Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1606260" data-attributes="member: 3146">I understand and agree with your dislike of such scenarios but this is really more of a thought experiment and is in line with some of the thought experiments used in philosophy papers--if you had a raygun with one shot and the evil murdering child molester were standing behind an innocent and you knew that he would get away to kill and molest again if you didn't shoot him and you knew that you couldn't shoot him without shooting the innocent and you knew that your shot would kill him, would you it be right to choose to let the bad guy get away or to kill the innocent in order to prevent future crimes. But wait, that's too easy, what if the bad guy had rigged himself up to the innocent so that the only way to kill him was to kill the innocent--now you're not killing the bad guy and accidentally killing an innocent in the process, you're deliberately killing an innocent in cold blood in order to kill the bad guy.The problem with this example, as with thought experiments such as the one I outlined above is that, often they create a situation that can't really exist in game or in life by artificially restricting options in order to sharpen the horns of the dilemma. It also generally artificially restricts the consequences. In that case, whether or not there is an answer, it may not matter since it's an entirely fictional dilemma that often could not possibly happen due to the impossibility of knowing that option X is the only way or of ensuring that option X is the only way to accomplish result Y.In the thought experiment proposed, there is real question as to whether the paladin (or anyone else--paladins just make the best test subjects because they can lose their powers for making the wrong choice; it's just as wrong for anyone else) should take either option. The leader of the demon hordes is leaving himself open to attack!?! Why? Perhaps it's a ruse. Perhaps his master ordered him to do so for fear that he might try to usurp his master's throne. If that's the case, then is he likely to succeed or fail and is his usurpation of the throne likely to bring good or bad results? (For instance, if we're talking about replacing Pyrak from Blackdirge's story hour with Hedrantherax, Hedrantherax is a lot less effective than Pyrak so the short term results of the usurpation would probably be good. Long term, I think it results in Hazergal on the demon throne which is probably worse than having Pyrak there. But in any case, the paladin has to base his choices on the forseeable future and the information he has available to him and his intuitions about whether or not that information indicates that it's a trap set by the demon-lord or a suicide mission from his master or whether it's really just a mistake. (Even archons and devils make mistakes). The choice will depend upon those matters.Also the village. Leaving aside the question of whether women and children really have greater moral value than, say, young men and senior citizens (and of whether the greater value/obligation might come from the fact that women and children are not typically capable of defending themselves so in this case, anyone in the village, male or female would impart the same degree of obligation to us), there are still a number of questions. Is it possible to expend extra resources or take extra risk and do both? Are the demons going to kill everyone in the town or simply capture and enslave them. If the latter, what are the odds of staging a successful rescue mission?Heck, it's also quite relevant whether the paladin thinks he can stop the demon hordes without the decaptiation strike against the leader and what kind of losses he's likely to take doing so. Are the lives of several hundred non-combatants worth 10 soldiers? Probably. Are they worth a hundred thousand? Probably not.Without knowing the actual resources available to the paladin and the actual information about both the demon commander and the demon horde, it's impossible to make the best decision. It may well be that there is only a risk that the demon hordes will over-run the town before we can get back from killing the demon lord but it's not certain. In that case, the paladin might well take the chance. It may be that, by splitting his forces, the paladin could have 50% odds of accomplishine each task rather than 75% odds of accomplishing one.So what is the paladin's obligation in this case? To make the best decision he can with the information and resources available to him. There are justifications for doing both and I don't know which I would choose as a player without knowing my full capabilities and opposition. (But I'd take it as a personal challenge to come up with a way to do both).</blockquote>

Verification