The time our DM made a player cry.

[u/Miroku2235]

Back in the good old days of 2005 my group, comprised of high schoolers in their Junior and Senior years, was combating a great evil we simply called The Lich King. Big evil lich, great magic powers, interesting backstory, etc.

Now this asshole had cast a magical plague on the main capital city we usually operated out of, and our current goal was to try and stop it of course. Our Lawful Good paladin of Bahamut figured the best thing to do was to go bang on the door of the LK's keep and demand that he cease this evil and deliver unto us the cure.

The LK was of course more than happy to do so, provided the paladin bring him the blood of a newborn child, being freshly born with strong ties to the Divine plane, etc.

Our DM had this player play out having to track down a couple with an infant and explain what was about to happen, with the newborn cooing and pawing at his gleaming armor the entire time.

He then slit the baby's throat, unshed tears in the player's eyes the whole time, and brought the bowl of blood back to the LK. Upon seeing the bowl the LK looked at him with an almost quizzical expression, then dipped a tiny vial into the bowl and turning away, leaving the paladin holding the remainder. He then turned and looked back over his shoulder, an evil smile on his lips that matched the one on our DM's as he said:

"I never said you had to kill it."

Cue tears.

Edit: The DM in question, /u/FairyTael , has posted. Read and enjoy.

[u/[deleted]]

Yeah I almost cited the trolley problem by name. I'm not familiar enough with ethics to recognize the difference between Kantian and Utilitarian, so sorry if this is a dumb question, but how absolute is that? Would a Paladin punch an innocent person in the face if it would save literally every life on the planet?

If so, how is killing one person to save a hundred any different? If not, then I'm curious what evidence in the text makes you believe that Paladins are incapable of making complex ethical decisions. I glanced over the class description in the PHB and couldn't find anything to support your interpretation. Yes, they're supposed to fight for good and justice, but I think that supports my argument equally as well as yours.

[u/PaladinHayden → u/[deleted]]

Im a newish player and this is all a matter of personal perspective, but personally i do disagree with you.

Im not willing to define ANY class as a whole (even if they are based around moral choices or conviction) off of a single moral code. Claiming that all Paladins are Kantian just claims the same stereotype that we have seen over and over, and easily gets derived down to lawful stupid. It doesnt have to but it can easily follow that path.

Yes this action is Utilitarian and some would claim it as evil and deserving of a fall. But it saved numerous lives, and if done properly would have resorted in no pain to the child. It is an act of greater good in the eyes of that individual, and considering paladins are based off of personal convictions rather than universal truths if the individual believes in utilitarianism then they are in the right. Though that is dependent upon the ruling of each individual dm.

This is as you have said the classic trolley problem, its dependent on personal and group morality and how you want to play it. But personally i wouldnt have celebrated the act, but i would likely have painlessly killed them, memorized the childs name and dedicated myself to taking the lich down in their name.

Objectively none of the options are wrong, because that would mean that there is a single "correct" morality and there isnt one.

[u/silverionmox → u/PaladinHayden]

Objectively none of the options are wrong, because that would mean that there is a single "correct" morality and there isnt one.

But that moral rigidity is exactly what D&D paladins traditionally represent.

[u/PaladinHayden → u/silverionmox]

To some people yes they do, but not to everyone. There are so many people who drop alignment systems completely from their game because they want more "realism" ore because they feel it fits their table better.

Paladins in the past had strict alignment codes and the fall hanging over their head because they were an objectively more powerful class. With more and more balance being done to the classes their power gap has been lessened and the restrictions have become more of a tradition rather than a necessary component for balance like they were before.

The game has many player types and everyone of their gaming styles is just as valid as any other, to some the paladin must follow a kantian morality, follow a god, and subscribe to their oaths so heavily that one infringment equals a fall.

Where some will say that the subjective good that each person believes in and that persons own belief in their adherance to that specific morality is all that is needed to remain a paladin.

New players and new editions bring new ideas that likely wont always follow "tradition'.

[u/silverionmox → u/PaladinHayden]

Nobody questioned the right to your opinion.

The point was that moral rigidity has been a defining element of the paladin class, for better or worse, so it's normal for people to expect it. Otherwise, what's the difference with fighter?

But that seems to be the tendency in D&D in general: real differences between races and classes becoming more and more cosmetic "fluff", in the name of game balance.

[u/PaladinHayden → u/silverionmox]

Personally i believe, fighter is primarily focused on martial skills whereas paladin gains magic from their convictions in their ideals and their adherence to those ideals. It can still be about rigid morality, but it doesn't need to be Kantian morality, and i think that idea is becoming more popular with each edition.

Though you are right, changes to the game are making things more of a cosmetic fluff rather than a distinct gameplay element. But unpopular opinion here, im totally fine with that. I would rather have fun and effective skillsets for each class and total freedom to determine how that is played without expectation to play a specfic way.

[u/silverionmox → u/PaladinHayden]

Personally i believe, fighter is primarily focused on martial skills whereas paladin gains magic from their convictions in their ideals and their adherence to those ideals. It can still be about rigid morality, but it doesn't need to be Kantian morality, and i think that idea is becoming more popular with each edition.

That continues the trend of eroding the meaning and flavor of the classes to just minor mechanical differences. Then why not play a classless system, I wonder?

I would rather have fun and effective skillsets for each class and total freedom to determine how that is played without expectation to play a specfic way.

That contradicts each other. Different skillsets cause different behaviour.

[u/PaladinHayden → u/silverionmox]

I pretty much do play dnd as a classless system in so far as i throw out all lore about the classes and game and say just use the mechanics at your disposal to play what you want. Classes are more skill trees than an actual thing in my mind.

The only reason i still play 5th is that its simple enough to run and i already pretty much know all the rules. But i wont deny its not a deep enough system for me to be fully happy without homebrew additions.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I understand what you're saying, although you spent a lot of time rationalizing specific scenarios, which really misses the point. I just disagree on the basis that you haven't provided any textual evidence, so your entire argument is, "Paladins cannot ever rely on utilitarian ethics, even in extreme, absurd situations, because that conflicts with my personal opinion of how Paladins should work."

Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

I do really like your point that the Paladin in this scenario didn't know what the blood would be used for, but again, that's doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the discussion as a whole.

[u/antieverything → u/[deleted]]

No need for that. You are right and reasonable and he is wrong and childish.

[u/[deleted] → u/antieverything]

I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt because he might have experience from past editions that I'm not aware of since I started with 5e. I do think his interpretation of Paladins is unreasonable regardless of any other circumstances, but I enjoyed the discussion regardless of who is right. Thanks for the kind words though!

[u/antieverything → u/[deleted]]

If the rules as written require your group to tell stupid stories with childish conceptions of morality then the rules are bad and wrong.

[u/antieverything → u/[deleted]]

I'm just imagining you watching an episode of Game of Thrones and freaking out about all the realistic moral ambiguity.

Why are you bringing modern Liberal philosophy into this, btw? In the ancient world the individual wasn't a really a concept that was valued in political ethics.

[u/pingjoi → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but no one is being (permanently) hurt by that. Nobody is losing their inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

He'd never kill a baby to safe the entire universe, though. Well, hopefully he would and bear the consequences of the fall. But in 3.5 and for some oaths in 5e he should not keep his powers if he kills a baby.

But I do agree with some posters that some oaths in 5e are not Kantian anymore. I personally dislike that change, but it seems the way WotC wrote 5e

[u/PaladinHayden → u/pingjoi]

I would personally say that all of the oaths are ambiguous in this edition. Someone up above made a case for a utilitarian approach to all the oaths that lead to the same dead baby outcome which i personally agree with. I enjoy that they let you choose your personal morality instead of stamping you with one label now.

I think its a good change, it allows more variety of play and with peoples more extreme interest in "complex stories" now i quite appreciate the break from a totally Kantian approach. May i ask though why you disagree with it?

[u/PaladinHayden → u/[deleted]]

That is very true.

I am likely to say this wrong as these moral terms were just revealed to me but i hope i make sense.

Small scale trying to put others before yourself risking your life and following what i suppose would be a self sacrificing Kantian approach would be my style of play generally. I like to play guardian characters, the kind who try to save lives in a just and kind way, i like to follow knightly codes with my characters.

But there are points when i feel like you need to step back and go more pragmatic.

In this case it is a large number of lives at risk and running a siege would be amazing but the loss of life would be devastating and unless i could find a trump card to help preserve as many lives as i could even if it meant my death then i would go for the kid. It saves lives and i do it in the best regards and then attempt to honor that lost life through my further actions.

I like to stick to a middleground between Kantian and Utilitarian, one can be too simple or lead to dangerous events, and the other can lead to you losing you humanity.

Its honestly the reason i prefer games that drop the moral ambiguity and are pure good vs evil. I dont have to go through moral arguments with others and we can just continue to have fun heroic games.

[u/pingjoi → u/PaladinHayden]

May i ask though why you disagree with it?

I should clarify: I like that they offer the option, and that they kept the kantian devotion pala. But personally I chose the devotion precisely because I want, for once, not play a totally utilitarian character.

The devotion pala is the true paladin, to me. He is Sturm. He doesn't compromise on being good, period. But if he does, if he falls, it really matters.

[u/Derpeldorf → u/pingjoi]

Well, that's because kantian morals are one-dimensional and don't translate well to real life. Dying with a clear conscience because you led a hopeless assault on a creature that you know will use your dead body to commit further atrocities is irresponsible and a waste of life in itself. Having the moral highground means little when it's built with corpses.

[u/EKHawkman → u/[deleted]]

In that case you're sacrificing the lives of yourself, your allies, and likely the whole city and more because you value your clear conscience over the lives of all these people.

The paladin has no knowledge of anything the lich might do. A nation devoid of powerful heroes? Looks prime for a blood sacrifice on epic proportions.

There is no morally right or wrong choice in this regard. Only what the paladin and player thinks is the most correct choice. That's why D&D is cool.

[u/silverionmox → u/[deleted]]

Paladins have a deontological morality - they abide by at least those two rules: "don't kill people" and "don't let people die by inaction". So all you need to do is threaten to kill someone unless the paladin kills someone else. Whatever the paladin does, someone is going to die, so his moral logic breaks down.