Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 7820215" data-attributes="member: 32740">Firstly, for purposes of meaningful discussion the GIVEN parameters are that those ARE the only options.  We're effectively excluding the possibility of some other choice being available and meaningful.That said, this isn't being presented with a choice of upholding your oath or not - it is being quite effectively prevented from making an oath-relevant choice at all.  The no-win scenario was not arrived at because of the paladin's failures - it was arrived at because of the machinations of Asmodeus.  The fact that the paladin then BEGINS in a no-win position is not a failure to uphold their oath.  There are not always going to be pathways of sequential choices that will lead to success.  You can make every unshakably correct decision and still find that the end result is failure.  It is likewise possible to make bad decisions at every turn for all the wrong reasons and yet still succeed.When choices that will lead to any measure of "success" are deliberately and skillfully being excluded by a devil who only wants to engineer your failure anyway, a "choice" that ends in failure is not the result of failing to uphold your oath.  It is a result of even the best choice (or the least UNdesirable choice) having been forced - outside your ability to influence the outcome - to nonetheless result in an unwanted outcome.  That reduces the "choice" to only selecting an action that will lead to the least death/hardship/evil, not actual success.  The fact that neither outcome is a desirable one or equates in any way to success doesn't mean it's YOUR failure to uphold your oath that reduced your choices to degrees of failure.It's not failure to uphold the oath.  The upholding of the oath was rendered moot.  Did the paladin defend the innocent?  He had no opportunity to do so.  The children were BEYOND his ability to defend from the start.  Asmodeus holds all the cards because that was the given parameters.  Did the paladin prevent them from coming to harm?  Unless he was in a position to know and then prevent their captivity in the first place he had no opportunity to affect that.  Unless there are at that point other options open to the paladin in the wake of being given Sophie's Choice (and by definition for this scenario there aren't), picking one to live over letting both die/face eternal torment is a no-brainer.  You pick one to live.But what about the possibility of other choices than those Asmodeus gives?  It's still not just a matter of having ANY other option to take.  The paladin has to see that an option exists, recognize it, and be able to take it, beyond being merely willing to take it.  Not seeing it, or not being able to take it for any number of reasons is not failing to uphold your oath.  Failure in general is NOT the same as a failure of NOT upholding an oath.  Upholding your oath doesn't mean you MUST succeed in your goals, ALWAYS.  It only means you always try to succeed in the best way you are able.  I've yet to see an oath that actually says a paladin must sacrifice themselves to their oaths without batting an eyelash, even if doing so won't result in success.  Anyone that has inflicted such a dumb oath on a foolishly willing player gets no consideration from me.There was an episode of ST: Next Generation that I recall that I feel fits this.  Data is being physically controlled by some entity who threatens to force him to kill someone with a phaser.  That wouldn't be Data's choice of action - it's the evil entity's action.  Data's choice in the matter was removed.  Data would be in no way responsible for the death that would result and says so.  Realizing that Data is not, and will not be racked with guilt and further manipulated by similar threats robs the entity of the satisfaction they were seeking in having Data struggle and plead in futility.This is a horrible choice to face, but it isn't a choice of upholding the paladins oath versus NOT upholding the oath.  Death/torment is guaranteed as a given.  The choice is will it be one or three victims?  Hardly a matter of failing to uphold the oath if opportunities DO NOT EXIST for the paladins actions relevant to their oath to even have a chance to be tried and fail.No.  He'll surely feel bad that he was unable to do anything at all, but it wasn't their choice to NOT protect the innocent.  That option was denied up front.  It is because of Asmodeus actions and choices that even one much less all three will be in eternal torment - NOT THE PALADIN'S CHOICE.  Their oath and any ability to uphold it doesn't DEMAND that they then always succeed in defending the innocent and prevent them from being harmed, ever, regardless of circumstances.  You can try to defend the innocent and fail.  You may try to prevent them from being harmed and they could still die.  That isn't failure to uphold your oath.  You might not know an innocent is in need of defense and in danger of harm - that, too, is not a failure of you upholding your oath.  Knowing an innocent is in need of defense and in danger of harm and choosing to do nothing, or choosing NOT to do the thing that will help them (and which is not simply suicidal) when you not only can but should do something about it - THAT is failure to uphold an oath.Far, far too many it seems.  Some DM's even take pride in making it as difficult as possible if not impossible for paladins to remain paladins.I'll repeat my mantra - paladins know what the right thing to do is.  Always.  It's what they f'n LIVE for.  Doing the "right thing," whatever that may be and accepting that this will likely be dangerous and inconvenient and HARD TO DO, is what makes a paladin a paladin in the first place.  They are never, EVER, ignorant of the correct choice, or what their oaths and codes rightfully expect them to do - for the same reasons that a Druid PC never, ever, doesn't know that they are supposed to protect nature (and trees in particular).  In the EXCEPTIONAL circumstance that their morals and oaths and codes DON'T provide the correct answer up front - ANY AND EVERY good-faith effort to do the right thing is a meritorious attempt to uphold those obligations, whether it succeeds or not.  The fact that they are expected/obligated to do what their morals, oaths, and codes call for IS the sacrifice they make.  Paladins don't GUESS at what's the right thing to do.  They know it already or understand it instinctively even when corner cases arise because that is what their class is about.To be certain, if the player IS guessing, then it is the DM who has failed to communicate the expectations to the player.I have never once in 40+ years of gaming even heard of a paladin PC falling from grace without one of two scenarios being in effect:A) whether the player knows the right and correct thing for their PC to do or not they choose to do the wrong thing anyway because this is a deliberate roleplaying exploration of falling and possible redemption, orB) the DM has INFLICTED upon the PC/player a scenario in which the correct answer is deliberately withheld when needed in order to justify further infliction of punishment for not knowing the correct answer.Classical Paladin issues, IME (and that is obviously not the same for everyone), are caused by the DM, and never by players desiring and attempting in good faith to simply have their PC do the right thing.</blockquote>

Verification