Would this be evil?

[Rabelais]

Making people wash dishes is evil!? I'm going to have to have a talk with my mother!

Giz owes me a new monitor... That diet coke isn't going to come out.

I agree. There's no way that IMC that this method of teaching bullies a lesson is evil. It's not like you plucked out their eyes or something. We should remember the words of Frankie Nietzsche Freddy's lesser known brother "That which does not kill me, makes me really grumpy."

If the evil nobles/theives decide to accept their plot hook, then so be it.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Neutral, but not evil. Maybe even Good, if you consider that another term for "the dignity of sentient beings" is "not being raped" or "not having your fingers sawn off" or something of the kind.

 

[Slife]

(Sorry for double-post, but this is a separate point which I didn't notice until later.)

Why is the party responsible for this particular noble's evil action? Is the noble a minor under the party's guardianship? Is the noble under the effects of a dominate person spell?

I'm all for actions having consequences, but let's give the NPCs a modicum of personal responsibility here.

Cheers, -- N

Incidentally, by saying that a character is not responsible for the actions of others, almost all of the common paladin moral dilemmas (catch-22s) disappear.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Incidentally, by saying that a character is not responsible for the actions of others, almost all of the common paladin moral dilemmas (catch-22s) disappear.

Eh, the reasonably expected responses to one's actions have to be factored in. Yes, in a legalistic (lawful!) sense, what someone else does is not the paladin's responsibility. But if a paladin's actions can reasonably be expected to cause harm later on, it doesn't make the act evil, but it does give him a responsibility to attempt to prevent that harm from happening. In some cases, there will be no way to prevent that harm other than not doing the original action.

 

[Nifft]

Eh, the reasonably expected responses to one's actions have to be factored in. Yes, in a legalistic (lawful!) sense, what someone else does is not the paladin's responsibility. But if a paladin's actions can reasonably be expected to cause harm later on, it doesn't make the act evil, but it does give him a responsibility to attempt to prevent that harm from happening. In some cases, there will be no way to prevent that harm other than not doing the original action.

Then there are no more paladins in your world.

Imp #1: Hey, paladin! Hey, paladin! If you don't kill that orphan right now, I'll kill two orphans!
Paladin: God damn it. (Loses powers no matter what.)
Imp #2: Who's next on the list?

I prefer a world with paladins. YMMV.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The answer in that case is to behead the imp.

And even if he couldn't, the clear problem is the imp, and anyone who would put the paladin in that sort of Catch-22 is almost certainly someone who will be doing evil, with or without the paladin, and taking him down will serve the greatest good, even if it took a while to accomplish the goal.

And note that I didn't say the paladin would lose his powers if he did a good deed that had bad consequences, just that he'd have a responsibility to clean up his own mess. That's an adventure hook, not a problem.

 

[Nifft]

the clear problem is the imp

Well, that's my point.

And note that I didn't say the paladin would lose his powers if he did a good deed that had bad consequences, just that he'd have a responsibility to clean up his own mess. That's an adventure hook, not a problem.

"An evil act" is what would strip the Paladin of his powers. You called the act evil. There's not much wiggle room here!

Saying that the Paladin should try to check up on people he's interacted with is one thing. Saying he's responsible for their actions is (mechanically) quite another.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Slife]

And, since the paladin isn't going to be swayed in his actions, regardless of what the villain threatens, and it would be common knowledge by then, the villain isn't going to have any reason to do the whole "Try to kill me and I destroy this orphanage!" routine.

IIRC, I saw a version of this dilemma in The Once and Future King.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

"An evil act" is what would strip the Paladin of his powers. You called the act evil.

You should reread what I wrote.

Saying that the Paladin should try to check up on people he's interacted with is one thing. Saying he's responsible for their actions is (mechanically) quite another.

Thank God I never said that, then.

 

[Nifft]

Thank God I never said that, then.

You're right, that was Huw. It just looked like you were defending his stance.

Glad you agree.

Cheers, -- N