Prickly moral situation for a Paladin - did I judge it correctly?

[barsoomcore]

D&D posits a shallow idea of good and evil, where evil is actually Evil and can be pointed out in a trivial, non-ambiguous fashion. Making the world better consists of finding things that are Evil and destroying them.

Now, making aspects of life shallow can be a powerful way to think or talk about life, since it lets you explore certain ideas in greater depth or from a new viewpoint.

It does, however, remove the potential for moral quandaries from the game. If Evil is Evil and can be safely destroyed without concern for salvation, then there are no moral quandaries, except perhaps from time to time in choosing which Evil to take out first. Evil? Destroy. Not Evil? Protect.

So of course, any interpretation of the "dominating kids" story that is based on D&D morality gets to helpfully avoid any sort of moral quandary. The issue boils down to:

if (kids == Evil) { 
 for each kid in kids {
  Destroy (kid);}
}
else {
 Protect (kids);
}

It's mechanical, devoid of quandariness, and, to me at least, dull.

Lots of people seem to be intent on doing a bunch of hand-waving to prove how simple an issue this is and how the paladin should have had no compunctions about chopping the little blighters in half.

My problem with this approach is that it takes all the FUN out of it. It's more exciting if it's a moral conundrum. It's more thrilling if the paladin doesn't know what to do, and, raging against the heartless fiend that made this necessary, weeping all the time, cuts down the children whose eyes only at the last minute shine with the innocence that was so long ago taken from them. Then, surrounded by bodies, swears never to rest until the demonic forces responsible are found and destroyed so that they can never again perpetrate such horrors.

Purple prose aside (I can never resist -- curse you, fiends of darkness!), this to me is a much more FUN story. Much more fun than "Detect Evil. Evil? Destroy."

Not saying it's BETTER, mind you. Just saying I find it more fun.

As long as it's backed up with the requisite amount of killing things and taking their stuff, of course.

 

[Mean DM]

Aha! THIS is an extremely important point that rather sabotages your own position.

Ah, no it doesn't.

Cheers,

m

 

[The Blue Elf]

It tends to get annoying sometimes out of my experiance being force to act lawful when you are trying to do good.

 

[Mean DM]

My problem with this approach is that it takes all the FUN out of it. It's more exciting if it's a moral conundrum. It's more thrilling if the paladin doesn't know what to do, and, raging against the heartless fiend that made this necessary, weeping all the time, cuts down the children whose eyes only at the last minute shine with the innocence that was so long ago taken from them. Then, surrounded by bodies, swears never to rest until the demonic forces responsible are found and destroyed so that they can never again perpetrate such horrors.

Barsoomcore, I want to play a Paladin in your game . Thank you for describing the POV that I am too inarticulate to make!
Cheers,

Mark

 

[Agback]

D&D posits a shallow idea of good and evil, where evil is actually Evil and can be pointed out in a trivial, non-ambiguous fashion.... It's mechanical, devoid of quandariness, and, to me at least, dull.

Hear! Hear!

I very heartily agree. The D&D alignments system, where it in not simply bizarre, is a cause of great dullness, and sucks interest and fun out of the game. It needs a live organ transplant. {IMHO. YMMV. YDWYDWP.}

But, if the GM wisely decides to abandon or rework it, he or she needs to tell the players about the new arrangements before they commit themselves to playing paladins and clerics. To keep the new rules in petto until the paladin is hip-deep in demon-worshipping munchkins is unfair, cruel, and a way to alienate and lose players.

Furthermore, I think that a redefinition that involved "Good protects the lives of things that look cute" is suitable only for comedy.

Regards,


Agback

 

[ForceUser]

Have to agree with Lodow Mobo, they were Dominating every round, not every other round, or there would have been more of them dead before I was wrongly Dominated...

Oh well, live and learn...it's and I can still about it.

I promise you, Blaine, it was every other round. The rounds were flying by, though, because some party members didn't do much at first, and the kids didn't do anything but stand there in the rounds dominate wasn't up.

 

[barsoomcore]

To keep the new rules in petto until the paladin is hip-deep in demon-worshipping munchkins is unfair, cruel, and a way to alienate and lose players

On the other hand, if you're doing your job as a DM, your players ought to be calling you unfair and cruel long before the demon-worshipping munchkins show up.

Hee.

 

[Brian Chalian]

I can't believe you are using Gandulf's quote to support the paladin's right to kill. His statement was all about mercy and understanding that even evil creatures may still have apart to play in the shaping of the world.

Maybe so, but consider that Gandalf's question wouldn't be rhetorical in D&D. Any high level cleric can answer "yes".

 

[Elf Witch]

Maybe so, but consider that Gandalf's question wouldn't be rhetorical in D&D. Any high level cleric can answer "yes".

I know there are spells that allow clerics to commune with their gods but it does not get you all the answers. Or if does it because if it does that is totally lame why ever think for yourself just call up your diety and ask.

 

[Elf Witch]

And that's all fine and well - so long as the DM makes it clear to players at the outset what the campaign he's running will use as moral and ethical reference - the real world, a quasi-Medieval European world, or something else entirely. It's the failure to have the DM and the players on the same page as regards the expected morals and ethics in the world that created the problem originally presented.

I would think that would be par for the course wouldn't it? I guess I have a problem with the quasi-medieval world being assumed as the standard because then a lot of things that go on in the game makes no sense. If you say that modern ethics don't belong in the game and the church is flavored like a medieval church then why is there not issues with woman and commoners? It is like people are picking and choosing just how much medieval flavor is included.