Paladin question [trigger warning]

[Pinjata]

This is an adult thread, dealing with a moral question. It is such, because I want stakes and moral choice in this case to be presented as high as possible. No, murder would not do it. Violence toward children is much closer to us and represents the conundrum I have in mind more clearly as say, a murder.

If you are triggered by vilence toward minors, do not read further.

Here goes:
- PC is a paladin
- PC acquaints himself with an active paedophile
- Gains pedos' trust
- Pedo is willing to introduce PC Paladin to his Outer ring of child-abusing buddies
- Initiation consists of sexually abusing kids
- This initiation will enable PC Paladin to gain further info on others involved and bring them to justice

What should paladin do?

My take on this: The first time PC Paladin encounters hurt individuals (in this case kids), Paladin uses all of his abilities to capture as many of perpetrators as possible and liberates kids. He uses all of his skills to interrogate captured suspects and acts upon given kowledge. Paladin does not engage in an activity, that might lead to defeating greater evil, for the price of causing "lesser" evil. Such an action would make him fall immediately.


EDIT: This is not meant to be used in game in this form. But thread debate has achieved exactly what I wanted - has presented a high-stakes situation and has caused an exccelent debate on morality. Also, has confirmed my wievpoints upon paladin code.

[MeimuHakurei]

I can tell you with absolute certainty that I as a Paladin player would never be down to such an act. I'd rather investigate elsewhere in order to find what I want or use my Paladin toolkit to get the info. "The ends justify the means" is not an acceptable outlook for Lawful Good.

[hamishspence]

What should paladin do?

My take on this: The first time PC Paladin encounters hurt individuals (in this case kids), Paladin uses all of his abilities to capture as many of perpetrators as possible and liberates kids. He uses all of his skills to interrogate captured suspects and acts upon given kowledge. Paladin does not engage in an activity, that might lead to defeating greater evil, for the price of causing "lesser" evil. Such an action would make him fall immediately.


That's reasonably consistent with the rules as portrayed in BoED.

I'd treat it the same way whether it was a regular Paladin, a Paladin of Freedom, a Holy Liberator (PRC) or an Exalted character with any of the three Good alignments. Commit the evil act, even "for the greater good" and they lose relevant magical powers that they have.

[Mastikator]

I agree with your take Pinjata. If a paladin were to go along with the ritual (which is not a lesser evil) he should fall immediately.

The notion that the paladin ought to take down the ring all on his own is flawed, he should recruit help. Doing "whatever it takes" means you have to be creative, not evil.

[Mordaedil]

If I did encounter this in one of my home games, I'd stop the game to ask the DM what is wrong with him and that I never agreed to this style of gaming.

If I was dealing with it anyway on a hypothetical level, I'd go Batman on them and, as you said, liberate the children and destroy all the perpetrators early on, as even commiting a small evil to defeat a greater evil is an unacceptable outcome for a paladin. You instead aim for the longshot and try to do it even if it seems impossible to do regardless. Taking no risks for the sake of the best possible outcome is the least paladin like behavior. You use the captured/slain resources to get to the bigger evil, even if it shouldn't work.

To be a paladin, you have to dare. Dare to be stupid.

[Willie the Duck]

If I did encounter this in one of my home games, I'd stop the game to ask the DM what is wrong with him and that I never agreed to this style of gaming.

Agreed, this is quite directly the kind of stuff that people cite as the toxic behavior (amongst DMs) that over-obsession regarding the paladin-falling rules incentivizes. 'What do you do if you have no good options?' is a reasonable discussion for a PHIL 101 course, and 'what crimes should an undercover officer be willing to commit to maintain a cover (in the pursuit of justice)?' is certainly an important discussion in a Criminal Justice education. Debating those things on a rainy afternoon is not a ridiculous thing to do. However, effectively having that debate between player and DM, mid-game, where the DM can enforce negative consequences on the player's character for disagreeing with their interpretation is just grounds for hurt feelings.

Honestly, why people go out of their way to interpret what D&D paladinhood should be 'about' to mean 'no win situations,' I have no idea. They were intended to represent the more noble interpretations of chivalrous knights in (ex.) knights of the round table lore (with a solid touch of John Wayne's good guy soldier roles in war movies and the like), not be an outlet for DM sadism.

To the question posited -- By context, it sounds like people are using the D&D 3e (with supplements like BoED) interpretation of paladins. By those rules, no, the paladin can't commit one of the most heinous crimes we routinely see in the real world just to maintain a cover. That's committing an evil act, and they'll have to find another way to round up the entire crime network.

[False God]

I mean, yeah duh the paladin can't abuse children to catch a greater evil.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Wow did I get a flutter of panic reading the premise. Impressed we are nearly in double figures without Mod involvement or insults :smallbiggrin:.

I agree with your view, but with caveats derived from some basic assumptions about the world this happens in to say that these dilemma are never worth it.


The will exist other LG, LN, NG, CG (or even NN, CN or, depending, LE) authorities, such as Clerics, Judges etc who have the capacity to obtain the information the Paladin discards, meaning that this is in fact a false dilemma.
The Paladin probably lacks the skillset and abilities to truly get to the inner circle and bring them down, whereas a Bard or Rogue (who also do not have the Oath to worry about) would be able to do so and possibly even prevent further harm whilst doing so, so this is a false dilemma.
If there are no other people present and no one else who could be involved in this case then the Paladin is engaged in vigilante frontier justice without backup and would likely die if he was up against people with the resources to pull this off, saving no one, thus this is a false dilemma.
A Paladin powerful enough to solve this on their own is also powerful enough to be famous. Paladins don't join criminal gangs and criminal organisations don't admit known Paladins, thus this is a false dilemma.
In short, constructing these sort of dilemma in DnD is hard and, in my experience, never worth it. At best you slow the game before you get to the heroics, at worst you end up with a table of players screaming at each other.


The best example of this sort of dilema I ever did manage to run was actually a side issue the party came accross. It was in Exalted, not DnD, but it involved a trial that just so happened to be taking place. The PCs spent about 45 mins debating the merits (then the players spent another 15 clarifing IC/OCC opinions) and then just, moved on. The decision THEY had to deal with (whether to try and interfear or not as high-status citizens and one really good infiltrator/assassin) was as interesting and didn't put a single PC on the spot while giving them enough distance to avoid feeling uncomfortable.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Paladins aren't detectives in the first place.

[Segev]

If, for some reason, my Exalted Good (or at least Paladin LG) character absolutely had to be the one to infiltrate, or had to condone an infiltration, that went further than the "outer ring" to gain evidence, the solution enacted would be one of trickery and deception. The designated victim would be taken somewhere private for the supposed initiatory act, and said act would not occur, but evidence would be doctored to make it seem so.

Whether this involves a false corpse after a private time session where the real kid is sent off somewhere safe with my party and the fake is brought back into the room with the evil people to make some comment about "oops, sorry, I got over-excited," or it involves actively having my party ambush the witnesses and the Bard use memory modification or similar on each of them so they REMEMBER my character doing whatever is necessary, as a heroic Good character, the only ones allowed to suffer for my admittance are the people I have to fool. The designated victim(s) are to be rescued and have their unavailability for further :smallannoyed:"fun":smallfurious: explained away by trickery.

Honestly, as a super-Good person, it wouldn't even matter if the designated victim(s) were minors; Good people just can't bring themselves to do this kind of thing, let alone pretend to enjoy it while it's happening. If they can, it...stains them. It might not mar them from being Good, but it probably does, and atonement would be HARD.

Those victims need rescuing. Not victimization to rescue others, later.

[Themrys]

I would recommend to not do this in a game, unless you only play with friends you have known for years.

If I was playing a paladin and a GM confronted me with that sort of thing, I would probably just get up and leave. Thing is, lots of horribly bad GMs want to include sexual violence in their game. It is a red flag. I would obviously suspect that the GM intends to get an excuse to describe rape in loving detail, and I would run for the hills.

And I see no moral conondrum. That kind of evil is on a level with destroying someone's soul. It is out of the question for a regular person, even. A paladin would not even consider it.

The one paladin character I have played would (hypothetically, as I would most likely get up and leave) try and use his charisma on the pedophile to make him regret his rapes and tell the paladin about everyone else who is involved.

[Mordar]

Why isn't the answer to just knock the criminal on the head, throw him in a sack and present him to the proper authorities for interrogation? The right compulsions or spells will guarantee truthful responses and will generate a list of names. Repeat knock them on the head and throw them in a sack (or the more expedient "slain while resisting arrest" if the local law structure supports it). Repeat interrogation until ring is sundered. Radically different standard of "cruel and unusual punishment" and radically different standard of what is lawful or good.

Of course, this presupposes the paladin is something close to the normal view of a paladin, that the local law and morality structures support arrest and interrogation (and are working on the side of the paladin) and the situation isn't set up as a fall-trap.

Seriously, the availability of magic, rapidly-applied death penalties (or other versions of punishment that are viewed as far too harsh for modern sensibilities), and a tacit acceptance of fatal violence as a solution to most problems renders this kind of thing strictly academic. The abuser is a candidate for that stupid criminals show..."I admitted my crimes to a mortal instrument of law/justice in a world where my thoughts can be extracted and judged with or without my consent. Now I live in a sack!"

Much better dilemma in my mind: Person hasn't done anything wrong...yet. In the future they absolutely will do something willful and heinous. Through whatever means amenable to the person answering the question the character/paladin/whatever absolutely knows with complete faith this will happen. What should/can/must they do?

- M

[King of Nowhere]

The one paladin character I have played would (hypothetically, as I would most likely get up and leave) try and use his charisma on the pedophile to make him regret his rapes and tell the paladin about everyone else who is involved.

that's... actually a nice alternative take

I agree with the general sentiments expressed here (I have to stress on this before I go on), with a few caveats depending on what other choices the paladin has. namely, if refusing would likely result in the paladin killed, possibly endangering the children too in the ensuing battle, i would not call insta-fall on him for doing the abuse - in the gentlest possible way - and atone afterwards.
My rationale for it is that while child abuse is a heinous crime and likely to leave pshycological scars, if those children had been kept as slaves for a while then one more abuse is unlikely to make a difference. Never being rescued because the only guy who could rescue them decided to get himself killed, that is going to make a difference.
This also stems from my general belief that paladins, when confronted with a no-win situation, should not falll for taking what they perceive as the lesser evil. And also my belief that heroic sacrifices are all well and good, but paladins should try hard to stay alive if possible, because yoou're not helping anyone by getting yourself killed.

I again reiterate that this possibiity is strictly dependent on the paladin's likelyhood of victory in the ensuing fight shall he blow up his cover. if the paladin is reasonably certain that he can win the fight and rescue the children here and now, he should do it, because in this case it's not a no-win scenario, but a win or commit-evil-to-maybe-win-more scenario.

regarding the "the dm must be a pervert, i leave the table", it's not a given. I like to throw my players some difficult moral choices sometimes, and I like to face some difficult moral choices as a player. I'd keep rape, and especially child rape, out of it, though.
anyway, i would not leave the table unless the dm was actually describind or asking someone to describe the thing.
I don't consider bringing sex or rape a red flag, but dwelling on their description, that one is.

[Themrys]

that's... actually a nice alternative take


Thanks.
I believe in unique problem solving by means that fit the character. If you have charisma in spades and no experience in deception and trickery (the typical paladin wouldn't use those often), then the obvious solution is to try and convince the evildoer to stop being evil. After all, that's why we gained his trust instead of smiting him in the first place, right?


And I disagree very much with your proposed solution. If I had my paladin do something evil (which in this case, he wouldn't, for the simple reason that he couldn't bring himself to do it even if he thought it was the only solution), I would expect him to fall. I would be angry at the GM if my paladin did not fall for doing something so outrageously evil. I would of course expect to be asked if I am okay with my paladin falling at some point, but as I would only engage in such a plot if I was asked beforehand, that's pretty much a given.

As to your suggestion that it would not do further harm: Yes, it would. It would teach the child that there is one more adult who doesn't care and doesn't help. More importantly, it could be the one straw that causes the child to lose all belief in humanity and turn evil.

If the child later learns that it was a paladin who did this ...

No, absolutely no.

If surrounded by enemies and saving the child impossible, my paladin would kill the child swift and painlessly, and go down fighting. After all, in D&D, not only is an afterlife guaranteed to exist, people can be resurrected. (And this is the kind of situation where I would want my paladin to fall. Killing innocents is evil, and my paladin would consider it evil, and expect to fall. And I as player would expect to get a neat redemption story arc out of it. )

[Alabenson]

If presented with this scenario, most of my characters (not just paladins) would react thusly;

*Reach the Outer Circle
*Commence smiting
*Apply Speak with Dead to locate the next level of the group
*Repeat as necessary

[Merellis]

If presented with this scenario, most of my characters (not just paladins) would react thusly;

*Reach the Outer Circle
*Commence smiting
*Apply Speak with Dead to locate the next level of the group
*Repeat as necessary

The only thing I'd add here is to bring the party along for the second part

COMMENCE SMITING WITH FRIENDS

[Mike_G]

I agree with the general sentiments expressed here (I have to stress on this before I go on), with a few caveats depending on what other choices the paladin has. namely, if refusing would likely result in the paladin killed, possibly endangering the children too in the ensuing battle, i would not call insta-fall on him for doing the abuse - in the gentlest possible way - and atone afterwards.

My rationale for it is that while child abuse is a heinous crime and likely to leave pshycological scars, if those children had been kept as slaves for a while then one more abuse is unlikely to make a difference. Never being rescued because the only guy who could rescue them decided to get himself killed, that is going to make a difference.

This also stems from my general belief that paladins, when confronted with a no-win situation, should not falll for taking what they perceive as the lesser evil. And also my belief that heroic sacrifices are all well and good, but paladins should try hard to stay alive if possible, because yoou're not helping anyone by getting yourself killed.


I'm going to present a counter-arguement to this.

I (IRL) am not, by any means Paladin worthy. I try to be good, within reasonable limits. But after many years of hard choices, my morals have eroded to "Help when you can, don't steal anything unless you really need it and can't afford it, and don't hurt anybody more than they deserve."

But, if I, CN leaning Good-ish Paramedic, were presented with the choice of abusing a child or dying fighting...

I'mma die fighting. Spill as much sumbag pedo blood as possible and die with my conscience clean and my blade red.

And if a Paladin can't get over the low low bar that I can handle...well... I'm not real impressed.

There are some lines you can't cross. Not if you want to bring your soul with you.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'mma die fighting. Spill as much sumbag pedo blood as possible and die with my conscience clean and my blade red.

And if a Paladin can't get over the low low bar that I can handle...well... I'm not real impressed.

There are some lines you can't cross. Not if you want to bring your soul with you.


That was pretty much going to be my response to this thread.

[Anymage]

How is this anything other than a particularly vile trolley problem? Do something horrible to one person, now and in person, to prevent other people from doing equally horrible to ten other people.

First, like many other people here, I reject the idea that the only person capable of gathering intel happens to be a paladin. Especially in a magical world. There are other ways to gain info, and other characters better equipped to get it.

Second and third, again like many other posters here, I get a sketchy feeling when a DM thinks that a paladin character means an excuse to trot out trolley problems and similar no-win situations. And internal klaxxons start to go off when someone at the table decides to indulge in casual grotesqueness.

[Max_Killjoy]

How is this anything other than a particularly vile trolley problem? Do something horrible to one person, now and in person, to prevent other people from doing equally horrible to ten other people.

First, like many other people here, I reject the idea that the only person capable of gathering intel happens to be a paladin. Especially in a magical world. There are other ways to gain info, and other characters better equipped to get it.

Second and third, again like many other posters here, I get a sketchy feeling when a DM thinks that a paladin character means an excuse to trot out trolley problems and similar no-win situations. And internal klaxxons start to go off when someone at the table decides to indulge in casual grotesqueness.

That works too.

[Evil DM Mark3]

How is this anything other than a particularly vile trolley problem?

You've manages to crystalise in my mind something that has been in there for a while. I hereby amend my response to this thread thus:

"I have done the Trolley Problem, Prisoners Dilemma, Knights and Knaves and Monty Hall Problem so often in my RPGs they no longer interest me."

[King of Nowhere]

I'm going to present a counter-arguement to this.

I (IRL) am not, by any means Paladin worthy. I try to be good, within reasonable limits. But after many years of hard choices, my morals have eroded to "Help when you can, don't steal anything unless you really need it and can't afford it, and don't hurt anybody more than they deserve."


I, on the other hand, have seen too many bad things happen because somebody wasn't willing to compromise on their principles, so my morality took a more consequentialistic stance.


You've manages to crystalise in my mind something that has been in there for a while. I hereby amend my response to this thread thus:

"I have done the Trolley Problem, Prisoners Dilemma, Knights and Knaves and Monty Hall Problem so often in my RPGs they no longer interest me."

I agree that trolley problems aren't interesting because they are designed to have no good solution and feel like they are made to screw you up; perhaps more important, they feel artificial and pointless. A good morality problem is not constructed, but it stems naturally from the campaign and its many possible resolutions should all feel more satisfying than bad.
The last such problem I threw at my player was whether to accept the alliance of a major crime lord agaiinst the bigger bad, together his promise to cut down on misdeeds, in exchange for not fighting him after the major villain was defeated and long-term cooperation.
Accepting would result in something similar to ank morpork, with a powerful criminal guild that would be allowed a certain amount of misdeeds, but would actually reduce crime overall - and it would give a powerful ally to the players.
refusing would result in a long and costly struggle, but it would eventually lead to the eradication of a powerful criminal organization.
both solutions should leave the players feeling that they have done some good, and I made clear that there wasn't a "right" or "wrong" choice, it was just up to them the direction they wanted to go.

Which makes me think, there is also another possibility nobody suggested: maybe the DM didn't want to throw a sadistic choice at the player, nor did he want to roleplay some rape. Perhaps he simply wanted the players to stop with the whole investigation thing and get down to smacking after all, and he threw them a morally inacceptable choice just to force their hands towards fighting.
In that case, it would of course be clear that the paladin can win the ensuing fight.

[Willie the Duck]

Which makes me think, there is also another possibility nobody suggested: maybe the DM didn't want to throw a sadistic choice at the player, nor did he want to roleplay some rape. Perhaps he simply wanted the players to stop with the whole investigation thing and get down to smacking after all, and he threw them a morally inacceptable choice just to force their hands towards fighting.
In that case, it would of course be clear that the paladin can win the ensuing fight.

How is that not the "I'mma die fighting. Spill as much sumbag pedo blood as possible and die with my conscience clean and my blade red." suggestion Mike_G made? OP asked what the paladin would do, Mike_G answered with get down to smacking.

[Mike_G]

I, on the other hand, have seen too many bad things happen because somebody wasn't willing to compromise on their principles, so my morality took a more consequentialistic stance.


You can make this kind of argument for a lot of people, but the Paladin is all about holding that line. That's why the fall mechanic exists.




Which makes me think, there is also another possibility nobody suggested: maybe the DM didn't want to throw a sadistic choice at the player, nor did he want to roleplay some rape. Perhaps he simply wanted the players to stop with the whole investigation thing and get down to smacking after all, and he threw them a morally inacceptable choice just to force their hands towards fighting.
In that case, it would of course be clear that the paladin can win the ensuing fight.

There's no need to be clear that the Paladin can win. This is epic fantasy. Paladins should be ready to die a hero's death.

If there's no chance he'll lose, what's the point? How is he heroic?

And if child rape isn't over the line, what the hell is the line for?

[Themrys]

Which makes me think, there is also another possibility nobody suggested: maybe the DM didn't want to throw a sadistic choice at the player, nor did he want to roleplay some rape. Perhaps he simply wanted the players to stop with the whole investigation thing and get down to smacking after all, and he threw them a morally inacceptable choice just to force their hands towards fighting.
In that case, it would of course be clear that the paladin can win the ensuing fight.

There are plenty unacceptable choices (for example the popular trolley problem) where you don't have to bring child rape into it. Unless the party consists of pacifists, having the enemy attack first would be enough to end negotiations and start the fighting.

So, sorry, but if a GM mentions child rape, unless this is explicitly in the setting and everyone agreed to play it (The Dark Eye has an archdemon that's all about rape, I would totally expect child rape in a quest to fight cultists of that demon), I would get rather wary.
I have played a quest that was about fighting rapey cultists, and was okay with it at the time, but that was a female GM using a premade adventure and the rapeyness was only implied. I have since met male GMs who created their own adventures specifically to force everyone to witness their misogyny (ok, that was only one dude, and I rather hope he knows he's meant if he reads this), and my tolerance for anything that just even slightly smells of ulterior motives is a red flag.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Discussions of child sexual abuse, even in a fictional setting, are not appropriate for this Forum.