Can a Paladin kill an innocent to save lives if...?

[Necroticplague]

On the whole, I would say that no, the paladin shouldn't fall as long as they really do believe they're doing the right thing. Because no matter what happens, the choice to kill an innocent to save others or accomplish some goal is a horrific one that will torture any good person, possibly for their whole life. And I would really rather the character (and by extension the player) had to grapple with their conscience and regret on their own, instead of the GM basically declaring the choice right or wrong by declaring that the paladin falls from grace or doesn't.

Why should the potentially delusional beliefs of some mortal have any impact on codes that lie above divine ones? The entire point of how paladins and Exalted characters can exist is because there is a right and wrong answer. Morality and Alignment at best line up by coincidence, so I don't see why the vagaries of the former should have impact on absoluteness of the latter. Doing the right thing at the cost of your soul's purity can be a perfectly moral action, and one some might be willing to take, but that doesn't stop it from being Evil. The fact the alignments were named as such is a rather unfortunate artifact.

[GrayDeath]

Of course they can.

A Paladin has no monopoly on Martyrdom.Rather the contrary in my opinion, he would be very proud of the other person making the Good Choice and help him however he can (but ideally later help his dependants, if any, and/or try and ressurect them, after all, they are cleary Good people and will do more Good ^^).

[2D8HP]

My answer would be „I stop imagining being in such a ridiculous situation”.
Or possibly „I jump off the trolley*”, if I have answer within the scenario.

*„and hunt down whoever put me there in the first place.”

Seems absolutely legitimate to me!

if someone wants to do the hero and sacrifice himself, can the paladin assist him?

Well, I'd say that's it's up to the self-sacrificer (and the hero being "done") if they welcome a third and "assistance".

Personally I'd probably close the door and leave the couple some privacy, maybe put some "mood music" on, and set a table for their rest and recovery at most if I was feeling altruistic, but I'm no Paladin and may insist that the couple launder the sheets if it's my house.

[King of Nowhere]

If you are the innocent, and sacrificing yourself will save lives, BoED encourages you, strongly, to do so. So it's possible for it not to be covered by "For violence to be acceptable, it must primarily be directed at the Evil" principle.

wait. If you are a paladin and sacrifice yourself for the greater good, then you have killed an innocent (yourself).
And therefore you are evil and you must fall!
then again, if you fall when you commit to self-sacrifice, then the person who actually dies is an ex-paladin scum who's probably about to become a blakguard, so it's all right if he dies

Why should the potentially delusional beliefs of some mortal have any impact on codes that lie above divine ones? The entire point of how paladins and Exalted characters can exist is because there is a right and wrong answer. Morality and Alignment at best line up by coincidence, so I don't see why the vagaries of the former should have impact on absoluteness of the latter.

I see. So you are saying that alignment are arbitrary and have nothing to do with what we normally call good or evil.
well, if your table plays with that premise, then it's entirely your choice. I would not like to call that good or evil, though, and that's not how most people see the concepts.

EDIT: I also don't see much point using the alignments that way. if they relate to morality, then they at least help you deciide who you should help and who you should kill. but if they are something abstract, they are just confusing and superfluous.

[Anymage]

Backing up a second, in stories it seems like the universe and the heroes have some sort of deal going. Or if you want to talk tables, the players and the DM.

If everyone wants the heroes to act like paragons of unblemished virtue, the world has to make allowances for that. There's always some way to make everything work out (although there may be high cost for the heroes), good ultimately triumphs over evil, and even the bad guys will for some reason follow a general code of not being too disturbing. The paladin can certainly allow one of his allies to be the one martyring themselves (otherwise a party full of paladins would all fall if one of them had to sacrifice for the greater good), but there aren't too many hard moral problems.

If the setting verges on the crapsack and everybody prefers virtues to be more tarnished, heroes get graded on the curve. If the ritual to summon the apocalypse demon requires sacrificing an innocent, maybe spoiling the ritual by killing the child first is the least bad option available. Heroes do the best they can with the situations they can, even if their absolute actions would make more traditional heroes queasy. It's tricky to do this without falling to problems like thinking that expedient torture is "good" (a point that comes up unfortunately often on message boards), but some people seem to like exploring morals in murkier places.

If the DM wants a crapsack world and holds heroes to an unimpeachable standard to make some nihilistic point, the only question is how many feeder levels you can get for you blackguard. Otherwise pick a class that people don't like to go all nihilist on, or pick a better table.

[Psyren]

Wait, why is the BoED being held up as a serious measure of goodness?

Because it's the only one we have? (Well, I guess there's some stuff in Champions of Valor.)

[hamishspence]

Because it's the only one we have? (Well, I guess there's some stuff in Champions of Valor.)

And a few other books as well. Mostly for the other alignments though:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...ements-summary

[RedMage125]

I suggest a lot of people here look to the Book of Vile Darkness Chp 2 "The Nature of Evil", for what constitutes an Evil act. Of specific import is the "Action vs Intent" section, where a Paladin named Zophas ends up causing the deaths of innocents. Depending on Context, he may not even fall.

Nope, not an evil act. He is actually assisting in the performance of a Good act (a person sacrificing themselves to save others).

This is correct. Allowing another person to volunteer to sacrifice themselves is not "killing an innocent".

The monk is willfully offering to sacrifice his own life so there's no issue here. The right question would be,

How does a Paladin handle a monster that has bound its life phylactery style to an innocent being.

The Paladin keep the innocent person near him so that he can constantly be ready to destroy the monster each time it manifests while seeking out some alternative to separate the monster's soul from the innocent.

Ooooh, but its such good story(tm)! I will never understand why DMs feel the need to mess with paladins, but not with anyone else. You never hear about druids being put in cursed metal armor, or wizards losing books, or clerics missing prayer time. Always with the paladins though!

One should make note that creating moral quandries, or tempting a Paladin with "the easy way out" that leads to a fall can be GREAT stories. "no win" scenarios where the Paladin fals no matter what are just Jerkbag DMs.

The official answer, according to the Book of Exalted Deeds (p.9) is that any evil act still causes a Paladin to fall, no matter how many innocent lives would be saved by doing it.

Personally, I think this is a rather childish and simplistic definition of how good and evil works, and I don't tend to use it when I'm DMing. For me personally, if someone is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and they choose to kill one person rather than let thousands die by inaction, they've done the right thing, and I don't have much respect for the wisdom or goodness of a deity who says otherwise.

The most sense I can make of the official position is that D&D morality works how it does in children's fantasy stories, not how an intelligent adult would see it.

That, in and of itself, is a childish and simplistic view of D&D alignment.

In D&D, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are not simply points of view, they are "the forces that shape the cosmos" (3.5e PHB, Chp 6). Even the gods are beholden to these forces. they are completely objective and dispassionate. No amount of word semantics or post-hoc justifications will sway them. Committing an Evil Act in order to achieve a Good End is quite simply, committing an Evil Act followed by committing a Good Act. The objective forces do not care about your reasons.

Now, the mistake that you (and a lot of people) are making is the idea that "everyone in the D&D world shares this objective view". That is false. You could have an individual who knows of a prophecy (for the sake of argument let's say it's genuine) that an orphan in his second decade of life will cause Demogorgon to enter the Material Plane during the convergence of moons. The convergence is in 7 years. So this individual travels the world, slaughtering every orphan between the ages of 3 and 13 that he comes across. He tries his best to not commit any other evil deeds, but he will eliminate people who try and stop his mission. He views himself as Good. But by the RAW of D&D, the continuous, repeated, and above all unrepentant murder of hundreds of innocents means his alignment is Evil.

You can still have "morally gray" characters and situations in D&D. But the fact that there is an objective scale by which you are measured, judged, and possibly found wanting reinforces classic tropes of fantasy.

But you must realize that Paladins are held to a higher standard. A Lawful Good Fighter can choose the "lesser evil" act and remain Lawful Good. He'll probably be haunted by nightmares and grief and guilt, but he'll be fine. Paladins are the ones who are supposed to reject the dichotomy of said choice and refuse to give ground to Evil. They're supposed to find another way. Like I said about the person with the monster's life force bound to them, they should protect that person and find a way to save them. Do not do something evil simply because it is easy. Staying the course is supposed to be hard. That's the cost of all the ridiculous powers and abilities that the Paladin class offers. they get those extra powers because they've chosen to always do the right thing, even when it's much harder.

It should be noted that Paladins don't automatically "cease to be Lawful Good" after committing an evil act. That's also a common misconception. One act does not change your alignment (3.5e DMG, page 134). Now, if a Paladin committed an evil act, lost his powers, and now burned with resentment over it, showing no remorse, no repentence, and began to behave in even MORE morally questionable ways, then his alignment would change. Case in point: Miko Miyazaki. She killed her liege lord (evil act). But she did so because she (incorrectly) believed him to be evil, and in league with the city's enemies. She kept her faith in the gods, and asked for guidance on how to defeat evil. She died trying to stop an evil force. But as Soon pointed out to her, she never actually learned her lesson and admitted she was wrong. BUT...he also told her that she would see Windstriker again, meaning she was still going to a Lawful Good afterlife.

On the other hand, inaction is also a choice. So, choosing to act and do evil, or choosing inaction and letting evil happen, are morally on the same level.
Realistically, most morality choices are of lesser evil. A paladin can't be taken at fault for having to choose. Rejecting choice is especially an hypocrite way to avoid responsibility.

Except that the 3.5e RAW doesn't say that a Paladin falls for "allowing evil to happen". A Paladin falls for "intentionally committing an evil act". Extra emphasis on ACT. By definition, inaction does not cause a fall.

Now, as a Lawful Good individual who is dedicated to the ideals of Law and Good, the paladin likely feels immensely guilty for his inaction, and will seek to make ameds and redeem himself. but by the RAw he has not lost his powers.

"Being a paladin is like being a farmer. To do your job you have to step in the muck and get dirty. The challenge of our call is not to upheld the letter of an abstract ideal, but to apply it to the real world in a satisfying way"

"Being a paladin is about taking responsibility. You see a wrong, and you take uppn yourself the responsibility to make it better. If you fail, you take responsibility for the failure, you learn, and you do better next time."

"Pelor is up there in the sky. Down here, there's just us"

I like these quotes, though. Very nice.


On Trolleys (spolier blocked so as not to sideline the rest of the converstaion):

Spoiler

Show

You know, the Trolley Problem got kind of brought up in a slantwise kind of way. It's important to note that the standard Trolley Problem designed by Foot is not relevant to ethics or morality, least of all by D&D metrics, and certainly not 3.5e Paladins. The Trolley Problem is not an ethical dilemma. All it tells you is the priority of Utilitarianism vs Personal Accountability in the person being asked. That is all.

Why is not relevant to D&D? Well, like I said, a Paladin only falls if they "intentionally commit an evil act". The Evil of the deaths of people in the Trolley Problem is on the head of the person who tied all 6 people to the tracks in the first place. The Paladin at the switch has no agency to commit an Evil act. Yes, it could be argued that by throwing the switch, he is "killing" the person on the second track, but that means only that he should NOT throw the switch because he doesn't fall for failing to commit an act. A truly diabolical villain would tie 5 murderers/rapists/child molesters to one track, and a saintly old priest to the other, and not tell the person at the switch. Of course, this has no effect on the Paladin one way or another, because Action and Intent determine the alignment effect of an act, not consequences.

Point is, the Paladin is now in a deathtrap, and someone is going to die. The Paladin did not put these people there, and he has no agency to stop ALL of them from dying. He has not "murdered" anyone. The only question the standard Trolley Problem poses to the Paladin is: "is saving a net 4 lives more important than feeling responsible for the death of one?". And that's where it gets REAL screwy. Because, if the Paladin chooses not to throw the switch, has he placed his value of his own purity over the lives of 4 people? Isn't that selfishness? Contrariwise, if he was willing to risk falling by throwing the lever, because saving 4 lives is more important than him having Paladin powers, isn't that actually a very selfless act? Isn't he actually sacrificing his own power to save them? Like I said, it's all screwy, and moreso, because by the RAW, the Paladin has no agency to actually "murder" anyone in this scenario. 3.5e defines "murder" as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes" (BoVD).

The only good choice a Paladin in this scenario has is to, as I said, reject the dichotomy. The Paladin can throw himself in front of the trolley, probably dying in the process, using their own armored body to bring the trolley to a stop.

OTOH, there are 2 variants to the Trolley Problem that are relevant to D&D, and to Paladins. The Fat Man and Fat Villain variants.

In the Fat Man variant, the Paladin is on a bridge over the runaway trolley, which is speeding towards 5 people tied to the tracks. Also on the bridge is a grossly obese man. The fat man is a total innocent. If the paladin pushed this innocent fat man off the bridge onto the tracks in front of the trolley, his weight will be sufficient to arrest the momentum of the trolley before it hits the 5 people tied to the tracks. This is "killing an innocent" to save lives. Not the standard Trolley Problem. And it is an Evil act, because this Paladin still should have chosen to sacrifice himself and not killed someone else to avoid that.

The Fat Villain variant is very similar to above, but that obese man? He's the one who tied the 5 other people to the tracks, and the querent knows this. While this may still pose some ethical problems IRL, D&D is actually quite simple. A Paladin does not fall for pushing the fat villain in front of the Trolley. Much how it is not an evil act in D&D to defend yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force. Killing an evil person who is in the process of attempting to murder 5 people by throwing them into their own trap which also saves the 5 intended victims? Not evil. Period.

[Telonius]

How it would probably go:

Monk: Come on, do it!
Paladin: Look, I'm having some serious qualms here. I can't just kill somebody because they ask for it.
Monk: (Unarmed strike)
Paladin: Hey, thanks!
Monk: No problem, I know how the whole Lawful thing is. Hey, would you mind aiming for the neck? Gut wounds are a pain.
Paladin: No problem, least I could do.

[Morty]

Why should the potentially delusional beliefs of some mortal have any impact on codes that lie above divine ones? The entire point of how paladins and Exalted characters can exist is because there is a right and wrong answer. Morality and Alignment at best line up by coincidence, so I don't see why the vagaries of the former should have impact on absoluteness of the latter. Doing the right thing at the cost of your soul's purity can be a perfectly moral action, and one some might be willing to take, but that doesn't stop it from being Evil. The fact the alignments were named as such is a rather unfortunate artifact.

I consider the choices, actions and inner struggles of the characters we actually see and play to be far more important and interesting than some abstract cosmic forces we're unlikely to interact with.

[flamewolf393]

Part of the problem no one ever addresses.

In our world, good and evil are social constructs. In the dnd world, they are concrete concepts with fixed definitions, and how they affect our world are VERY clearly defined and upheld by gods and devils alike. If a paladin commits an act that is within the stricture of evil, then the devils have a clear opening to make a potential claim on him, simply because the devils rule over the domain that action falls under. The paladin is tainted in at least some small way by that action no matter what the intentions were until he undergoes cleansing in the form of atonement.

If a paladin knowingly commits an evil act even for a good reason, thats still a crack in the holy armor protecting his soul. And that is why I LOVE the alternate alignment paladin, the CG paladin of freedom. They can do what they and their god believe is right without worrying about strict codes.

That being said, a gm should NEVER force a paladin to fall unless they really done ****ed up. If the paladin is sticking to good intentions there should always be a way out. Usually an atonement spell a day in meditation is more than enough because the god in question does not want to lose a good paladin.

[Almadelia]

Except that the 3.5e RAW doesn't say that a Paladin falls for "allowing evil to happen". A Paladin falls for "intentionally committing an evil act". Extra emphasis on ACT. By definition, inaction does not cause a fall.

Is this true though? It's not actually physically possible to not act. By existing you act on everything around you, and since you're presumably conscious during this time you're intentionally acting in a non-helpful manner. There's no such thing as not acting, your only choice is how you act. Now, clearly a Paladin doesn't fall if he tries and just outright fails to stop Evil. A Paladin also arguably doesn't fall if he doesn't try because the evil is so clearly out of his league; while I'm sure the idea of a hero facing down the necromancer alone is noble, if you're a kid with a stick and the other guy is Orcus you've really done nothing but given him another body. But it's definitely true that, from a purely semantic perspective, inaction is in and of itself an act. Imagine a Paladin just idling next to his Wizard girlfriend as she claims immortality by slaughtering an entire city's people in order to transmute herself into, I don't know, a Banshee. The Paladin doesn't do anything and just stands there, knowing what's going on.

Now, if I were the DM in this situation I'd firstly stop the session and 1. ask myself how I got into this mess with a Paladin and a Wizard who's clearly NE in the same room and 2. drop the Paladin to Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral. But even without that, he's not actively doing anything, but this is clearly fall-worthy. Though he's not actively committing an Evil act, he's acting in such a manner as to knowingly allow an Evil act that he could stop (well alright I really doubt a Paladin could stop a Wizard of equal level from so much as taking a piss but you get the idea). At some point in time the line begins to blur as to what specifically counts as acting. Imagine a villain who's been committing horrid deeds through the entire campaign, he's basically a puppy-kicking card-carrying disney villain, he has never spared a single child's lolipop in his presence. And now, a dozen sessions after his defeat, the PCs see him just watching as they drive back a horde of demons; if he so much as cast a single spell, it'd be over for the PCs, but he doesn't. He's not actively helping, but he's actively maintaining his distance from the affair. That would be considered character development, something that signals 'hey, maybe he's gone Neutral.' I would probably disqualify him from being an Antipaladin for doing something like that.

Spoiler

Show

When you actually stop and think about it, why does a Paladin fall for intentionally committing an evil act? Clearly, one single evil act is almost never enough to change your alignment, not to Neutral let alone Evil. But what it does do is make you slightly less Good. If you imagine the 3x3 grid, zoom in on the LG box, and then cut it up again and again and again - Outsiders would be sitting outside of the box entirely. They're in a league of their own, they effectively are the box - mortals don't compete with them. But even though they don't compare with Archons, Paladins are obligated to sit at the far corner of the LG box, that's what they represent, they are not just good people they are paragons of virtue. Being LG isn't good enough for them, they have to be more LG than everyone else around them. They represent the best of the best that the Material has to offer. They do this because they believe in being Lawful Good, it's a passion for them, something they do because they love to do it. So when a Paladin commits an Evil act, they slide ever so slightly down towards Neutral, and that's enough to kick them out. They're still LG. They're just not LG enough.

[RedMage125]

Is this true though? It's not actually physically possible to not act. By existing you act on everything around you, and since you're presumably conscious during this time you're intentionally acting in a non-helpful manner. There's no such thing as not acting, your only choice is how you act.

Well, this is a 3e forum, and 3.5e quite clearly tells us what is Good and what is Evil (PHB, DMG, BoVD, BoED). It is important to remember that a view that amounts to "Evil triumphs when Good does nothing" is not in keeping with the default RAW of D&D. Good and Evil are both objective, separate forces, and the absence of either is Neutrality. The Book of Vile Darkness (Chp 2) is quite clear that it is Action and Intent that affect whether an act is Evil, not Consequences. Look to the Zophas example in that book for citation of that. Zophas does not fall when the innocents killed in the rockslide he caused when it was a genuine accident taht he could not have predicted.

Now, clearly a Paladin doesn't fall if he tries and just outright fails to stop Evil. A Paladin also arguably doesn't fall if he doesn't try because the evil is so clearly out of his league; while I'm sure the idea of a hero facing down the necromancer alone is noble, if you're a kid with a stick and the other guy is Orcus you've really done nothing but given him another body. But it's definitely true that, from a purely semantic perspective, inaction is in and of itself an act. Imagine a Paladin just idling next to his Wizard girlfriend as she claims immortality by slaughtering an entire city's people in order to transmute herself into, I don't know, a Banshee. The Paladin doesn't do anything and just stands there, knowing what's going on.

Look, I'm making a point strictly about the RAW here. Show me, with an example drawn from a rules source, that what the Paladin in your example did was "intentionally committing an evil act" emphasis on all of those words, really. Find that, and i weill concede the point.

Now, if I were the DM in this situation I'd firstly stop the session and 1. ask myself how I got into this mess with a Paladin and a Wizard who's clearly NE in the same room and 2. drop the Paladin to Lawful Evil or Chaotic Neutral. But even without that, he's not actively doing anything, but this is clearly fall-worthy. Though he's not actively committing an Evil act, he's acting in such a manner as to knowingly allow an Evil act that he could stop (well alright I really doubt a Paladin could stop a Wizard of equal level from so much as taking a piss but you get the idea). At some point in time the line begins to blur as to what specifically counts as acting.

Well, 3e Paladins are explicitly prohibited from knowingly associating with Evil characters, other than actual efforts made to redeem them, or they violate their CoC. You said the NE wizard was the Paladin's girlfriend? That raises way to many questions that I would have to dissect your entire scenario completely to respond to your points.

Oh, and I think a paladin of about up to 4th level could seriously wreck a wizard of equal level. The paladin's saves are very good, thie AC and hit points well above the wizard's. They're immune to fear, they can heal themselves...and that smite is going to seriously mess the wizard up. 2nd level and lower spells have a much lower likelihood of incapacitating a paladin. Once the wizard gets 3rd level spells it gets dicey. They could conceivably fly, and boost their AC to the point that a melee-focused paladin won't be able to hit them with a ranged weapon, and then just rain spells or arrows on them at leisure.

Imagine a villain who's been committing horrid deeds through the entire campaign, he's basically a puppy-kicking card-carrying disney villain, he has never spared a single child's lolipop in his presence. And now, a dozen sessions after his defeat, the PCs see him just watching as they drive back a horde of demons; if he so much as cast a single spell, it'd be over for the PCs, but he doesn't. He's not actively helping, but he's actively maintaining his distance from the affair. That would be considered character development, something that signals 'hey, maybe he's gone Neutral.' I would probably disqualify him from being an Antipaladin for doing something like that.

The last bit of this is worded oddly, and I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.

When you actually stop and think about it, why does a Paladin fall for intentionally committing an evil act? Clearly, one single evil act is almost never enough to change your alignment, not to Neutral let alone Evil. But what it does do is make you slightly less Good. If you imagine the 3x3 grid, zoom in on the LG box, and then cut it up again and again and again - Outsiders would be sitting outside of the box entirely. They're in a league of their own, they effectively are the box - mortals don't compete with them. But even though they don't compare with Archons, Paladins are obligated to sit at the far corner of the LG box, that's what they represent, they are not just good people they are paragons of virtue. Being LG isn't good enough for them, they have to be more LG than everyone else around them. They represent the best of the best that the Material has to offer. They do this because they believe in being Lawful Good, it's a passion for them, something they do because they love to do it. So when a Paladin commits an Evil act, they slide ever so slightly down towards Neutral, and that's enough to kick them out.

It's because paladins are held to a higher standard. It's not because it makes them "less good" (there isn't a point scale). It's because they are empowered by the forces of Good. They get those powers in exchange for the oath to never use evil means, even if the greater good will be served. They're supposed to be the shining beacon. When they allow evil to taint them (again, through action, which must be intentional and willing), they are no longer worthy of those powers.

They're still LG. They're just not LG enough.

So many people miss this. Do you know how many stories, even in 3e, that I hear about some DM saying "you did something bad, your alignment shifts from LG to CE". So many violations of RAW in that kind of example. Like I said in my post, Miko Miyazaki remained LG to the bitter end. She was still an ***hole, though.

[hamishspence]

Like I said in my post, Miko Miyazaki remained LG to the bitter end.

Given The Giant's phrasing in War & XPs:

"She pushed and pushed at the boundaries of what it meant to be LG and a paladin, until finally she broke through"



I can believe that she was already very close to the LG/LN border for a long time before her actual Fall, and during it, may have crossed the border.

She died trying to stop an evil force. But as Soon pointed out to her, she never actually learned her lesson and admitted she was wrong. BUT...he also told her that she would see Windstriker again, meaning she was still going to a Lawful Good afterlife.

As for seeing Windstriker and having him "visit her as much as he is able" - he can get permission to travel.

You asked why X is a certain way in this comic strip. I, the author, am telling you why. Windstriker is not a dead soul, he is a living Celestial creature; he is not bound by the same rules. He needs a pass because he is in the service of the Twelve Gods and will likely be assigned to another paladin at some point, from whom he must get permission before going on a trip. If he were unemployed, he would be free to go to whatever plane he could find a way to travel to. Dead souls have no such freedom.

[RedMage125]

Given The Giant's phrasing in War & XPs:

"She pushed and pushed at the boundaries of what it meant to be LG and a paladin, until finally she broke through"



I can believe that she was already very close to the LG/LN border for a long time before her actual Fall, and during it, may have crossed the border.

I interpreted that same line to mean that she finally committed an act which was Evil. Roy points out to her that she does not seem to have "concern for the dignity of sentient beings", which is aline from the 3.5e PHB about Good.

As for seeing Windstriker and having him "visit her as much as he is able" - he can get permission to travel.

That's interesting. I've never seen that before.

[King of Nowhere]

there are people discussing different things here.
some are discussing morality.
and some are discussing RAW.

The first group is considering the matter as "would it be morally justified to do X"
The second group is considering the matter as "what does the books say about it".

that's why there are insurmontable differences in opinion