Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7820078" data-attributes="member: 53980">That's a decent baseline, but I don't agree that it applies in all scenarios.For example, Asmodeus has decided to pick on a poor level 1 paladin. This paladin's oath includes defending the innocent and preventing them from coming to harm. Asmodeus presents the paladin with a devil's choice. He has two children captive, both innocent. If the paladin chooses one child to eternally torment, Asmodeus will let the other child as well as the paladin go free. On the other hand, if the next act of the paladin is not to pick a child for Asmodeus to torment, he will torment both children and the paladin for eternity.It is a no-win situation. Every possible choice the paladin can make involves failure to uphold his oaths. Even if he does nothing, he'll eventually pass out from fatigue and that will constitute an act of non-choice wherein he fails. I don't think that choosing either child is a willful violation of his oath, though it's likely that the paladin will be disgusted with himself for doing so (no doubt to Asmodeus' delight). It's arguable that not choosing would be a violation, since he did have the capacity to protect one innocent by choosing (albeit at the cost of damning another). That said, regardless of which choice he makes, he knows full well that he is failing to protect an innocent. Despite this, I don't believe that it can be considered a willing act, due to the fact that he is under duress.Obviously, I do not advocate this sort of DMing. Nonetheless, I've heard enough horror stories over the years to know that this type of scenario does happen at some tables.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 7820078, member: 53980"] That's a decent baseline, but I don't agree that it applies in all scenarios. For example, Asmodeus has decided to pick on a poor level 1 paladin. This paladin's oath includes defending the innocent and preventing them from coming to harm. Asmodeus presents the paladin with a devil's choice. He has two children captive, both innocent. If the paladin chooses one child to eternally torment, Asmodeus will let the other child as well as the paladin go free. On the other hand, if the next act of the paladin is not to pick a child for Asmodeus to torment, he will torment both children and the paladin for eternity. It is a no-win situation. Every possible choice the paladin can make involves failure to uphold his oaths. Even if he does nothing, he'll eventually pass out from fatigue and that will constitute an act of non-choice wherein he fails. I don't think that choosing either child is a willful violation of his oath, though it's likely that the paladin will be disgusted with himself for doing so (no doubt to Asmodeus' delight). It's arguable that not choosing would be a violation, since he did have the capacity to protect one innocent by choosing (albeit at the cost of damning another). That said, regardless of which choice he makes, he knows full well that he is failing to protect an innocent. Despite this, I don't believe that it can be considered a willing act, due to the fact that he is under duress. Obviously, I do not advocate this sort of DMing. Nonetheless, I've heard enough horror stories over the years to know that this type of scenario does happen at some tables. [/QUOTE]

Verification