Paladins, Dogma, and Moral Dillema.

[AMFV]

I know what we need right now is more discussion of the code of conduct for Paladins. But the previous thread, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...stion-is-asked) has inspired me. Basically one of the things that I took out of that thread is that there might be multiple answers to any particular moral dilemma. Naturally since Paladins are lawful one would assume that each order would likely have thought about or at the very least considered these sort of dilemmas.

Basically what I'd like to do, and since this is mildly work intensive, I hope people will be interested is explore how those different orders might react, sort of putting ourselves into the seat of a particular subset of Paladins under a particular deity. Anyways without further ado, here are my moral dillema:

If you come across two wounded people on the side of the road, and they are both mortally wounded, how do you determine who you should save? If one of them is a member of your family should this affect your decision? If one of them is a noble would this affect your decision? Are there any other factors that would affect your decision?

For the second moral dilemma:

Suppose you are traveling on a quest to stop a mighty demon from overthrowing the kingdom (I know we're short on specifics here, but it is deliberately vague to make the scenario appropriate for all level ranges), you are stopped by a peasant who is clearly starving, supposing you have no magical means to feed him or yourself, he asks you for food, but this could prevent you from being able to reach the demon in time, do you feed him? What if it's a child? What factors might affect this decision?

And a third!

For the third dilemma, let us suppose, that we have a prisoner who has been captured, you suspect that he has committed severe crimes (significant enough to require that he be punished by execution). In fact he himself admits as such. But you are not able to take him to be tried at this time, what should you do?

It is important to note that many of these problems would be solvable using a very minor application of magic. However that's not really in the spirit of this particular challenge. Mostly I'm looking for both the normal religions and the odd ones, for example a Paladin of Tyr is likely to have a different moral outlook than a Paladin of Wee Jas might. And I'm very interested to see how that would play out in theory.

Edit: Forgot to add that there is no setting limitations here. However I'm not as familiar with the Pathfinder CoC so I can't speak to it, but I'd be interested in hearing how those folks would respond.

[FidgetySquirrel]

As to the second dilemma, you might want to add that you can't just 'chuck a ration at 'em.'

[JusticeZero]

1: Save both of them. The skill check is not limited by time. That said, if you go to one and stabilize them, and the other one dies as you do, you are without fault. Heal the one who is closer.

2: If you have no food, you cannot feed them. If you have trail rations, give them a bit. One sandwich won't make a significant difference to you. You can seek them out once the demon is defeated.

3: How did you come to have the prisoner? That matters a lot here. If they were the session BBEG, why are you taking prisoners you can't bring back?

Most situations aren't actually confining enough to make a dilemma a dilemma. When they come up, it's usually a contrived trap.

[Vizzerdrix]

If you come across two wounded people on the side of the road, and they are both mortally wounded, how do you determine who you should save? If one of them is a member of your family should this affect your decision? If one of them is a noble would this affect your decision? Are there any other factors that would affect your decision?

They are both murderers. Smite them.

Suppose you are traveling on a quest to stop a mighty demon from overthrowing the kingdom (I know we're short on specifics here, but it is deliberately vague to make the scenario appropriate for all level ranges), you are stopped by a peasant who is clearly starving, supposing you have no magical means to feed him or yourself, he asks you for food, but this could prevent you from being able to reach the demon in time, do you feed him? What if it's a child? What factors might affect this decision?

He is attempting to delay you from stopping the demon. Smite him.

For the third dilemma, let us suppose, that we have a prisoner who has been captured, you suspect that he has committed severe crimes (significant enough to require that he be punished by execution). In fact he himself admits as such. But you are not able to take him to be tried at this time, what should you do?

Paladin =/= police. Letting such a person live is equivalent to committing his future crimes yourself. Smite him.

[Coidzor]

If you come across two wounded people on the side of the road, and they are both mortally wounded, how do you determine who you should save? If one of them is a member of your family should this affect your decision? If one of them is a noble would this affect your decision? Are there any other factors that would affect your decision?

What *is* Mortally Wounded in d20, when you get right down to it?

[FidgetySquirrel]

What *is* Mortally Wounded in d20, when you get right down to it?

Mechanically, the closest thing I can think of is undead, so I guess what Vizzerdrix said makes a lot more sense than I initially thought.

[Phelix-Mu]

Part of being good is that you can't ignore the small evil in preference of dealing with the big one. While a given order may modify this (like maybe the god of smiting demons for scenario 2), that would be about law, in my mind. All evil must be avoided whenever possible; if you leave the man on the side of the road to starve to save the city from the demon, maybe the man dies and becomes a ghost who slaughters thousands. You can't see the future, but any evil that you are confronted with, you must deal with in the best way that you can.

Is there a solution to do both? Can you feed the man and save the kingdom? Then that is what you should do. Be creative and exceed your limits; those are both strong suits of being good, and paladins should be the epitome of spitting in the face of impossible situations and achieving virtue in the face of doom.

There are definitely multiple ways to solve any situation. In fact, the idea of "choose A or B" is a very seductively evil way to look at things. And thus evil often uses the False Choice as a method of corrupting mortals, making them think that evil option A is acceptable because it is less evil than option B. The truth is that reality is almost never binary; thinking that way pre-judges reality, placing the paladin in a position of thinking "I understand the situation perfectly" (very unlikely) and sets up a dichotomy that, as often as not, will result in the paladin not operating at his most virtuous.

And, as in all of this, a paladin can be in situations where badness happens, by omission or commission, and should be saddened and seek atonement/spiritual guidance about how to act better in the future. Good people should try not to fall, but, much more important than never falling, is always getting back up, the wiser for one's failures. (Fall here in the gravity sense, not the paladin sense.)

[AMFV]

What *is* Mortally Wounded in d20, when you get right down to it?

Well let's say for the purposes of this exercise, they can be at -9 and both are going to fail their fortitude saves next round (now you'd have no way of knowing this, but we can assume that since this is an in-universe hypothetical that would work), and you only have sufficient movement to reach one of them rather than both.

[AMFV]

1: Save both of them. The skill check is not limited by time. That said, if you go to one and stabilize them, and the other one dies as you do, you are without fault. Heal the one who is closer.

They are both of equal distance, and you can only reach one, the question is how does a Paladin notionally decide which one.

2: If you have no food, you cannot feed them. If you have trail rations, give them a bit. One sandwich won't make a significant difference to you. You can seek them out once the demon is defeated.

Well let's say it does, you're tight on food, as well, and you have just enough for you, but not enough if you give them food.

3: How did you come to have the prisoner? That matters a lot here. If they were the session BBEG, why are you taking prisoners you can't bring back?

Because he surrendered, to your lawful authority. He surrenders, now the question how does one deal with evil.

Part of being good is that you can't ignore the small evil in preference of dealing with the big one. While a given order may modify this (like maybe the god of smiting demons for scenario 2), that would be about law, in my mind. All evil must be avoided whenever possible; if you leave the man on the side of the road to starve to save the city from the demon, maybe the man dies and becomes a ghost who slaughters thousands. You can't see the future, but any evil that you are confronted with, you must deal with in the best way that you can.

Is there a solution to do both? Can you feed the man and save the kingdom? Then that is what you should do. Be creative and exceed your limits; those are both strong suits of being good, and paladins should be the epitome of spitting in the face of impossible situations and achieving virtue in the face of doom.

There are definitely multiple ways to solve any situation. In fact, the idea of "choose A or B" is a very seductively evil way to look at things. And thus evil often uses the False Choice as a method of corrupting mortals, making them think that evil option A is acceptable because it is less evil than option B. The truth is that reality is almost never binary; thinking that way pre-judges reality, placing the paladin in a position of thinking "I understand the situation perfectly" (very unlikely) and sets up a dichotomy that, as often as not, will result in the paladin not operating at his most virtuous.

And, as in all of this, a paladin can be in situations where badness happens, by omission or commission, and should be saddened and seek atonement/spiritual guidance about how to act better in the future. Good people should try not to fall, but, much more important than never falling, is always getting back up, the wiser for one's failures. (Fall here in the gravity sense, not the paladin sense.)

Well here what we are looking for is how a paladin order would have dogmatized it. They are certainly lawful and therefore would each likely have more guidance than the Paladin's CoC.

Here I will provide an example of what I'm kind of looking for, provided as a Paladin of we'll say Ilmater (I know he's easy but it's at least a better situation)

In the first, the Paladin of Ilmater attempts to save whoever is most likely to survive, since this is clear, however if he can't do that he'd choose to save somebody that is more innocent, since Ilmater values innocence. He would be less likely to save somebody close to him because of the importance he places on personal sacrifice.

In the second, a Paladin of Ilmater would absolutely give the rations to the begger, even if he would starve to death himself, that sort of sacrifice is something that Ilmater values highly, and is in the highest ideal for his orders. Even if there was a greater evil a Paladin of Ilmater would likely take the higher sacrifice and try to push through.

In the last scenario, a Paladin of Ilmater would likely not execute somebody, because they themselves do not hold that sort of authority, and they don't believe in that particular sort of subversion of authority. They would likely attempt to leave him for the authorities.

And yes I know that there are many ways around these, these are supposed to be in-universe hypotheticals as proposed by an Order of Paladins to determine Dogma, so the clever way around isn't really in the spirit of it (although that can be fun too)

Edit: And furthermore there are scenarios where you have only a limited number of options. The two people dying and you have only time to help one is one that I've met people who have encountered in the real world. It happens and to imply that they could have found a "way around" is a little bit ridiculous. If you run into a starving child and you have only enough food for you, you can give him food or not, but you can't magic more of that into existence. Which is explicitly why I limited the hypotheticals as I did.

Edit 2: Also I forgot to mention that there Ilmater also values mercy more highly perhaps than some patrons and would likely be more inclined to encourage his orders to be merciful rather than vengeful.

[JHShadon]

They are both of equal distance, and you can only reach one, the question is how does a Paladin notionally decide which one.

If the situation is as dire as you said, there's no time to decide, just go to the one your instincts tell you to.

[AMFV]

If the situation is as dire as you said, there's no time to decide, just go to the one your instincts tell you to.

There would certainly be Paladin orders that would encourage that. But I doubt all of them would. For example with Corellon Latharian you might find that encouraged, or with Sune. But it is unlikely that Helm wouldn't have some complex set of procedures, or that Wee Jas wouldn't. The question here isn't what would somebody do in that scenario, but what would their order expect them to do.

[AuraTwilight]

If you run into a starving child and you have only enough food for you, you can give him food or not, but you can't magic more of that into existence.

Yes you can. It's in the PHB.

[AMFV]

Yes you can. It's in the PHB.

Well you don't have that spell prepared, or you're in a wild magic zone where it could be unpredictable and have much worse results than the food. Or you're a Paladin with a wisdom of 8... There are numerous reasons why that may be unavailable to you.

[Gildedragon]

1) both at -9 and about to fail a save? Heal any one of them, bury the other. Nobility, race, age, sex all have nothing to do with the choice. If having trouble picking pick the one on your non dominant side, the fist one that catches your eye, or has a good omen over them.
2) retain them as help, share rations for a few days until you and them can craft a hunting lure with which they can get a 10 in survival.
3) try and redeem them. Otherwise, seeing how both you and them agree on the guilt and severity of the crimes, an execution. Clean and single blow. Ideally while they sleep, having forewarned them you'll have to execute them for their crimes.

[jedipotter]

This depends on if you think there is a Cosmic Good or not. I don't. I see Good as a big tent sort of thing, so there is no ''one'' answer.


1.A true good person would ''try'' and save both. If they can't, they would ''triage'' and save the one more likely to live a long life. They would sure save a good person over a neutral or bad person. They should save a ''more importiant'' person, then a common nobody.....even more so if this would be importiant in worldly matters. They would save Ambassaidor Jones before Farmer Fred. I'd say they could save the family member for anyone less then like the high cleric/king.

2.The paladin can ignore the commoners. The paladin is a warrior of good, not a preistly missionary. The paladin does not have arms, armor and all manner of combat abilities so he can feed the poor. The demon is far more importaint then one or two lives, even more so if the demon would kill dozens or more. And if your a paladian that feels he must feed the poor at all times....you'd better carry lots of extra food at all times.

3.Paladin's are judge, jury and enforcer if needed. They can take justice into thier own hands and take care of the prissoner. They are a lot like Marshals in the old west.

[JusticeZero]

Two people at -9? Whoever is closest. Don't waste time pondering.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Brings up the difference in orders. Does one Pally swing more Law than Good and another more Good than Law? Remember, Paladins don't necessarily follow a Deity. They follow an Ideal.

First dilemma I say Pally attempts to heal both. Does whatever he can and if one dies it's not on his head.

For the second question one could argue that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Although that Pally better return after and check on the beggar. If that beggar does die and returns as a ghost and goes on a spooky murderous rampage, the Pally better deal with it.

Third scenario is easy. Bind the captive and take him with. Pally WILL be required to provide for the prisoner until he can bring him to the proper authorities. Or just Detect Evil. If he pings then get yo' smite on!

[Gildedragon]

There would certainly be Paladin orders that would encourage that. But I doubt all of them would. For example with Corellon Latharian you might find that encouraged, or with Sune. But it is unlikely that Helm wouldn't have some complex set of procedures, or that Wee Jas wouldn't. The question here isn't what would somebody do in that scenario, but what would their order expect them to do.

Wee jas probaby has rules regarding proper care taking of bodies, officiating of weddings (she is the core deity of love), as to triage: well that seems more like a Pelor thing.

[AMFV]

1) both at -9 and about to fail a save? Heal any one of them, bury the other. Nobility, race, age, sex all have nothing to do with the choice. If having trouble picking pick the one on your non dominant side, the fist one that catches your eye, or has a good omen over them.
2) retain them as help, share rations for a few days until you and them can craft a hunting lure with which they can get a 10 in survival.
3) try and redeem them. Otherwise, seeing how both you and them agree on the guilt and severity of the crimes, an execution. Clean and single blow. Ideally while they sleep, having forewarned them you'll have to execute them for their crimes.

Well the thing is that different orders would have different viewpoints on those things... Those are all valid options (as far as falling goes) but not necessarily as far as your order goes. This isn't a would you fall? exercise, this is a what dogma would exist exercise.

For example in 1, Nobanion would be inclined to encourage his order members to act to save the nobility, since nobles are of greater societal value, the Red Knight might as well. The same with Horus-Re. Heironious values Chivalry and so might his encourage his orders to save damsels over gentlemen. Not all orders have the same viewpoints, that's what I'm trying to look at. So yes, all good answers, but not all good answers for all orders.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Well the thing is that different orders would have different viewpoints on those things... Those are all valid options (as far as falling goes) but not necessarily as far as your order goes. This isn't a would you fall? exercise, this is a what dogma would exist exercise.

For example in 1, Nobanion would be inclined to encourage his order members to act to save the nobility, since nobles are of greater societal value, the Red Knight might as well. The same with Horus-Re. Heironious values Chivalry and so might his encourage his orders to save damsels over gentlemen. Not all orders have the same viewpoints, that's what I'm trying to look at. So yes, all good answers, but not all good answers for all orders.

I think you're shooting for individual answers in things that are case by case scenarios. If you're that worried about it then I suggest writing up a CoC for Paladins you play and asking the same for anyone playing one in a game you run.

Like I said, two people of LG alignment might hold different values while still maintaining LG status.

[AMFV]

I think you're shooting for individual answers in things that are case by case scenarios. If you're that worried about it then I suggest writing up a CoC for Paladins you play and asking the same for anyone playing one in a game you run.

Like I said, two people of LG alignment might hold different values while still maintaining LG status.

I'm shooting for that, yes, as I said I'm shooting for the position of various orders. Because they would likely have thought about and codified the answers. I'm not looking for the right answers. I'm looking for the right answers as a Paladin of Heironious, or as a Paladin of Wee Jas, or as an Illmaterite Paladin. And any others people want to include.

[Gildedragon]

Is then a paladin more beholden to Good and Law as transdivine forces or to their Order?
Problem with saying that due to class sex or race (without any other considerations) a life is more important than another... Well it is a clear path to Evil from there (start by saving the noble/woman/elf that is 100' away before saving the commoner/man/orc right next to one).
If an order has a code that says save X type of individuals before Y type, how far can it bend before a paladin is sacrificing Good or Law to obey their Patron, and is a Patron that would ask that of a paladin Patron that a paladin would serve?
My take is that a deity that would have paladin of orders cannot have Laws that contravene Good. Corellon Larethian's paladins' code ought not allow them to kill a surrendering non-combatant Drow just because of drow-ness, although LG clerics of him could be reasonably expected to off the spider worshiper.
This, naturally, can create tension between paladin and cleric orders of the same deity, as their expected conducts are different.

[AMFV]

Is then a paladin more beholden to Good and Law as transdivine forces or to their Order?
Problem with saying that due to class sex or race (without any other considerations) a life is more important than another... Well it is a clear path to Evil from there (start by saving the noble/woman/elf that is 100' away before saving the commoner/man/orc right next to one).
If an order has a code that says save X type of individuals before Y type, how far can it bend before a paladin is sacrificing Good or Law to obey their Patron, and is a Patron that would ask that of a paladin Patron that a paladin would serve?
My take is that a deity that would have paladin of orders cannot have Laws that contravene Good. Corellon Larethian's paladins' code ought not allow them to kill a surrendering non-combatant Drow just because of drow-ness, although LG clerics of him could be reasonably expected to off the spider worshiper.
This, naturally, can create tension between paladin and cleric orders of the same deity, as their expected conducts are different.

Well in this case, the point is that there is no distinction in terms of good, these are not falling offenses, and therefore the authority would likely be in the hands of the Order or the Paladin himself. Also you can't have an LG Cleric of Corellon Larethian, so they wouldn't have the issue of law against their particular order. Furthermore Correlon doesn't advocate the wholesale slaughter of Drow, he just hates them.

So the question is what reasonable guidance would those sort of lawful orders have, I mean we aren't bending anywhere near breaking the CoC here, so there would likely be guidance from such a lawful order regarding which thing to choose.

Edit: In essence if one had a Phylactery of Faithfullness what would it indicate for various deities in that scenario...

[Gildedragon]

I would figure orders have to do with resolving conflicts between Good and Law (like: no attacking a lawmaker/ruler/higher ranking individual regardless of alignment, or having no obligation to obey unjust and evil laws, or what is allowed in resisting evil laws (yes to disobeying by inaction but no to deliberately doing the opposite)) and what (and how) neutral actions are to be read as good or lawful (rules about proper food preparation, norms for sex/love, prohibitions on use of certain materials/spells)

[AMFV]

I would figure orders have to do with resolving conflicts between Good and Law (like: no attacking a lawmaker/ruler/higher ranking individual regardless of alignment, or having no obligation to obey unjust and evil laws, or what is allowed in resisting evil laws (yes to disobeying by inaction but no to deliberately doing the opposite)) and what (and how) neutral actions are to be read as good or lawful (rules about proper food preparation, norms for sex/love, prohibitions on use of certain materials/spells)

Yes, but they would clearly have guidance about this sort of thing. Since this is not an unheard of dilemma, and certainly those others things as well. I'm just interested in explicitly exploring what those guidelines might be for a specific order.

[Coidzor]

There would certainly be Paladin orders that would encourage that. But I doubt all of them would. For example with Corellon Latharian you might find that encouraged, or with Sune. But it is unlikely that Helm wouldn't have some complex set of procedures, or that Wee Jas wouldn't. The question here isn't what would somebody do in that scenario, but what would their order expect them to do.

However complex they'd be, they'd have to be able to be boiled down into quite recall and adjudication on the spur of the moment, too.

[Gildedragon]

I understand. And the other two cases have a lot of merit in sussing out order differences.
However in the first there is a nasty issue: a paladin order that says certain sorts of people are more valuable than others is extremely open to corruption; to small evils being allowed to befall the less worthy to protect the worthy. Those paladins soon cease to be paladins of honor but tyranny.
How many commoners does it take to match up to a noble's life? How great must the difference of need be?
Paladins can't function as agents of Good and Law in a system that tells them it's okay to kill an innocent kobold for the sake of an innocent gnome.

In cases such as 1 the paladin should make their choice personally, have no backup of Law to protect them from or justify their prejudices and expectations.

A Patron that says to paladins "certain evils are okay in the pursuit of my agenda" is not a deity that can have full-hearted paladins. (Note that this is my problem with Vow of Obedience)

[AMFV]

However complex they'd be, they'd have to be able to be boiled down into quite recall and adjudication on the spur of the moment, too.

Well this is more a setting thought experiment than anything else, I'm profoundly interested in what those differences would wind up being. I'm mostly interested in exploring the deeper parts of being a Paladin, especially as there had been some really good insights in the previous thread, so I'm interested to see what people would come up with.

I understand. And the other two cases have a lot of merit in sussing out order differences.
However in the first there is a nasty issue: a paladin order that says certain sorts of people are more valuable than others is extremely open to corruption; to small evils being allowed to befall the less worthy to protect the worthy. Those paladins soon cease to be paladins of honor but tyranny.
How many commoners does it take to match up to a noble's life? How great must the difference of need be?
Paladins can't function as agents of Good and Law in a system that tells them it's okay to kill an innocent kobold for the sake of an innocent gnome.

In cases such as 1 the paladin should make their choice personally, have no backup of Law to protect them from or justify their prejudices and expectations.

A Patron that says to paladins "certain evils are okay in the pursuit of my agenda" is not a deity that can have full-hearted paladins. (Note that this is my problem with Vow of Obedience)

But people are not equally valuable... Not to all orders or all peoples. And inequality is NOT Evil in D&D, in fact many lawful societies have inequality. This is a modern values issue. In this case there clearly is a need to choose who to save. Furthermore the only scenario where the Paladin is (potentially) "killing" anyone is the last one, in the other two, he's determining if he can save them, which is something where one's God's preferences might come into play. Yes killing somebody to save somebody you like is probably not that great, but choosing to save somebody because you only have time to save one, are you telling me that choosing to save somebody that is important to me or to my philosophy is morally wrong?

Paladins belong to dogmatic orders (generally) as such, and as they are lawful, they should follow their orders unless there is direct conflict with their consciousness as there is no question of good here (since saving one person is roughly as good as another), there is then a question of law or what other motivations might be used. "I used my gut" is not going to cut it at all Paladin orders, because they don't all value gut instinct, many of them, particularly the rules heavy ones value the rules.

For example we could have an order that advocates saving family, like Moradin might, Dwarves place a huge importance on family, and if there is a choice then that's what must be made, and there should be no shame in that, because the Paladin is not murdering anybody, he's acting to make a difficult choice in a bad situation.

Lastly, Wee Jas (who has evil tendencies) can have Paladins, Helm (LN not LG) can have Paladins, Kelemvor (who maintains the wall, and yes I know there is logic behind it, but as far as I'm concerned it's stupid logic) can have Paladins. A God can be not good and have Paladins, and their Paladins might behave in a different manner in how they mete out justice and good, and that is important. They don't ask their Paladins to do evil, but they might ask them to do good differently than another Paladin might, or with more difference to law, or with specific agendas, there's a lot of different agendas where there is room for good.

[Blackhawk748]

Ok im gonna go with how my Pally of Wee Jaas would deal with these (i played him a LONG time ago so i dont remember his specific CoC)

1. Hes gonna go with his gut, if ones a child hes probably gonna heal them first otherwise it will be whoever he noticed first.

2. (im gonna change it to Lich for this) He'd give some rations to the guy and then point him towards town and tell him to tell the priest that the pally sent him and that he is to be given a job. He'll deal with the lack of food by either having the Druid/Ceric (depends whose in the party) or the Ranger loan him some food.

3. He probably would have gotten a warrant for the guy before, so hed probably be licensed to kill him, but if not i would just have to deal with him until i could get to the proper authorities.

Wee Jaas Pallies lean more Law than Good.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Remember: Paladins don't follow a Deity. They follow an Ideal. They CAN, if they choose to, follow a Deity; but are in no way compelled to. They follow whomever matches their Ideals best.