Windtalkers assignment - an alignment thread.

[Kahuna Burger]

Thinking about the beginning of Windtalkers (never saw it all the way through) last night, and of course my train of thought came around to "Could/would a paladin accept an assignment like that and carry it out? What about just a garden variety Good character?"

For those not familiar with the movie, it centers on the use of the Navajo language as a code base in the WWII Japanese theater. (With native speakers as the code holders.) In the film, Nick Cage is a marine paired as a "bodyguard" for one of the original codetalker volunteers. What Cage is told (but his charge is not) is that he is only a bodyguard up to the point where there is a significant risk of capture and then he is to kill his charge. As he puts in later in the film when letting the Navajo in on the real deal "You Codetalkers are important, that's why they stuck me on your ass. But nobody's as important as the code. Japanese got hold of a Codetalker, Codetalker talks, code's useless. I didn't have a choice. My order's to protect the code."

I can easily see adapting this plot to a D&D game, where sensitive messages are carried by an individual who has been rendered immune to divinations. But since there is still the possibility of compulsions or garden variety torture, the messenger's bodyguard for the journey also has a failsafe order to kill the messenger if capture is a serious risk. In order to maintain close approximation to the movie, the messenger would be a volunteer and unaware that there is a failsafe order.

In such a plot, would you consider carrying out the failsafe order to be a Good, Neutral or Evil act? If you were playing a Good character, would you feel that accepting the bodyguard mission was in character? Would a Paladin fall?

 

[Nifft]

Seems like an issue of informed consent to me.

If the code-dude signed up knowing his mission might well turn into a suicide mission, then IMHO the Paladin would not fall for killing him. If the code-dude had no idea that he might be volunteering to die, then I'd ask him why he's working for the army... but that's a side issue.

As with all his other applications of lethal force, I'd hold the Paladin to a high standard... but no higher than I'd hold him in any other scenario. D&D World has better interrogation methods than real life (mind reading, domination), so the situation is actually more likely there than it would be here.

As a Paladin, I'd only take the mission if I were sure that the code-dude was risking his life voluntarily.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kahuna Burger]

If the code-dude had no idea that he might be volunteering to die, then I'd ask him why he's working for the army... but that's a side issue.

I'd say the risk of being killed by the enemy is completely unrelated to the expectation of whether your own people will kill you because they value your life less than their security. Perhaps you know something about the default expectations of the military that I don't?

I agree on the informed consent being crucial, which is why I called out that aspect. This is not Aliens "I don't want to end up like that - you'll take care of it?"

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I would say that kind of action falls under Lawful Neutral... however, if the other character suggested this first, or consented, and was obviously of sound mind, it could fall under the D&D auspice of Lawful Good.

 

[wingsandsword]

It's not selfish, malevolent, malicious, or other ways "evil" is normally described, so I don't think it would be an evil act and not one that would automatically make a paladin fall. . .but the issue of informed consent would weigh on just how good or neutral the act is.

If the courier knew that in the event of possible capture he would be killed to prevent the information from falling into the wrong hands, then it could be called a Lawful Good act: Helping a person who is willing to sacrifice their life to protect secrets that would risk innocent lives if they fell into the wrong hands.

If the courier didn't know about the failsafe, but wasn't told one way or the other about capture eventualities, just told to avoid it because the secrets/code is so important and leaving the details unspoken, it sounds Lawful Neutral: Carrying out a duty to preserve state secrets and information that could save lives, even if it means killing somebody because of no fault of their own.

If the courier was being actively deceived on the failsafe, such as being told the bodyguard is there to protect them at all costs, including rescuing them if they were captured, then it's starting to get a little potentially evil because of the deception of someone into risking their life, but that's not a likely way the scenario seems to play out.

 

[Nifft]

I'd say the risk of being killed by the enemy is completely unrelated to the expectation of whether your own people will kill you because they value your life less than their security. Perhaps you know something about the default expectations of the military that I don't?

Matter of perspective I guess -- the very fact that General Gotcherback tends to place my unit between himself and the advancing menace would seem to indicate that he values my life less than his own safety. But that's not exactly unexpected in a military chain of command.

I agree on the informed consent being crucial, which is why I called out that aspect. This is not Aliens "I don't want to end up like that - you'll take care of it?"

If this is D&D world, why preclude "fates worse than death"? IMHO any Paladin would prefer death to a Helm of Opposite Alignment -- and that's a re-usable item. An evil army would only need a few to turn all those CG archers into loyal-until-inevitable-betrayal LE stoogies.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kahuna Burger]

If this is D&D world, why preclude "fates worse than death"? IMHO any Paladin would prefer death to a Helm of Opposite Alignment -- and that's a re-usable item. An evil army would only need a few to turn all those CG archers into loyal-until-inevitable-betrayal LE stoogies.

why include them when they are irrelevant to the question? The scenario being proposed is fairly straightforwards and the motivations transparent.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

I firmly believe that paladins can operate within a "greater good" framework, although it is a slippery slope of justification which could ultimately lead to a fall. Otherwise paladins would just disappear if every time they had to choose the lesser of two evils they fell regardless.

Cheers

 

[Squire James]

As I see it, the Windtalker situation is one of those unwholesome realities of war that paladins deal with frequently. The quintessential paladin would probably not go for the "secret orders" approach, though he might if the fate of the world is on the line. Most probably wouldn't have a problem with fully-aware Windtalkers, since "death before dishonor" is a common paladin trope.

 

[Nifft]

why include them when they are irrelevant to the question? The scenario being proposed is fairly straightforwards and the motivations transparent.

Maybe because they're not? Unlike reality, D&D has interrogation methods that work reliably. When the other side can cast dominate person, it's no longer a question of "if you talk".

Does the other side have vampires, succubi, necromancers or mind flayers? D&D world has a buffet of fates worse than death.

-- N