The Paladin's Code...and TIME TRAVEL!

[ThoughtBubble]

Ahh the elegance of the moral calculus. It's okay to kill the evil guy because that prevents harm to others.

Utilitarianism is flawed in a world of absolute morality.

Not so much a direct response, but a request for you to read my earlier post on this topic.

Of course, with your mortal arrogance and limitations, you may be wreaking greater harm than you cause . . . and you'd never know it. So you kill the big bad when he or she is just a little bad. But how do you know that you've solved the problem. Evil isn't just a person. Evil is opportunity.

Kill this little bad now, but know that the social, political, and economic factors that made great evil possible will still exist. And who's to say that some other person won't take advantage.

Any choice made in any situation leaves us with a "But how do you know that you've solved the problem?" So I'm not sure how to proceed with that one. If I act, will it have consiquences that I havn't forseen? Will evil come from this good act? That's not so much a time travelling paladin problem as it is a freewilled sentient but not all-knowing creature problem. We're digging into some fairly murky waters here.

Paladins shouldn't focus on defeating evil beings, they should be addressing the factors that make true evil possible. Otherwise, all they can do is fight a losing battle against an ever shifting foe.

Aside from the fact that I disagree, I find this hard to take too seriously. Depending on the universe's cosmolgy, that can be a tall to impossible order. In some worlds that may be as simple as storming the gates of hell and killing all demons, devils, and evil gods. In other worlds, that may be impossible due to the nature of free will. And this is about as far as I'd like to go into that can of worms. If you'd like to clarify what the paladin should be doing aside from fighting evil beings, I'd live to hear it. Becaus this far, I see you asking him or her to put out the stars, and I feel that's a losing battle against the impossible that there wouldn't even be a momentary respite from.

The ultimate problem with your underlying assumption (that the paladin should kill the bad guy to prevent the suffering of the good) is that it paves the way to a hell where the lives of the few can be freely sacrificed for the lives of the many. With morals like these, I'm sure that there's a plot in Baator with your name on it.
--G

And likewise, I have a problem with your assertions. The assertion that taking an action from a limited perspective (all the paladin will ever have) is somehow a bad thing makes all actions done by all non divine creatures (and possibly even them, depending on the cosmolgy) bad. The assertion that paladins should focus on chainging the nature of existance (by adressing the factors that make true evil possible) is a bad thing by the previous assertion, and is also asking for what is likely beyond the powers of any paladin to do.

Now, if this is all just a bit of drama to prove the point that "Killing evil people isn't always the answer", then maybe we can talk a little more. Otherwise your words ring hollow, and seek to confuse.

So, in somewhat inflamitory closing, if I did happen to end up renting a plot of land in Baator, I'm sure I'd be renting it from you. By the way, I'm stealing your points as moral difficulties to toss at my next paladin.

Oh, and evil is what's detected by the detect evil spell. Just to cut that arguement short.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Heck, is it not the paladin's duty to seek the best of all possible options, rather than to bliindly accept the options presented by one who's motives may be questionable?

No it is not. It's the paladin's duty to do his or her duty. That is ultimately one of those things that comes down to style. Is it a pact between DM & Player? Is it a list of 5 things in the PH? Is it a strict set of rules set down by a diety? Campaign styles differ. Heck, within a campaign, paladins may differ. In my mind, the paladin will make the right choice because he or she is a paladin.

Not that I'm saying you HAVE to take the coices give, just that the choice made will be the right one, by virtue of paladinship, and what it means to be one.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

The greater good requires the destruction of evil. No ifs, ands, or buts. Accordingly, if the paladin could travel through time to change a great evil, you bet your behind she would do whatever necessary. Besides, destroying evil is never evil in and of itself, so talk of "murder" is misplaced.

I really feel the need to unpack some of your assertions here. How does one "destroy" evil? Evil is a moral position, not an object that can be "destroyed". A paladin's role is surely to oppose evil, but to destroy it requires more than a mortal is capable of.

By "do what is necessary" I assume that you mean things like execute babies in their cribs so that they don't grow up evil. I think that if a paladin has the capacity to travel through time they are just plain lazy if all they think to do is conduct pre-emptive executions. Two other possibilities present themselves

1. The infant can be removed from their circumstances to a more favourable situation so as to grow up good, rather than evil. (the behavioural solution

2. If you believe in intrinsic morality (as opposed to learned), then the evil infant can be removed to a prison to grow up away from the world. The prison could be extremely humane and offer the opportunity for inmates to live lives, thereby obviating the need to kill them.

Neither of these solutions would be beyond the power capability of a time-travelling paladin, especially one backed by religious institutions.

By "Besides, destroying evil is never evil in and of itself, so talk of "murder" is misplaced," I assume you mean that it is not murder to kill evil individuals, even if the killing is done without specific cause? I cannot reconcile this attitude with the Good alignment position, which incorporates the notions of love, mercy and kindness. None of these moral positions is represented in your statement that murder of "evil" is not actually murder.

Of course, underlying all of this is the notion that a paladin is a defender, not an assailant/assassin. The role of a paladin should be to protect the weak and defend the innocent, not to execute the unrighteous. Paladins would not shirk killing when unavoidable, but there are almost always alternative options, especially for an individual capable of time travel.

Just 2c

 

[Voadam]

Evil is necessary. I know you're saying to yourself: "How can evil be necessary? That don't make no sense to me!" Without evil, there cannot be good. Without dark there is no light! If ever day is a sunny day, then what's a sunny day?! Therefore, by that token, evil, evil, must be good. Lemme hear you say it now. 'Evil is good.' That's right! Now start singin' that! Evil is good! Praise the Lord! Evil is good!

Hey Preacher! Why you standing outside the church?

It's a trick, get an axe. Or a stake.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

So wait a second. People are actually saying that its all right for a Paladin to go back in time and murder children that could be evil. Paladin's are not murderers. They aren't assassins. Paladin's are Defenders. Going off and killing thing on a whim like that is not in any way, shape, or form Lawful OR Good. That's Chaotic and Evil.

Every Paladin should know that Evil is not a single being. Evil is an overall thing...just like Good is. If you kill the Good king, isn't there still Good in the world? The same holds true for Evil. It almost hurts to see Paladin's being portrayed as bloodthirsty murderers basing thier actions on possibilities. Evil can be turned to Good. Why? Because Good can become Evil. The problem with Good and Evil is that they are such exact mirriors of each other, that those on one side or another refuse to see it.

 

[Voadam]

Re: Re: Re: The Paladin's Code...and TIME TRAVEL!

You are ascribing greater flexibility to the hypothetical situation than was revealed.

You can't wave your hand and say "The Paladin could stop him some other way", or "He could force him to rehabilitate!"

Those are not options in this scenario, so digressing into the infinite options available is blunting the original question.

similarly, the question is not one of time-travel, or it's potential for paradoxes and the like.

It's a question of a paladin's behavior.
And I, for one, have already killed so much evil, why would i flinch when my skills are needed once again?
I am not stupid enough to need Evil to be in the act of commiting evil to take it out - that would hamstring me into uselessness.

All I need is to have the Evil prove to me that he is Evil be sensing it myself.

If when I time travel back, and the being is not Evil at the time, thats a tougher question. If that was the case, I'd prefer to timetravel back to when he was most assuredly Evil, but before he'd done much harm.

If I had to decide whether to kill an innocent, who was NOT evil yet, but one that was destined, without possibility of converting, to become Evil and do much harm, than I would still do it, unflinchingly.

It would kill a part of me, to kill an innocent, but I would do it for the benefit of all.
even if it damned my soul - I am but an instrument of god's Justice, sent to weed thru the chaff, and cut the bad out before it spreads.
and if I was sent back, than it was proof that my diety wanted me to do this act.
Plus, I could always consult my Phylatery of Faithfullness <-- pure cheesy way out

Here are the parameters of the hypothetical "If a paladin could travel back in time and murder a person who would eventually do evil things, is it incumbant upon him to do so...?"

No mention of being sent by their god. Could be an item, a wizard or the devil just as easily.

No explanation of how evil the future thing the person will do is.

No stated restriction on what you can do when you meet up with the person.

You seem to jump from asking "should a paladin murder someone who will do evil" to stating "murdering them is what god sent me to do, there is no other option."

Non-evil people can do evil acts without detecting as evil. They must do enough evil for them to become evil first.

Alhandra, tell me it is not so easy to manipulate you into slaughtering innocents.

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Paladins aren't guidance counsellors, they aren't psychologists, they aren't behavioral scientists, and they sure as hell aren't foster parents. They're holy warriors. See that little word at the end, "warrior"? What does a warrior do? That's right, a warrior ultimately kills stuff when he must.

Moralizing, trying to sway someone's soul toward good, all those things are the province of the cleric. The paladin may try, but iti's really the cleric's work. The cleric is the social conscience and the living example of a god's mercy and forgiveness, not the paladin.

The paladin is the god's clenched fist. They are the tactical nuclear missiles of the gods. The gods point them in a direction (stuff their heads full of beliefs of righteousness and morality), give them a target (someone who's annoying them), and set them loose to remove the problem.

To listen to some of you talk, any time the paladin has to *gasp* kill anything evil, he's committing some sort of moral outrage and is a complete failure as a champion of good. After all, we should capture evil, and nurture it until we've soothed its pain, right? Pardon me while I vomit!

Given the initial question, a paladin charged with deeply-felt knowledge of right and wrong, has the opportunity to go back in time and destroy an evil-doer before some tremendous evil event is accomplished. Nowhere does it state he's killing children in their cribs, or that he has the remotest opportunity to redeem the villain, so stop reading that into it. For all you know, the villain is a demon who is born evil to the core. As presented, it's black and white - at least, from the paladin's perspective, and after all that's what paladins are best at; black and white interpretations of right and wrong.

Modern-day apologists for criminal behavior and their pop-psychology interpretations of motivations and environmental effects on the psyche are out of place in this discussion. In D&D terms, evil is absolute, is very much defineable, and a paladin is gifted with the ability to recognize it and destroy it. There is no room for modern moral relativism in the discussion, unless you've house-ruled alignment that way, and even then you're not playing core D&D any more.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

PowerWordDumb:

The very abosultes you say that defend the Paladin's actions are what cause them to be Evil actions. What is a child's alignment? How can a small baby be Evil? If the baby IS evil, why should you have to kill it? A Paladin is a Holy Warrior, yes, but a Paladin is NOT a Holy Murderer. Going off and killing everything that just registers as Evil on the Paladin's little Evil Detecto-meter is NOT a Lawful Good Act. It is a Chaotic Evil act. It boils down to the fact that the Good and Evil of D&D is much more complex that it looks at first. If a Paladin goes off killing all Evil like you say they should, and they do it BEFORE anything Evil has occured...then that is an EVIL act, so therefore, the Paladin has become EVIL.

 

[Voadam]

Given the initial question, a paladin charged with deeply-felt knowledge of right and wrong, has the opportunity to go back in time and destroy an evil-doer before some tremendous evil event is accomplished. Nowhere does it state he's killing children in their cribs, or that he has the remotest opportunity to redeem the villain, so stop reading that into it. For all you know, the villain is a demon who is born evil to the core. As presented, it's black and white - at least, from the paladin's perspective, and after all that's what paladins are best at; black and white interpretations of right and wrong.

Modern-day apologists for criminal behavior and their pop-psychology interpretations of motivations and environmental effects on the psyche are out of place in this discussion. In D&D terms, evil is absolute, is very much defineable, and a paladin is gifted with the ability to recognize it and destroy it. There is no room for modern moral relativism in the discussion, unless you've house-ruled alignment that way, and even then you're not playing core D&D any more.

Tremendous evil event? That's possible, but just as possible as minor evil infraction given the brief scenario.

The scenario does not say the target detects as evil, just that the paladin knows the target will do evil in the future.

The target could be incorruptibly evil, but that is not stated.

The question is simply is a paladin required to murder someone they know will do evil things.

Not great, tremendous evil, but unspecified evil things.

I would have to say a paladin is not obligated to murder

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Tremendous evil event? That's possible, but just as possible as minor evil infraction given the brief scenario.

The scenario does not say the target detects as evil, just that the paladin knows the target will do evil in the future.

The target could be incorruptibly evil, but that is not stated.

The question is simply is a paladin required to murder someone they know will do evil things.

Not great, tremendous evil, but unspecified evil things.

I would have to say a paladin is not obligated to murder

That's fair, I too perhaps have read too much into the scenario. I would have to say though, that with what minimal information we do have, the paladin destroying an evil-doer is not murder. It's a sanctioned execution direct from his god.

Doesn't make it the best possible means to deal with a situation, I'll grant, but the paladin doesn't have that luxury. He has a demonstrable evil and a clear action that will prevent some evil from occurring, so his path should be clear - prevent the evil.

Now, making that the wrong thing to do from a campaign perspective (this evil-doer was keeping a potentially much stronger evil-doer from developing and committing even greater atrocities) would be a great campaign hook to pick up on. Let the paladin do what he thinks is right, and then gleefully rub his nose in the consequences. Any rat-bastardly DM should chuckle at the very thought.