Windtalkers assignment - an alignment thread.

[Hypersmurf]

I would say yes to both a paladin and a "good" character taking the mission and carrying it out (although they would probably wait until there was 'no chance of saving the code talker' rather than 'first chance that code talker might get captured'). I'd also expect a paladin to be prepared to give his own life to do this if necessary.

Of course, I can easily picture the informed code talker, faced with near-certainty of capture and only one bullet in his rifle, choosing to shoot the paladin...

-Hyp.

 

[jmucchiello]

Of course, I can easily picture the informed code talker, faced with near-certainty of capture and only one bullet in his rifle, choosing to shoot the paladin...

And the paladin takes his 2d10 damage, looks annoyed and proceeds to kill the code talker over the course of the next 3 rounds.

Not being easy to kill folks outright is why I don't think this is a viable scenario in D&D. Once you hand wave away the combat mechanics, you can also remove the secret mission. Just put a spell on the code talker that causes him to erupt in flames when captured.

 

[BeauNiddle]

On a related note:

During WW2 Britain was the only country to prepare a guerrila force BEFORE it got invaded (which in the end it never was). The local police constable for each area was told to assemble a group of 6-10 trustworthy chaps to be in this force (the constable wasn't allowed to be in the guerrila army). These guys then went away and got given insurgency training. They also got given a sealed set of orders to follow if the country was ever invaded.

Well being normal people a few of them opened the sealed orders - their first order of business was to shoot the constable who had recruited them since he was the only one who could identify all of them.

Welcome to the military.

 

[glass]

My take

It is a neutral act.

I wouldn't have a problem with good characters doing it (provided the code really was that important to the war effort and the war was good-guys-vs-bad-guys). However, a paladin might get into difficulties regarding his code -this doesn't strike me a 'acting with honour'.


glass.

 

[WayneLigon]

A Good character would do this thing, knowing that if he does not then countless others will suffer and die. It'll be a hard choice but one I think he'd ultimately make. Likewise, I don't think a Paladin would have a problem doing this. He wouldn't like it and would probably feel the need to quest or otherwise atone for killing an otherwise innocent man but he'd do it for the same reasons as any other Good character. He would probably find some way to alert the Codetalker to the deception; that would bother him a great deal. Neither would be quick to kill the man, either. If they were captured, he'd probably do his utmost to rescue the man first.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I could completely see a paladin volunteering to be the one to take on an assignment like this. The paladin, understanding the necessity for protecting the secrets his charge has, knows that his dedication to both Good and Law makes it more likely he would kill his charge only when there is no other option left. Others might not wait until there is no other option as it might mean their own death as well.

I do think he would only do it if the person he was with understood what was expected.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

In such a plot, would you consider carrying out the failsafe order to be a Good, Neutral or Evil act?

Depends on the circumstances. I kill someone. Is that good, neutral or evil? I kill someone to preserve national security. Is that good, neutral or evil? I kill a comrade in arms, who volunteered as a SOLDIER, in the heat of battle, from a distance, as he is being tortured by our enemies when I know they have learned that he holds the secret to our code and can divulge it all that very moment. Is that good, neutral, or evil?

Actions dictate alignment. At the time of accepting the mission there would have to be some rather more notably and inexcusably nefarious machinations taking place before the paladin would,
A) be considered to have committed an evil act
B) otherwise have lost his paladin status

As is often the case in such situational ethics examples the area where things will likely turn is that of "a paladin tells the truth". Interpretation of that maxim is VARIABLE regarding just how pathological the paladin is regarding the truth, or rather how pathological he is EXPECTED to be regarding the truth. And, as always, the paladin WILL KNOW the answer to whether or not he MUST act in a given way. Some interpretations would have the paladin able to lie, cheat, and steal as a military necessity. Some interpretations would have the paladin forced to reveal his true mission to the codetalker only if no other answer could be given without lying. Yet other interpretations would have the paladin forced not only to refuse the mission (excepting perhaps if the codetalker was fully informed) but to then inform the codetalker REGARDLESS, and possibly take further action to bring the whole project to an end as being unacceptable in the paladins view.

If you were playing a Good character, would you feel that accepting the bodyguard mission was in character? Would a Paladin fall?

As noted, it depends on specifics of how the DM interprets the paladins code, what additional specifics the paladin may have taken an oath for, and additional specifics of the situation at the time. As a rule, however, and again as noted, the paladin IS NOT IGNORANT OF HIS COMMITMENT. If the paladin does not know the answer (as can be asked of, and verified by the DM) then the paladin is NOT in danger of falling, nor indeed of even temporary loss of abilities and atonement should he accept the mission and/or follow through with its worst-case commitment.

If the DM knows what is right and wrong for the paladin to do then the PLAYER must also know by default and thus the CHARACTER. Paladin PC's CANNOT endanger their status except by WILLFUL disregard of what they know to be correct behavior or dangerous flirtation with borderline behavior, and even then atonement is possible for non-evil acts. And given the general circumstances I see nothing overtly evil about the paladins commitment to the mission nor carrying it out. Possibly not-as-LG-as-preferred but nothing evil and thus nothing that couldn't at least be atoned for should circumstances warrant.