D&D trolley problems

[Troacctid]

Is it possible, in your eyes, to do evil through inaction? Not saying that's what's happening in this scenario specifically, I'm more curious about the philosophical question in a more general sense.

Yes. Imagine you have a baby under your care. The baby is hungry. You choose inaction and leave the baby to starve. Congratulations, you just killed a baby.

[Liquor Box]

Is it possible, in your eyes, to do evil through inaction? Not saying that's what's happening in this scenario specifically, I'm more curious about the philosophical question in a more general sense.

If you see a toddler (who is not your own child or someone you have a special duty to protect) drowning in shallow water, and you could save it without any risk to yourself, but choose not to do so because you don't want to get your shoes wet.

I think I would be unimpressed by a person who failed to save the child in real life. Not so sure it is evil in DnD by RAW, but I think it probably should be.

However, I don't think that would be anything like as bad (in real world or DnD) as proactively murdering a child, and I think there should be a high threshold before inaction can be said to be evil. The key is that rescuing the child is nothing more than a minor inconvenience - if there was any danger involved I think the passer-by is entitled to decline to rescue him.

Yes. Imagine you have a baby under your care. The baby is hungry. You choose inaction and leave the baby to starve. Congratulations, you just killed a baby.

To be clear, I do agree with this. I think there are clearly some cases where you owe an active duty to prevent harm. To your own child is an example, another is a medical professional to a patient or a bodyguard to his or her client.

[hamishspence]

I think I would be unimpressed by a person who failed to save the child in real life. Not so sure it is evil in DnD by RAW, but I think it probably should be.

From BoVD: regarding a character who is about to poison a well (because he believes everyone in the village is in fact a demon).

"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

[Liquor Box]

From BoVD: regarding a character who is about to poison a well (because he believes everyone in the village is in fact a demon).

"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

Yeah its interesting how they make that passing reference which is so out of sink with the rest of the book. Throughout the rest of the book (even when they discuss twenty or so examples of evil) the evil they reference is positive actions rather than inaction. Even there they only describe him as more evil than killing the poisoner which they say is not evil at all.

It also appears to contradict the book of exalted deeds. It says "Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom..... Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided." and "In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood.". Applying that to the person witnessing the poisoning, killing an innocent (the BoVD says the poisoner is not evil, having been deceived herself) is indeed an evil act even if it is done to avoid a catastrophe.

I guess it would be reasonable to rule either way as DM, as there are statements in the rules you can hang your hat on. I would be wary about making a character fall or change alignment based on something that is so ambiguous though.

[hamishspence]

The poisoner might not be an evil person, but they're not an innocent either. They are attacking - even if in a slow way - and killing them is defence of others - no more evil than self-defence is.

[RedMage125]

From BoVD: regarding a character who is about to poison a well (because he believes everyone in the village is in fact a demon).

"Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

The big distinction between this example and the standard Trolley Problem, is that with the poisoner, you have actual agency to stop the deaths entirely before they happen. In the Trolley Problem, you are being presented with the illusion of such agency, because no matter what, at least one of the people that the villain put in this death trap is going to die. Asking you to make a choice to "cause" one death or "allow" 5 others to die is a false narrative.

But to be able to actually stop someone from killing hundreds of people? You can prevent ANY deaths.

Yeah its interesting how they make that passing reference which is so out of sink with the rest of the book. Throughout the rest of the book (even when they discuss twenty or so examples of evil) the evil they reference is positive actions rather than inaction. Even there they only describe him as more evil than killing the poisoner which they say is not evil at all.

It also appears to contradict the book of exalted deeds. It says "Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom..... Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided." and "In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood.". Applying that to the person witnessing the poisoning, killing an innocent (the BoVD says the poisoner is not evil, having been deceived herself) is indeed an evil act even if it is done to avoid a catastrophe.

I guess it would be reasonable to rule either way as DM, as there are statements in the rules you can hang your hat on. I would be wary about making a character fall or change alignment based on something that is so ambiguous though.

Side note...you meant "out of synch", not "sink".

Remeber that the BoVD also tells us that Intent and Context matter. Killing the poisoner, who is just deceived themself, is indeed an Evil act, assuming you know they are misguided. The greater Evil is to allow them to poison the well when you had the agency to stop it. But the "most Good" option would be to subdue the poisoner non-lethally. This is an instance of what I frequently harp on about Paladins...that they are held to a higher standard of Good and should never use Evil means just because it's easier or more convenient. Subduing the target, and then having to find a way to restrain or confine them until you can correct their misconception (which could be the result of an enchantment, madness, or some grand deception that's been played on them non-magically), is a lot harder than just killing them because you caught them in the act. But if you did not know they were deceived and simply knew them to be trying to kill everyone in town with poison, then using lethal means is not an Evil act.

Again, Consequences do not determine the alignment value of an act. Action and Intent do, as per the BoVD.

The poisoner might not be an evil person, but they're not an innocent either. They are attacking - even if in a slow way - and killing them is defence of others - no more evil than self-defence is.

What I said to Liquor Box, above, applies here as well. You are correct IF you do not know they are being deceived. Otherwise, they are just an innocent pawn in some other Evil individual's scheme. It doesn't matter what their alignment is, either. The target's alignment isn't carte blanche to kill them, ever. Paladin determines that the miserly bartender is evil (he's a greedy and selfish man who waters down his ale and overcharges for it, but has not committed any crimes)...killing him is an Evil act. But if the Paladin catches a Neutral mercenary sabatoging the town's gate-closing mechanism, and the merc attacks him with lethal force, it is not Evil for the Paladin to defend himself with lethal force.

Which is how the BoVD is not contradicting anything, here. Because while killing the poisoner is still an evil act, it is far more evil to allow them to poison the well when you could have stopped it.

[Segev]

Remeber that the BoVD also tells us that Intent and Context matter. Killing the poisoner, who is just deceived themself, is indeed an Evil act, assuming you know they are misguided. The greater Evil is to allow them to poison the well when you had the agency to stop it. But the "most Good" option would be to subdue the poisoner non-lethally. This is an instance of what I frequently harp on about Paladins...that they are held to a higher standard of Good and should never use Evil means just because it's easier or more convenient. Subduing the target, and then having to find a way to restrain or confine them until you can correct their misconception (which could be the result of an enchantment, madness, or some grand deception that's been played on them non-magically), is a lot harder than just killing them because you caught them in the act. But if you did not know they were deceived and simply knew them to be trying to kill everyone in town with poison, then using lethal means is not an Evil act.

I would also argue that, if it came down to the wire, and your choice was "use lethal force" or "let them poison the well," even if they're misguided, using lethal force becomes acceptable. Tragic, but acceptable. Sometimes, you lack sufficient power to overpower without killing.

Sadly, Man of Steel did a terrible job of portraying that, despite that being exactly what they were trying to suggest with Zod and Superman. (Seriously, Supes, you can just cover his eyes with your hand.) But that's hardly the only bad writing sin of that movie. >_<

(Sorry, tangent, but I wanted to head off any use of it as an example or counterexample, because it's just plain badly done.)

But, say, a scrawny preteen trying to stop a grown man from poisoning the well. THe preteen has a knife, but not the strength to hold back the grown man. Sure, try. Grapple him. Look for clever alternatives. But if it comes down to the grown man being one action away from poisoning, and the preteen's only means of stopping him is to stab him in hopes that it prevents the grown man from completing the action....

Or, more directly for D&D, a scrawny wizard is trying to stop a mighty fighter, but the wizard's down to only one spell left for the day: power word: kill.

[RedMage125]

I would also argue that, if it came down to the wire, and your choice was "use lethal force" or "let them poison the well," even if they're misguided, using lethal force becomes acceptable. Tragic, but acceptable. Sometimes, you lack sufficient power to overpower without killing.

Sadly, Man of Steel did a terrible job of portraying that, despite that being exactly what they were trying to suggest with Zod and Superman. (Seriously, Supes, you can just cover his eyes with your hand.) But that's hardly the only bad writing sin of that movie. >_<

(Sorry, tangent, but I wanted to head off any use of it as an example or counterexample, because it's just plain badly done.)

But, say, a scrawny preteen trying to stop a grown man from poisoning the well. THe preteen has a knife, but not the strength to hold back the grown man. Sure, try. Grapple him. Look for clever alternatives. But if it comes down to the grown man being one action away from poisoning, and the preteen's only means of stopping him is to stab him in hopes that it prevents the grown man from completing the action....

Or, more directly for D&D, a scrawny wizard is trying to stop a mighty fighter, but the wizard's down to only one spell left for the day: power word: kill.

Okay, but this is 3.5e, so a knife (dagger) will not reduce the poisoner to -10. You could drop him to 0 and stabilize him. Still non-lethal means.

More importantly, I made the point that context matters, as per the BoVD. If the poisoner is at the well and about to administer the poison, and you are too far away to reach him in time, but have a scroll of Fireball, or some other long-range spell that can conceivably stop him, but only do lethal damage, then yes, I would agree with you. But there needs to be the point that semantics don't work here. That had to literally be your only means of stopping the poisoner.

I said that killing a misguided person because it is "easier" or "more convenient" than stopping them non-lethally is where you go down the path of "certainly an evil act".

[hamishspence]

Which is how the BoVD is not contradicting anything, here. Because while killing the poisoner is still an evil act, it is far more evil to allow them to poison the well when you could have stopped it.

The BOVD quote specifically says it is not Evil to kill the poisoner.

You are correct IF you do not know they are being deceived. Otherwise, they are just an innocent pawn in some other Evil individual's scheme.

It doesn't say anything about "You have to be unaware that the poisoner is being deceived".

[Segev]

Okay, but this is 3.5e, so a knife (dagger) will not reduce the poisoner to -10. You could drop him to 0 and stabilize him. Still non-lethal means.

More importantly, I made the point that context matters, as per the BoVD. If the poisoner is at the well and about to administer the poison, and you are too far away to reach him in time, but have a scroll of Fireball, or some other long-range spell that can conceivably stop him, but only do lethal damage, then yes, I would agree with you. But there needs to be the point that semantics don't work here. That had to literally be your only means of stopping the poisoner.

I said that killing a misguided person because it is "easier" or "more convenient" than stopping them non-lethally is where you go down the path of "certainly an evil act".

I agree that you can't be doing it just because it's easier or more convenient. I will say that it doesn't have to be your literally only solution...but it had better be the only one you can think of and you'd better be waiting for the last moment before you resort to it (in hopes that a better solution presents itself).

This goes back to intent, of course: did you kill the guy because it was easier than trying other things, or did you do it because you genuinely saw no other choice besides "let him kill a city?" Ignorance and even stupidity are not evil. Making a sub-optimal choice that you thought was the best you could do doesn't make you wicked, just tragically wrong.

[RedMage125]

The BOVD quote specifically says it is not Evil to kill the poisoner.

I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm going to take what you quoted earlier to be at face value as legit.

And that was "Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

Saying "X is more evil than Y" is not the same as saying "Y is not evil at all"

It doesn't say anything about "You have to be unaware that the poisoner is being deceived".

Under "Intent and Context" in the BoVD, Chapter 2: When the paladin Zophas climbs some rocks to escape some owlbears and accidentally triggers a rockslide that kills innocent villagers it is not an evil act, but an accident. If his friend pointed out to him that the rocks looked unstable and could cause said rockslide, and Zophas does it anyway...Evil act, Zophas falls from grace.

Context and foreknowledge absolutely have impact in this scenario. If all you know is that he's trying to kill the whole village, then a valid perception is that's he's just a mass-murderer. If you know he's been deceived, then why is killing him the option you are considering? If you know this man believes he is ridding the world of demons, in a world where demons are actual beings that exist, then he's probably not just a mass-murderer, but someone is using him as a catspaw.

I agree that you can't be doing it just because it's easier or more convenient. I will say that it doesn't have to be your literally only solution...but it had better be the only one you can think of and you'd better be waiting for the last moment before you resort to it (in hopes that a better solution presents itself).

Right. When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.

This goes back to intent, of course: did you kill the guy because it was easier than trying other things, or did you do it because you genuinely saw no other choice besides "let him kill a city?" Ignorance and even stupidity are not evil. Making a sub-optimal choice that you thought was the best you could do doesn't make you wicked, just tragically wrong.

Which can also make for great Paladin Dilemmas. Don't take their powers, but overwhelm them with guilt.

[hamishspence]

I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm going to take what you quoted earlier to be at face value as legit.

And that was "Standing by and doing nothing is far more evil than preventing the poisoning by killing the poisoner".

Saying "X is more evil than Y" is not the same as saying "Y is not evil at all"

The full quote:

Another character witnesses the good character about to put poison in the town's drinking water. Is it evil for the witness to kill the poisoning character in order to stop him? No. Again, the intent isn't evil, and the context makes such an act preferable to the alternative. Standing by while a mass murder occurs - the only other choice the witness has - is far more evil than preventing the poisoning.

So, it's clear that the choice is between a nonevil act, and an act that's "far more evil" than the nonevil act.

[dancrilis]

So, it's clear that the choice is between a nonevil act, and an act that's "far more evil" than the nonevil act.

Just because an act is more evil then non-evil act doesn't make it an evil act.

[MrSandman]

Just because an act is more evil then non-evil act doesn't make it an evil act.

Is it evil for the witness to kill the poisoning character in order to stop him? No. Again, the intent isn't evil, and the context makes such an act preferable to the alternative.

That's all I have to add to this discussion

[dancrilis]

That's all I have to add to this discussion

I don't know what that has to do what what I posted?

Just because an act is more evil then non-evil act doesn't make it an evil act.

To break this down.
Act A is not evil.
Act B is more evil than Act A.
Is Act B evil? We do not know as we have insufficient data.

[MrSandman]

I don't know what that has to do what what I posted?

My bad, I misread your post.

[hamishspence]

Just because an act is more evil then non-evil act doesn't make it an evil act.

Not just "more evil" - far more evil.

[Segev]

Not just "more evil" - far more evil.

"He didn't just refuse to pluck out his own eyes to restore the witch's sight; he refused to even cut off his little toes as material for the witch to turn into new eyes! Losing one's little toes is far less costly than losing one's eyes, so his refusal is far more evil than refusing to give up his eyes!"

[RedMage125]

The full quote:

So, it's clear that the choice is between a nonevil act, and an act that's "far more evil" than the nonevil act.

Okay, so i was mistaken. I didn't have the books in front of me. But again, if there is some foreknowledge that the poisoner is being misled...why is killing him your first go-to option? Killing him may not be evil, but it's not the "most Good" option, either.

And again, as it relates to "doing nothing" in the standard Trolley Problem...the person in the "well poisoner" situation has actual agency to stop the killings, as opposed to the illusion of choice offered in the Trolley Problem. The person standing at the switch is being offered a false choice of "saving" people. Remember how I quoted the BoVD as saying context is important?

Because, one more time, the standard Trolley Problem has nothing to do with morality. It only tells you how the person being asked values Utlitarianism vis Personal Accountability*. Both of which, however, assume that "throwing the switch" = "killing one person", and that doesn't really stand up with 3.5e D&D alignment mores. Which is why I always only advocate for the Fat Man and Fat Villain variants, which can be applied to D&D.


*Disclaimer: I don't expect that most of us are familiar with Deontological Ethics vis Consequentialist Ethics, so I use more common parlance words. At the simplest level, they break down to the same thing. In this instance "Consequentialism = Utilitarianism" and "Deontological = Personal Accountability".