Does the whole "DM forces that Paladin to choose between two options that both cause him to fall" thing actually happen...

Does the whole "DM forces that Paladin to choose between two options that both cause him to fall" thing actually happen, or is it just a meme?

I've never had a DM who did it and I can't imagine the kind of person who would, unless they were some 13-year-old who just discovered edginess for the first time.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PQj8xOknzKc
liveleak.com/view?i=037_1372187059
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>I've never had a DM who did it and I can't imagine the kind of person who would, unless they were some 13-year-old who just discovered edginess for the first time.

Well no shit. Most people got in to the hobby around then and suffered through groups with both poor rules understanding and hormonal teen issues.

But how many paladins have you played? Also on second note what would be most dick-way of forcing paladin to fall?

Undoubtedly those type of situations have happened, but it's mostly just a meme.

Like how everyone knows about "that guy" constantly perving on every female NPC, but in reality only a small minority of players actually dealt with someone like that in reality.

Surely if your deity is a just and loving one, he would not cause one of his servants to fall in a situation where there was no other option?

What a rookie mistake, to think that a deity is a just and loving one!

>A trolley is about to run over five men
>A fat guy is about to jump down and eat them
>Do you stop the fat guy, or do you stop the trolley?

Well, I have never seen that happen first hand, but I had DM made my Paladin fall for being 30 minutes late for a session. So I totally can imagine this happening.

poster here, most paladins wear bungee cords

Neither, the people die regardless, atleast fatty gets what's coming. Justice preserved.

Third option

You could've killed five people but now you kill six. You fall.

What a shit deity. I devote my life to kill the gods in revenge.

>cause him to fall

Can't happen, by the rules. Paladin's don't fall because of some cosmic game of DM "Gotcha!"
Paladins fall due to evil intent, not evil outcomes. Falling isn't something that "just happens" to you, it's a path that you chose. If you didn't choose it, you didn't fall.

So, what's the problem here?

You cannot do anything to save the ones on the track, but you have the option to push some fucker in front of the trolley as well?

The idea is the fatass's bulk will stop the trolley.

I can stop both. The fat man will slow the trolley enough.

Broadly speaking, yes. But the fat man is reaaaally fat.
Like, "you're inclined to think he'll stop the trolley" levels of fat.

The correct thing for a Paladin to do here is rush down to untie those people.
You won't make it in time, but you did your best. Unless the fat man is a criminal.
Gygax says Lawful Good types can execute criminals.

Hmm, but it would need to be European trolley and American fatty...

Lets do this for real.

Take the right fork, but make efforts to derail (in-case "unable to derail" is a deception).

Is this suppose to be a jab a utilitarianism?
Cause that only works in the immediate.

Close your eyes flick the switch and flip off the cartesian demon that may or may not exist.

Mostly it's just a meme. Only the most douche-bag of GMs do no-win shit that results in lulz paladin falls. And usually just to pick on one player, or because they have a monster hate-boner for paladins (usually because of WoW).

>I watched Rail Wars because I thought the finale would have MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING
/a/ lied to me

Getting into DnD before the age of ~16 sounds like a bad time, glad I didn't.

>Does the whole "DM forces that Paladin to choose between two options that both cause him to fall" thing actually happen, or is it just a meme?

I think most of the people who parrot this haven't actually read the rules for paladins.

This is from AD&D 2E, but I assume it's more or less the same as newer editions.

This still doesn't account for 'placed in a situation where performing an evil act is unavoidable by factors outside his own control.'

There's no such rules in 5e actually. Paladins aren't even restricted to LG anymore.

>KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY

Part of "good" is that means don't justify the ends.
You do the best you can, even if your best isn't good enough.

>believing /a/
>ever since the day the sauce actually wasn't Boku no Pico
You brought this upon yourself.

youtube.com/watch?v=PQj8xOknzKc

...

I, against my better judgement, believe in the good in humanity.

Well *I* remain an observer to keep my conscience clean.

Paladins have too much baggage. People can't distinguish between "lawful" and "law abiding"

The complete lack of motion lines indicate the trolley is not moving at all, therefor I don't need to do anything besides untie the people on the tracks.

Not pulling the lever gives the 2nd best scenario and doesn't need co-operation

A paladin falls because he falls out of favor of his god right? What kind of scenario is there where the god wouldnt prefer one or the other choice? Gods aren't stupid, they know a trick when they see one and when someone pulls a trick on a paladin all the paladin has to do is pray or think which one his god would prefer. Classic Abraham or Jobe man.

I rush over and pull the single man off the tracks.
Then rush up and pull the next man off the tracks

Trolleys move kinda slow. If needed i can yell up to the yellow guy to take his man off the track. then so on and so on so that it runs over no one.

Most "memes" as we call them are old Neckbeard tales, told to teach a specific value of gaming. In other words, it doesn't exist because we made it a meme.

The same with Edgelords, Mary Sues, and Fetish Characters. Between the three of them, they basically give us the best way to make a good character:

1. Give your character reasonable, realistic flaws that round them out as a person
2. Don't give your character too many flaws or overly emotional characteristics.
3. Don't insert your fetishes into your character.

The third one is ignored the most, but otherwise it's pretty solid.

Now, if we could only push this culture on Roll20.

Alternately, wait until the front wheels of the trolley have passed the switch and then throw the lever to derail it.

If there were people in the trolley, they would have hit the brakes already.

Plot twist: The trolley is full of babies.

Pull the lever, let's see where this wild ride goes.

>Rail Wars
>no wars, only harems

Specially an English trolley if the Irish are to be believed.

British trolley would be so late you would have plenty of time to untie the hostages.

Well I'm going for a high score

It's the age-old test to see whether they would rather fail their God, or themself.

But he didnt kill any of those people, they all died because of actions done by others completely out of his control. If anything the god would want you to bring the people who caused this to justice.

...

This is retarded. You can't effectively wave at people inside a trolley from that close. You need a certain distance so that the people inside can actually see you for long enough to register your waving as they pass by, and even if the trolley were moving slowly enough, you'd still look like a loon waving with your face pressed up against the windows like that. The optimization problem is a curve, not a slope.

You're making an outrageous assumption about the speed of the trolley. For all you know the trolley is at a pleasantly slow cruising velocity or approaching a stop. In this case it is worth it to be extra close so that you share a smile with each and every passenger.

First of all, I addressed the assumption of speed in my post, you illiterate fucking dullard. Secondly, the objective is to wave - WAVE, here it is in big letters, to make it easier for you - at the people, not to smile at them. Look at how close he is to the track, and then look at the size of the windows. Smiling is pointless if they CAN'T SEE YOUR ARM, moron.

Spec Ops: The Line in a nutshell.

No, Spec Ops: The Line was shit because your options consisted of "commit atrocities" and "don't play the game". Railroading is a related but separate DM affliction.

Falling has never actually worked that way, some DM's are just shit.

Got to love the developers of that one. "When we give play testers a choice they take the moral option, lets remove the choices but still call the people who paid for our game assholes for playing it".

Have you never in your life waved a friend goodbye from very near the tracks of very slowly moving train? A subway perhaps?

And did it ever once occur to you that he might also want the people on the other side of the trolley to see him clearly? This would be difficult if he was farther away.

>Smiling is pointless
This is where you lose all credibility.

...Fucking. Is this Prisoner's Trolley Dilemma?

Waving to a single person is a restrained affair. Waving to a group must needs be grander, and both the increased range of motion and the presence of multiple people demand greater effective fields of view. I'm beginning to suspect you're legitimately autistic, if you don't even understand the difference.

>This is where you lose all credibility.
Yep, autistic. Way to misinterpret a partial quote. We're not talking about smiling, here - regardless of the possible merits, it's not the objective. The objective is TO WAVE. Smiling only improves the wave if the people can actually see the wave; it won't magically turn a non-wave into a wave.

There are arguments for both cases, but my question for this problem is why the fat man isn't jumping himself. If you're responsible in the case that you don't shove him, then why isn't he responsible in the case that he doesn't jump?

...

Honestly, I'd probably flip the switch and haul ass to the track with one guy, trying to get in front of the tram in time to use myself as a barrier. After all, it works with the fat guy for five people, right?
Besides, that problem isn't about killing people, it's about choosing to let people die (the tram's forward motion isn't your fault). If you have to choose who to let die, I believe you're obligated to choose the fewer number of people, barring other factors.

What if the fat man is contemplating suicide? Would you then have the moral imperative to talk him out of killing himself, if not doing so would save five people?

Nobody has a moral imperative to talk someone out of suicide unless people rely on them or they are putting people at risk with their intended method. Its a personal choice at the end of the day.

What if the fat man just parses syntax?

I'm not a mind-reader, so I can't speak to his motivation. Also, if I have enough time to convince him one way or another, I don't see why the main problem exists at all.
I can only hope his sacrifice was made with the right mindset, really.

>the best way to make a good character:
In your opinion.

>push this culture
The opinion of a colossal fag.

In my gaming circle, nobody has ever known anyone who had a paladin fall unless the player actively turns their character evil.

It's 100% a meme.

Saved.

GM makes the gods.
He doesn't tell the paladin about her god's rules, just gives a short summary of the gods of the setting.
Suddenly he has her fall because she broke one of the god's core ideals.

Nah the real option is to allow them to die, then resurrect them.

Specific beats general. Holds for laws, holds for morals.
Lying is deliberately withholding information from someone who is entitled to it, or giving them false information where they are entitled to the correct information.
You are not obligated to tell someone jack fucking shit about the location of someone they are intending to kill.

Lying is not telling the truth. Full stop. You don't need to mangle the definition of the word to justify lying.

Is there a limit on how much damage someone can take before they can't be resurrected any more?

>You are not obligated to tell someone jack fucking shit about the location of someone they are intending to kill.
You also aren't obligated to deceive them by telling them an untrue fact. You can simply withold the information and say "I ain't giving you jack shit mate".

Deliberately falsifying information to someone is a lie, whether that person is the Buddha or Stalin.

The guy coming to save them would also be running late

For 3.5 edition, raise dead only works if there's enough of the corpse intact that their vital organs are still there. So you'd only be able to do so if they had all their internals in place.

Resurrection requires part of the body at time of death, so if someone has been disintegrated or turned to ash or otherwise lost, they would not be a candidate for resurrection.

True resurrection can resurrect anyone.

This is stupid. Lying in that situation is the moral choice, any religion that says otherwise or makes doing the right thing sinful is immoral. Are things like this deliberately written to make the biblical god look even more psychotic than he does anyway?

So is writing under an alias lying? You're identifying yourself by a name that's not actually your name, so you're not strictly telling the truth.
Like I said, no. When you write under an alias, you are withholding information, but the people that you're withholding information from aren't entitled to that information (generally). Posting on an anonymous imageboard falls under the same bounds.

The LG choice is to let the big bastard beat the shit out of you.

That is also stupid.

If you can protect both yourself and the potential victim by lying to the arsehole and pointing him in the wrong direction then lying is the moral choice. Especially since that would be more effective at protecting the girl than telling him you won't say anything. It also makes him more angry and more likely to hurt her even more if he does find her. What is Lawful Good about a course of action that is riskier to the innocent?

No sensible moral system requires you to get yourself injured or even killed when it won't actually help anybody. If you had to get in his way to give her time to escape it would be different.

gurps gives dropping to -10xHP for 'total bodily destruction' - where the body is so damaged that it's more or less completely irrecoverable, usually because you've taken anywhere from 110 to 200 damage in a game where HP values rarely go above 15, and -5xHP is the point where a character instantly dies.
at this point, the ressurection spell in gurps magic puts a hard limit on reviving people at this point, when it's normally up to gm discretion whether a body can be revived.

British Trolleys are wheeled baskets that we push round supermarkets.

It would have to be an especially frail person to get killed by one.

Haha, oh man, I really loathe the trolley problem as a thought exercise, and the one with the fat man on the bridge just shows how utterly ridiculous it is. I mean, you study philosophy all your life, and THAT is what you come up with? Come the fuck on.

Either way, I've never experienced it. It's the worst kind of malicious railroading, and it takes a real scumbag to do it. That said, I've both played with and heard of real scumbags, so I wouldn't put it beyond them.

...

Be careful with statements like that: liveleak.com/view?i=037_1372187059

Right answer is to push fat man on the tracks and activate multi-track drifting because they all violated your NAP

>If you can protect both yourself and the potential victim by lying to the arsehole and pointing him in the wrong direction then lying is the moral choice

Innocence until proven guilty user.

You do not know his intent for sure, thus, withholding information based on assumptions of intention is morally wrong.

>withholding information based on assumptions of intention is morally wrong.
You are not under any obligation to provide him information

If you pick a character confined by a stringent moral code you are saying to your GM you want to roleplay a challenging role.

It is entirely reasonable, therefore, for the GM to put difficult moral quandaries in your path that test your moral code. You made a choice not to take the easy route.

Simply being a good person isn't the same as being a Paladin.

I don't even think you believe this, and even if you did, does it apply to clerics? Druids? Favored Souls? The host of divine classes with dedicated codas to follow that never seem to be tested by shitty GMs?

>So is writing under an alias lying? You're identifying yourself by a name that's not actually your name, so you're not strictly telling the truth.
>Like I said, no. When you write under an alias, you are withholding information, but the people that you're withholding information from aren't entitled to that information (generally). Posting on an anonymous imageboard falls under the same bounds.

An alias is not a lie, unless you are attempting to falsify your credentials. Withholding information is not a lie, because you are not attempting to deceive, but attempting to withhold information. If you say "you can call me Ishmael" when your name isn't Ishmael, that's not a lie unless you attempt to trick the other person into thinking your name's Ishmael.

Lying is giving FALSE information. An alias isn't false information unless you present it as false information - "my name is Ishmael" (actually it's Steve).

Druids, clerics, favoured souls, monks (have to be lawful), barbarians (have to be chaotic), a whole bunch of prestige classes with flavour things, stuff like pathfinder's path of war 3rd party martial disciplines, all require certain types of behaviour by RAW or risk losing powers or being unable to gain further powers.

...

Good-aligned deities in D&D may be just and loving, but they aren't omnipotent. The evil gods have just as much power as the good ones.

I've never seen it. I'm much more familiar with the

>DM declares you fall after you did something reasonable because of bizarre pretzel logic.

More, you mean.

For some reason the evil ones have literally infinite armies at their command while the good ones have barely any.

What retard thinks that makes sense?

He knows that both options are evil, and by his free will he will choose one outcome or the other.

In practice, though, you're always allowed to do minor evil acts like eating and breathing without falling.

>Lying is giving FALSE information. An alias isn't false information unless you present it as false information - "my gender is female" (actually you're a man).

I think it's more of a quantity vs quality debate, the evil gods just churn out mooks because I guess they just want to rule over more people/stuff, or something. But good ones choose just a few to make hella powerful, and end up equalling armies by themselves.

I guess it could also be something about most people being weak willed and are easily swayed by darkness, the light doesn't give a shit about seducing people, and gives them the ideal of self-improvement, which leads to the same scenario.