Between a rock and a hardplace

[comareddin]

Here is the situation...
In a kingdom there is a village that is really far away from the capital, so army patrols and that sort of thing do not occur here. A really sizeable group of harpies chose to nest near the mountains to the north. They would be bothering the villagers a lot, if it were not for the mighty wizard that resided in his tower in the middle of the village. He has a gryphon and he likes flying with it, frying harpies that come close to his lands. The land is around this area is quite barren, the other villages are really far away, and each acre of land can produce so much food. So with the available land, the villages can only feed themselves.

One day some noise is coming from a barn in the village, a passerby paladin goes in with some villagers only to find that the good old wizard is a utterly vile. What is the paladin to do now?

If he kills the wizard, the villagers are helpless against the harpies.
If he enslaves the wizard to judge him or something, it gives the harpies enough time to attack.

The paladin cannot defend the village from the harpies and there is no easy way to ask for help.

 

[Cabled]

Heh

If the paladin can't beat the harpies, but the wizard CAN, I tend to believe the paladin can't beat the wizard either. For the sake of your situation we'll say I guess it really depends on how much of the whole situation you outlined the paladin is actually aware of. Nobody can right every wrong, not even a paladin, that way lies madness.

It looks like you're trying to set up a situation where the paladin can either save the town from the wizard, or save the town from the harpies (by allowing the wizard to defend the town), but not both. I would say the paladin should deal with the evil he knows. Lock up the wizard in whatever fashion is acceptable so he can be subject to whatever laws the land has. Then IMMEDIATELY begin organizing the town to withstand this harpy attack. There are bound to be a few large, solid buildings around town...a church, a barn, a grain silo...something. If anyone should be able to organize a town for defense, it's a paladin...wise, charismatic, and learned in the ways of combat. If and when the harpies attack, everyone heads for this one building, and everyone brings a weapon. And bring all the pitchforks you can find, they have longer reach, and every farm has more pitchforks than farmers (I grew up in farm country, trust me on this).

In the meanwhile, the paladin sends the best rider the town has by the fastest horse he can ride back to the nearest place the paladin can expect help to come from. It's probably the best the paladin can do...deal with the immediate evils of the wizard, plan for the potential harpy attack and call for help. Unless he is some kind of oracle, the paladin can't know exactly how or when (or if) the harpy attack will come. You paint the villagers as helpless, but people that live that far back out in the weeds aren't helpless, they're some of the most resourceful people you'll ever meet. They would have starved or been eaten by wolves long ago if it were otherwise. What they most likely lack is organization and inspiration, and THAT is something the paladin can provide.

 

[Kurotowa]

"The paladin cannot defend the village from the harpies and there is no easy way to ask for help." Sez who?! A hero, a real hero with divine mojo in his back pocket, will find a way. Sure it's hard. Sure it's dangerous. Sure everyone says it's impossible. A true hero is someone who overcomes obstacles, risks dangers, and achieves the impossible.

Paladins get held to a moral code, and part of that code is you don't compromise with evil just because it's the easy way. You do what's right and you make it work because that's why you're a paladin. There's always a way. If there wasn't, well, the game wouldn't be D&D. It'd be Conan or Black Company or some other game where compromise with the lesser evil was sometimes the only option. The existance of paladins demands the potential for a moral solution.

 

[LostSoul]

One day some noise is coming from a barn in the village, a passerby paladin goes in with some villagers only to find that the good old wizard is utterly vile. What is the paladin to do now?

If he kills the wizard, the villagers are helpless against the harpies.
If he enslaves the wizard to judge him or something, it gives the harpies enough time to attack.

The paladin cannot defend the village from the harpies and there is no easy way to ask for help.

Dude, that's brilliant! I'm going to steal that.

Doesn't even have to be a paladin.

 

[jdrakeh]

Paladins get held to a moral code...

You'd think that, wouldn't you?

The existance of paladins demands the potential for a moral solution.

A real Paladin would kill the Wizard where he stands and then leave town, because he's not sworn to fight harpies. Or at least this is what I've been led to believe a Paladin would do, given the proliferation of recent threads suggesting that similar 'righteous' deeds are perfectly acceptable fare for the real Paladin.

 

[Kurotowa]

A real Paladin would kill the Wizard where he stands and then leave town, because he's not sworn to fight harpies. Or at least this is what I've been led to believe a Paladin would do, given the proliferation of recent threads suggesting that similar 'righteous' deeds are perfectly acceptable fare for the real Paladin.

That is one soluation that does not compromise with evil. It is, in my opinion, the worst solution and the type of behavior that gives all paladins a bad name. But legalism is a valid theological philosophy. Just not one I would want to associate with.

My point was that the OP was trying to establish a No Win Scenario, and I don't believe in them. The No Win Scenario is a highly artificial construct used by authors (and game masters) trying to prove a point. However all they prove is that the all powerful hand of the author can establish whatever contrived situation desired. If players and their PCs have actual free will they are not bound to the GM's script and can find a better solution. It is also my opinion that refusing to accept a NWS is what defines heroic characters as heroes and not just protagonists.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Here is the situation...
In a kingdom there is a village that is really far away from the capital, so army patrols and that sort of thing do not occur here. A really sizeable group of harpies chose to nest near the mountains to the north. They would be bothering the villagers a lot, if it were not for the mighty wizard that resided in his tower in the middle of the village. He has a gryphon and he likes flying with it, frying harpies that come close to his lands. The land is around this area is quite barren, the other villages are really far away, and each acre of land can produce so much food. So with the available land, the villages can only feed themselves.

One day some noise is coming from a barn in the village, a passerby paladin goes in with some villagers only to find that the good old wizard is utterly vile. What is the paladin to do now?

If he kills the wizard, the villagers are helpless against the harpies.
If he enslaves the wizard to judge him or something, it gives the harpies enough time to attack.

The paladin cannot defend the village from the harpies and there is no easy way to ask for help.

i hope your not one of those DM's with that stereotypical hatred for paladdins. a palladin character is a gateway for inspiring adventures. everyone playing an evil alignment gets old after a while, and they usually play it because evil sounds cooler and because they think it eliminates all in game responsibility for them. of course these players (if the DM is any good) couldnt be more wrong.

i agree with the veiwpoint that if the palladdin cant take the harpies he cant take the mage. he should wage a guerilla war (which isnt the most honorable but is definitely in the best interest of the paladdins vows to uphold the weak) against the harpies, maybe picking up henchman and setting trapsand pulling hit and run tactics. terrrorize the harpies right back until he is strong enough, finally take them out and then go after the mage, first buring his tower and then meeting in hand to hand. im sure his temple would be willing to spare a few clerics for this holy mission, and if hes a sufficient level, he can cast spells himself.

my favorite class to play is palladdin. just because the paladdin must be brave doesnt mean he must be foolish. he cant be an example of the gods holiness if he is dead.

 

[LostSoul]

My point was that the OP was trying to establish a No Win Scenario, and I don't believe in them. The No Win Scenario is a highly artificial construct used by authors (and game masters) trying to prove a point. However all they prove is that the all powerful hand of the author can establish whatever contrived situation desired. If players and their PCs have actual free will they are not bound to the GM's script and can find a better solution. It is also my opinion that refusing to accept a NWS is what defines heroic characters as heroes and not just protagonists.

I think it depends on what you mean by "win". A Fighter, let's say, can win by just walking away. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Or he can kill the wizard. Then he can either try and stop the harpies and possibly die, or let the town take care of them.

If he defines "winning" as "making a moral choice" then no matter what he does he wins. It's a win/win scenario.

This is all different for a Paladin. His choice is "die at the hands of the harpies or lose my Paladin abilities." So the moral choice is not as poignant.

[And let's say that the Wizard is so killer against the harpies because he has a magic item that he can use to raise the DC of his spells by +5 against harpies, or all spells cast against harpies have the Empowered metamagic feat; and/or the Paladin/PC has a mage-slayer weapon or the wizard has no spell components on him when he's found.]

edit: And I don't believe it's necessarily an example of following a script or railroading. If the player wants to make that moral choice, and the DM sits back without any judgement on what he should do, then all the DM is doing is creating a situation rife with tension where the player gets to do exactly what he wants. He has the freedom to choose either option, and neither choice will mean the end of the game (as it might if there was a script to follow: "Oh no! He just left town! There goes my adventure... what to do now?").

 

[Kurotowa]

edit: And I don't believe it's necessarily an example of following a script or railroading. If the player wants to make that moral choice, and the DM sits back without any judgement on what he should do, then all the DM is doing is creating a situation rife with tension where the player gets to do exactly what he wants. He has the freedom to choose either option, and neither choice will mean the end of the game (as it might if there was a script to follow: "Oh no! He just left town! There goes my adventure... what to do now?").

You're contradicting yourself. The "freedom" to choose between two prescipted choices is not really freedom. It's being forced to stick to the scripted scenario, where the only viable options are to condone the wizard's actions or doom the town.

I don't object to paladins being faced with moral dilemmas. IMO that's half the fun of a paladin, finding a way to uphold your ideals in a troubled world. What I objected to was the stipulation at the end, "The paladin cannot defend the village from the harpies and there is no easy way to ask for help." The fun of being an adventurer, being a hero, is finding a third choice. It could be as simple as forcing the wizard to submit to a Mark of Justice spell or as complex as gathing a party of adventurers to wipe out the harpy threat once and for all. But it's cheating to define the choice as a binary decision between two unpleasent options.

 

[LostSoul]

You're contradicting yourself. The "freedom" to choose between two prescipted choices is not really freedom. It's being forced to stick to the scripted scenario, where the only viable options are to condone the wizard's actions or doom the town.

Perhaps. The important thing is which choice do you make, not that you only have two choices. Or rather the important thing is making a personal statement about your morals and beliefs through your character. If you can make an easy third choice, you can't make that personal statement.

If the third choice you talk about includes making some other kind of statment, then that's even better.