gp.
An evil spellcaster is holding a town for ransom, we know he's just going to slaughter everyone in town. He tells the paladin don't move or I will kill everyone. The first time innocent blood gets spilled the paladin can basically forfeit their lives and try to kill the minions and save as many people as he can or kill the spellcaster to cut off the chain of command and try to save as many lives as he can that way. Either way he is screwed so why not just barrel through the problem and kill it before it can bite you, and your god, in the bottom.
TL;DR - If there's no way out, the paladin will do whatever will affect the greater good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
King Lir looked down at me. He seemed as tall as a tree right then, and he patted my head very gently with his iron glove. He said, "Little one, I have a griffin to slay. It is my job."
Which was what I'd said myself, though it seemed like years ago, and that made it so much worse. I said a second time, "I changed my mind! Somebody else can fight the griffin, you don't have to! You go home! You go home now and live your life, and be the king, and everything.... " I was babbling and sniffling, and generally being a baby, I know that. I'm glad Wilfrid didn't see me.
King Lir kept petting me with one hand and trying to put me aside with the other, but I wouldn't let go. I think I was actually trying to pull his sword out of its sheath, to take it away from him. He said, "No, no, little one, you don't understand. There are some monsters that only a king can kill. I have always known that - I should never, never have sent those poor men to die in my place. No one else in all the land can do this for you and your village. Most truly now, it is my job." And he kissed my hand, the way he must have kissed the hands of so many queens. He kissed my hand too, just like theirs.
THAT is my go-to for a Paladin.
|
Let's say a man is being persecuted and a paladin gives him shelter.
Then the persecutor come to the paladin searching for the fugitive.
They threaten the paladin and make sure he knows that if they ever find out that he is sheltering the fugitive he will die.
The paladin then hands the fugitive to them.
Should the paladin fall?
maybe dying was the correct choice. Being an example of righteousness to inspire the world. Right and wrong do not care about making it to level 20 or that the paladin is a PC.
"We terrorists have a nuclear bomb and will use it to destroy a major city, killing millions, unless you, the president, murder a baby on live television in the next hour, which will also humiliate your nation and satisfy our bloodlust!"
There's broadly two kinds of morality - do the greatest good for the greatest number (save millions of lives by killing the baby) or following strict principles (never murder an innocent).
Lawful Good tends to mean the 'principled' style of morality.
But honestly, if the paladin is trying to do the right thing rather than acting selfishly, they shouldn't fall.
"We terrorists have a nuclear bomb and will use it to destroy a major city, killing millions, unless you, the president, murder a baby on live television in the next hour, which will also humiliate your nation and satisfy our bloodlust!"
There's broadly two kinds of morality - do the greatest good for the greatest number (save millions of lives by killing the baby) or following strict principles (never murder an innocent).
Lawful Good tends to mean the 'principled' style of morality.But honestly, if the paladin is trying to do the right thing rather than acting selfishly, they shouldn't fall.
In a situation like that, there's no reason to believe the terrorists would actually keep their promise to not nuke the city.
That's a very cynical attitude to take towards crazed genocidal maniac terrorists. Whatever happened to trust? Anyway, did I mention that these particular crazed terrorists are robots programmed to only ever be able to tell the truth?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is, the no-win scenario only exists in the mind of the GM. Many times he thinks he's being clever, but if he requires a level of understanding that the paladin (or the paladin's player) is prevented from having, then any attempt to feel justified in making the paladin fall will simply be the result of the GM just plain wanting it to happen.
What's the answer to the no-win scenario? Call the GM out on it.
THe first example could be a trouble but int he scond example (the fugitive) it is seems obvious to mee that the paladin falls, If he is so afraid to do what is right then he should be a farmer or soemthing and let other be a paladin.