LG Paladin?

[Bard Lucian]

Ethics and Intention

I love juicy ethical issues. There is a concept in ethics called "double effect," which says that if you perform an act that could bring about the death of another, it is morally permissible as long as you do not INTEND to bring about the death of the other person, even if the death of the other person is a foreseeable side effect of your action.

I'm not talking about collateral damage here, though it is justified on those grounds. But if you have a terminally ill patient, the law of double effect would say that you can give him an overdose of morphine, as long as your intent is to relieve his pain, not to kill him, even if you know that the overdose is likely to kill him.

In the town with the dike or Larry Niven examples, one could arrgue from double effect that, as long as our Paladin doesn't perform his actions (which would include what? Forcing the prisoners to shore up the dike?) with the intent of causing death, it could be morally justified.

Now, suppose youve got a hard core paladin of Heironeous (or better, Poltus), and he knows (detect evil), that the prisoners are evil. He may be obligated to destroy them, and if their destruction saves the lives of others, it could be considered, not just morally permissable, but obligatory and praiseworthy.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Okay, here we go...once again real-world ethics impinge upon a discussion of the imaginary alignment system of D&D...

In any case, the SRD is quite clear:

"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all special class abilities if she ever willingly commits an act of evil. Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, etc.), help those who need help (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those that harm or threaten innocents."

It is not permissable for a Paladin to "help those who need help" if it leads to "chaotic or evil ends." Why should it be permissable to commit evil acts that lead to good ends?

 

[Bard Lucian]

I don't know if you're referring specifically to my post, Tom, but I'll reply on a couple of levels:

First, presumably, whatever moral justification a character makes in-game, it needs to be articulated on the basis of "in-game" concepts. My Paladin, whatever he chose to do, would not say, "my ethics are guided by the SRD (or PHB, or whatever). He would say, "My obedience to my God demands [insert ethical decision here]. Actually having a standard of ethical reasoning, even one based in reality, is a strength, not a deficiency, unless Paladins are not allowed to have any moral depth but to be simple automotons for their gods.

Second, the dogma of Poltus (not, as far as I know, a real world god), insists that evil must be destroyed wherever it is found. Now, if I am a Paladin of Poltus, is it your argument that it would be better for me to hack the prisoners to bits, knowing they're evil, rather than utilize them to save lives? Or would I not be justified in sparing the prisoners temporarily in order to allow them to contribute (albeit involuntarily) to the salvation of others?

My real world examples were merely illustrations of the concept, not an attempt to bring in issues such as euthanasia to the discussion.

 

[Gez]

This is of course wrong. Read the PHB, there is NO limitation on which god a Paladin must worship or what alignment that God must have. He doesn't even need to have a god!

Yes. He don't need to worship a deity. But same for clerics. And you can't have a LG cleric of Vecna.

Worshipping is a sort of relationship. You are "with" your deity. You associate yourself to it. A paladin worshipping Vecna would be associating willingly with an evil being.

Furthermore, in the FR campaign setting (who force divine spellcasters to follow a god) there is this one-step rule. Paladins have to follow a LG, LN or NG deity, with an exception (and clearly designated as the unique exception) of the CG goddess Sune having a Paladin order.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Actually having a standard of ethical reasoning, even one based in reality, is a strength, not a deficiency, unless Paladins are not allowed to have any moral depth but to be simple automotons for their gods.

You're talking about role-playing. Sure, of course Paladins should have depth.

I'm talking about what the D&D alignment rules do and don't allow. They make no mention of juicy ethical issues like "double effect."

The destruction of evil is all well and good. The destruction of 500 captured prisoners (not necessarily evil, mind you) by forcing them to work on a dike and then die "for the greater good" is not a "good" act by the D&D rules, no matter what slant you put on it.

It is completely possible to play a LG paladin who commits good acts in the pursuit of good without having be a "simple automaton." See my earlier Captain Picard example. He often breaks someone's rules, but he is always LG.

It's not easy to be good!

 

[Bard Lucian]

Tom, I fully agree with you that, if the Paladin doesn't know the prisoners are evil, it could be an evil act. My example presumed that he cast "detect evil," and could thus know for sure their alignment.

But I think you misunderstand me if you think that double effect is in some way a means of skirting ethical quandries. IT's not, it's a principled moral stand that folks may take as a way of doing what is necessary while staying within the boundaries of what is both lawful and good.

By the way, in general, I agree that the Paladin would act evilly, regardless of the possibilities of a double effect, if he forced the prisoners to work the dike. But not necessarily, if he could explain his moral reasoning in a way that justifies the actions as both lawful and good.

I remember a game where we had a "kick in the door" Paladin in a town. He knew that some baddies were in a tower, knew that the tower was a public monument, and knew there were evil people inside. The rest of us wanted to go get the town guard. He insisted on breaking in and fighting himself. The DM ended up having him disciplined by the town guard and having his weapons peace-bonded. He's lucky it wasn't me. I would have deprived him of his powers until he atoned.