# Is killing a Goblin who begs for mercy evil?



## Donp (Nov 25, 2011)

My friend and I are wondering about alignment for our upcoming Pathfinder game. We want to use the alignment system correctly but we differ a bit on the interpretation of the rules. We would like some input from more seasoned players.

My friend says that if he were playing a Paladin, and he were to attack a Goblin village (race with evil alignment) he would probably spare those who surrendered, or those who were weak or children etc. He would feel that if he were to kill those Goblins who begged for mercy that would be an evil act, disastrous for the Paladin (also he doesn't want to do any evil). 

I would say (I'm the DM), that based on the rules, I cannot see that killing an evil Goblin would be an evil act under most circumstances. (BTW these are not my personal feelings on the matter, just my interpretation of the rules...let's just leave RL morality discussion out of it). If he were to torture a Goblin, or something, that would be Evil, as it is obviously a sentient being. However, I see nothing in the rules that would make killing a begging-for-mercy Goblin an evil act, as the Goblin is an evil creature, and in the very objective morality system presented in the D&D/Pathfinder world, destroying evil is not evil. 

My friend then came up with another example, Paladin detects evil on a shopkeeper, who to his knowledge has not harmed anyone (perhaps he's really selfish and dreams of killing others but is too cowardly to do it). Could he slay the man there and then, without committing and Evil act? There I was not sure.

I sort of see the fact that Goblins are, as a race, Evil, as meaning that they are like intelligent wolves, or like Nazis who were evil from birth. They are Evil, just like a Devil or Demon, or a Necromancer. And that destroying evil is inherently good (again, based on the objective morality in the 3.5/Pathfinder Rules, NOT based on my own RL morality), as Evil creatures have an evil nature, and if you allow them to live, they will go on doing evil things, as they desire to hurt, opress and kill others. 

So therefore it should be OK to kill them indiscriminately.

However my friend disagrees, and I would like very much to come to a conclusion. I know that we could just house-rule Alignment away if it is a problem, but we have nothing against it, we just want to run it the right way. 

So, long-time players. What is your interpretation of this issue? Please try to limit yourselves to the RAW, and the correct interpretation of them. I'm not looking for your personal philosophies on morality and all that, that is besides the point.


----------



## Twichyboy (Nov 25, 2011)

Actually the races alignment usually just means that's what they're norm is, dwarves are considered a lawful good race and elves chaotic good, but those deviate a lot so as goblin are considered evil I would say that there is nothing that makes them evil forever from birth,

So by killing a surrendering one would be considered an evil act as it's denying that one who fought for his under attack village, the right to repent which is considered the "goodest" thing a paladin could do

So in my opinion yes it's an evil act, especially since the goblin was fighting to defend its village rather then attacking another


----------



## cattoy (Nov 25, 2011)

The first time we encountered this situation, the goblin ran away and gathered allies and set up an ambush.

The second time we encountered this situation, we slaughtered all of the goblins, including the ones that tried to surrender.


----------



## Angrydad (Nov 25, 2011)

Killing a creature that has surrendered and is begging for mercy would always, in my DMing opinion, ruin a paladin's status, even if it is a demon/devil. It may not be an evil act in the case of a demon, but it is definitely not a Lawful Good thing to do and would cause the paladin to lose power for a while. I like my Good guys to actually be Good (with the capital G for emphasis), so showing mercy to surrendering foes to allow them to be dealt with justly or be given a chance to repent is the best way to go.


----------



## Donp (Nov 25, 2011)

cattoy said:


> The first time we encountered this situation, the goblin ran away and gathered allies and set up an ambush.
> 
> The second time we encountered this situation, we slaughtered all of the goblins, including the ones that tried to surrender.




This is basically what I'm talking about.


----------



## Nightson (Nov 25, 2011)

So addressing the goblin surrender.  It's fairly likely that the goblin has committed crimes worthy of execution (in medieval society).  Generally, long term imprisonment isn't a feasible option, and neither is turning the goblin away from evil, which usually leaves the player short of options except killing them or letting them go.  

But I think this can be resolved pretty easily.  A player who kills the goblins is not committing an evil act, but a player who goes to the effort of trying to redeem the goblins is doing a good act.


----------



## af_sky (Nov 25, 2011)

I believe if a Paladin or any good PC attack goblins who are apparently doing nothing, that would be an evil act. Like attacking a goblin village for no reason at all.

I also believe that's the same for goblins begging for mercy.
The right thing for a LG PC to do is retrieving them for local authorities, if possible.
If not possible, that would rely on the paladin's judgement of what would or not be a good thing to do. But that's part of the roleplay.

Although I don't think you could apply that for demons.


----------



## Donp (Nov 25, 2011)

af_sky said:


> *I believe if a Paladin or any good PC attack goblins who are apparently doing nothing, that would be an evil act. Like attacking a goblin village for no reason at all.*
> 
> I also believe that's the same for goblins begging for mercy.
> The right thing for a LG PC to do is retrieving them for local authorities, if possible.
> ...




Well, I would certainly agree with you if the Goblins were just normal people. But according to RAW, those with an Evil alignment seek to actively hurt, opress, and kill other sentients. So even if they aren't doing anything, they are probably cooking up an evil scheme, or preparing an assault or something. So wouldn't it be like attacking a band of wolves who hadn't done anything, just because you know that they pose a threat to you and would kill you at a moment's notice if given the chance?


----------



## Urlithani (Nov 26, 2011)

Angrydad said:


> Killing a creature that has surrendered and is begging for mercy would always, in my DMing opinion, ruin a paladin's status, even if it is a demon/devil.




I would respectfully disagree. I would never make a paladin lose their status for killing an evil outsider. Evil outsiders have no interest in redemption*. 

*In the rare case an outsider does want to be redeemed, there should only be punishment for a paladin if he has no reason to attack that outsider but does so anyway.

One of the Paizo people has stated it on these very forums a while ago, I think it was Erik Mona(but not sure): If you make a villain that forces a Paladin and his friends to go through many trials, pain, and loss, and then have the villain at the very end beg for mercy and the paladin will lose his powers if he does not forgive is a pretty jerk move.

The "I'm sorry because I got caught so please let me have a chance to redeem myself(but I really just want to get away to get my revenge)" doesn't fly with me personally. It's one thing if the evil wizard appears outside his tower and wants to talk about changing his ways; it's another thing if he waits at the very top and only surrenders because he has no other options left; he's exhausted every trap, monster, and spell.



> It may not be an evil act in the case of a demon, but it is definitely not a Lawful Good thing to do and would cause the paladin to lose power for a while.




It is not definitely Lawful Good, but neither is it evil. A Paladin loses their abilities if they willingly commit an evil act.



> I like my Good guys to actually be Good (with the capital G for emphasis), so showing mercy to surrendering foes to allow them to be dealt with justly or be given a chance to repent is the best way to go.




I agree, and I think some people take the Good alignment for granted, but even Sarenrae believes a swift death is better for those that have no interest in redemption.


----------



## N'raac (Nov 26, 2011)

Well, let's make the Paladin the king's executioner.  He is to execute a convicted crimnal.    The criminal begs for mercy.  If the paladin executes the criminal, we remove his paladinhood for his Evil act, and if he fails to obey his liege, he loses his Lawful alignment.  Any more beatings we can inflict for having the audacity to choose to play a Paladin?

I'd say taking a life is never a good act ("respect for life" is listed under Good RAW, and "killing others" under Evil).  I'd also say that a plea for mercy needs to be considerd in context.  A GM who has the villains beg for mercy, then turn on the characters, is training his players not to honour those pleas, and should not be surprised at the result.

Is the Goblin planning on tricking the Paladin long enough to stab him in the back?  Then he has evil intent.  Creatures with actively evil intent detect as Evil, per the spell.  So the Paladin should be able to pause, Detect Evil on the begging goblin, and assess his sincerity.  If his intentions are to turn on the Paladin if spared (whether immediately or by gathering allies), he detects as Evil.  It is acceptable to kill him.  IOW, I would not consider it an evil act to kill a foe who remains intent on evil.  If his intentions are not evil (he truly intends to repent, or at least truly intends to behave to avoid the sword), then killing him is an evil act.

But the Paladin's Detect Evil is accurate.  If the creature merits mercy, he will not detect as evil.  If his evil intent remains, then he detects as such and can be slain as a non-evil, albeit non-good, act.


----------



## Epametheus (Nov 26, 2011)

If a goblin knows how to say "I surrender, don't hurt me," in common, it probably learned that from a victim that it then killed and ate (or killed by eating).

My group handles this sort of thing as "a Paladin can refuse to accept a creature's surrender."

While goblins are free-willed, a normal goblin is raised to view nearly anything that isn't a goblin as prey.

In other words, if you facing something that views babies of your species as food, your paladin almost certainly has active authority to put it down.  Co-existence is so remote an option that it might as well not exist.

Actually killing helpless goblin babies is more complicated.  They can be functional if they're brought up in a sane society that spare the resources to raise a bunch of midget pyromaniacs.  But putting them down probably isn't any worse an act then putting down a litter of skunks born under your house.  It's a distasteful task, but sometimes that just how it pans out.

Now, actual evil outsiders are, in essence, malicious spirits given flesh and form.  Accepting surrender from a demon has about as much meaning as accepting surrender from a rabid dog.  The best thing to do is to take them down fast and hard, before they can pull something their innate magical powers.  Another way to put it - you really shouldn't accept the surrender of a creature that could mind control all the guards in any prison you kept it in.


----------



## ComradeGnull (Nov 26, 2011)

The alignment system has a lot of wrinkles around the edges.  I wouldn't be too hard on a player for making either choice.  A lot depends on the players justification for making the choice; if he is killing the goblin to protect other innocents, great.  If he kills it because he is annoyed with goblins,  not so great.

It also matters how goblins are depicted in your particular campaign.  Pathfinder tends towards depicting goblins as irredeemable sociopaths, whereas Eberron depicts them as more civilized and liable towards reform.  In the first case, killing them seems more like killing an evil outsider than like a regular mook.

Lawful characters judge their actions by an external, consistent standard.  Depicting what they set of ethics is would help it be clearer if their actions were lawful or good.


----------



## af_sky (Nov 26, 2011)

ComradeGnull said:


> Lawful characters judge their actions by an external, consistent standard.  Depicting what they set of ethics is would help it be clearer if their actions were lawful or good.




I completely agree with you on that. He must judge by his "church" or god's law. Not by a innate sense of justice.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Nov 26, 2011)

Welcome to a topic that has been debated for around 40 years in RPGS (and thousands of years in philosophy)

The short answer is really "it depends on the game you're playing" games can vary between 
"game of hats" to "extremely complicated shaded morality"

In a game of hats game then unless there's a reason to believe that a particular goblin isn't evil you can probably hack it down with a free concience. 

In a lot of other games it would depend on the answers to various questions
a) why was the village attacked?
is it a case of "we ran into some goblins so we attacked" or "these goblins have raided the human village and they killed the women and children"

b) is there anything to suggest that this particular goblin did anything evil?

killing an armed combatant is different from killing an unarmed non-combatant and killing a warrior who you recognise from a raid on a human village where children were killed is different again.

It also depends on how the individual campaign runs the type of monster, killing a standard pathfinder goblin would be less likely to cause problems than a pathfinder kobold for instance.

In a lot of campaigns being evil isn't enough to justify killing somebody. Somebody can be evil but not actually have done anything justifying killing them (a villager who delights in spreading malicious gossip, will cheat or steal if they think they can get away with it etc, would betray people to save themselves or for enough money) but unless they have seriously hurt people killing them wouldn't be justified.

Also note that you only detect as evil if you've got a link to an evil force of the universe or you've got significant personal power (5HD or more) by the rules a goblin could be intending to prepare Human Baby Tartare and still wouldn't detect as evil.

Note that the comments on alignment on page 5 of the bestiary makes it pretty clear that there is a difference between outer planar aligned creatures and standard intelligent creatures with alignments.

For what it's worth I'd recommend that you just discuss it with the players how you see things and try and ensure that you don't screw the PCs over by stuffing them around on alignment. If people want to take more care than you think necessary that's fine, the problem comes when the players think they can get away with more than you think they can.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Nov 26, 2011)

cattoy said:


> The first time we encountered this situation, the goblin ran away and gathered allies and set up an ambush.
> 
> The second time we encountered this situation, we slaughtered all of the goblins, including the ones that tried to surrender.




That makes killing them convenient, it doesn't mean that killing them isn't evil


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 26, 2011)

I think intention is just as important as action.  Why is the Paladin attacking this Goblin village to begin with?  Just for the hell of it?  Does he personally know of these Goblins wronging someone or some society?

I would be more concerned with a Paladin indiscriminetly attacking a Goblin village for no reason other then "well, the Monster Manual says they are evil" then I would for the Goblin begging for mercy.



> "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.




Notice, this is respect for ALL life, not a respect for "only neutral and good creature's lives"...

So simply ask yourself:
1) Is the Paladin being altruistic to these goblins?
Altrusim: The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.
2) Does he have a respect for their life?
3) Is he concerned with their dignity?  Or to but this another way.  Is killing a creature that is begging for its life dignified?

As for your shopkeeper example...  In a world where magic can detect a person's aligment, I think the Paladin would be well within his rights to arrest the evil shopkeeper.  I do not think he can wantonly kill him for the hell of it, for the reasons I gave above for the goblins.



			
				Donp said:
			
		

> Well, I would certainly agree with you if the Goblins were just normal people. But according to RAW, those with an Evil alignment seek to actively hurt, opress, and kill other sentients. So even if they aren't doing anything, they are probably cooking up an evil scheme, or preparing an assault or something. So wouldn't it be like attacking a band of wolves who hadn't done anything, just because you know that they pose a threat to you and would kill you at a moment's notice if given the chance?




Emphasis on the underlined above...  If this is your justification for determining if a sentient creature should live or die, you might as well have the Paladin kill everyone he comes across, because everyone has the possibility of doing something evil at some point in their lives.

The killing of wolves is different because more then likely the wolves are attacking you first, based on instinct and not evil intent, and you are just defending yourself.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Nov 26, 2011)

Angrydad said:


> Killing a creature that has surrendered and is begging for mercy would always, in my DMing opinion, ruin a paladin's status, even if it is a demon/devil. It may not be an evil act in the case of a demon, but it is definitely not a Lawful Good thing to do and would cause the paladin to lose power for a while. I like my Good guys to actually be Good (with the capital G for emphasis), so showing mercy to surrendering foes to allow them to be dealt with justly or be given a chance to repent is the best way to go.




I'd say that's going a bit too far.
Demons, Devils, evil high priests who perform sacrifices, necromancers who raise and an unleash armies of undead etc have all done huge amounts of evil and draw power willingly from evil. They're evil and killing them shouldn't 
cause any problems


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 26, 2011)

N'raac said:


> Well, let's make the Paladin the king's executioner.  He is to execute a convicted crimnal.    The criminal begs for mercy.  If the paladin executes the criminal, we remove his paladinhood for his Evil act, and if he fails to obey his liege, he loses his Lawful alignment.  Any more beatings we can inflict for having the audacity to choose to play a Paladin?




This is a good one, thank you for this scenario...

When we consider the Lawful Good alignment, so much emphasis gets put on the Good part.  There are a lot of conflicts the DM can throw at us where doing the Good thing is not the Lawful thing, and vice versa.  More often then not, the choice is made on the side of Good.

Your example is a great scenario where I think picking the Lawful option is the right thing to do.

Sparing his life would be Good.
Not sparing his life would not be Good, but it also would not be Evil.  His crimes were obviously heinous enough to warrant a death penalty.  Unless he is dying for an unjust reason (something silly, like being executed for cheating on his wife).  But since you did not go into detail as to what he was convicted of and why he got a death sentence, I will assume it was just.

Not sparing his life and fulfilling your duty would be the Lawful act.
Sparing his life would be Unlawful...  Or a Chaotic act from a D&D standpoint.

I think it is more clear cut and precise when you look at the Lawful/Chaotic options and more grey or lenient from the Good/Evil options.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 26, 2011)

Mad Hamish said:


> I'd say that's going a bit too far.
> Demons, Devils, evil high priests who perform sacrifices, necromancers who raise and an unleash armies of undead etc have all done huge amounts of evil and draw power willingly from evil. They're evil and killing them shouldn't
> cause any problems




It really all depends given several factors.  Each situation is different.  I don't think you can make a blanket statement either way.  The Paladin needs to make that decision based on what is happening (and has happened) in the campaign.

You can't just make a blanket statement "killing all evil demons is NOT an evil act, no matter what" just as you can't make a blanket statement "the good thing to do would be to spare a surrendering evil creature".


----------



## Mad Hamish (Nov 26, 2011)

Donp said:


> Well, I would certainly agree with you if the Goblins were just normal people.




What about an evil society?
A country that worships devils or demons?



Donp said:


> But according to RAW, those with an Evil alignment seek to actively hurt, opress, and kill other sentients. So even if they aren't doing anything, they are probably cooking up an evil scheme, or preparing an assault or something.




Or maybe if you deal fairly with them they'll stick to their deal with you if you make it worth their while?
They might be willing to give up their favoured foods if out of it they get relieable food and in return they will let people through to access some resources and alert people of observations.



Donp said:


> So wouldn't it be like attacking a band of wolves who hadn't done anything, just because you know that they pose a threat to you and would kill you at a moment's notice if given the chance?




Sentient creatures are different from unintelligent creatures.
(also note that wolves aren't actually overly likely to attack humans in most circumstances)


----------



## Mad Hamish (Nov 26, 2011)

Urlithani said:


> One of the Paizo people has stated it on these very forums a while ago, I think it was Erik Mona(but not sure): If you make a villain that forces a Paladin and his friends to go through many trials, pain, and loss, and then have the villain at the very end beg for mercy and the paladin will lose his powers if he does not forgive is a pretty jerk move.
> 
> The "I'm sorry because I got caught so please let me have a chance to redeem myself(but I really just want to get away to get my revenge)" doesn't fly with me personally. It's one thing if the evil wizard appears outside his tower and wants to talk about changing his ways; it's another thing if he waits at the very top and only surrenders because he has no other options left; he's exhausted every trap, monster, and spell.




I refer people to Death Masks in The Dresden Files and a certain incident with a surrendering ex-demon a couple of knights of the lord and a wizard with a baseball bat...


----------



## Mad Hamish (Nov 26, 2011)

N'raac said:


> Well, let's make the Paladin the king's executioner.  He is to execute a convicted crimnal.    The criminal begs for mercy.  If the paladin executes the criminal, we remove his paladinhood for his Evil act, and if he fails to obey his liege, he loses his Lawful alignment.  Any more beatings we can inflict for having the audacity to choose to play a Paladin?




A Paladin would not be the King's executioner
It might be legal to execute a forger but it's unlikely that a Paladin would agree to do so.
The exact crime the criminal commits would have a fair bit to do with what a Paladin would accept as appropriate punishment.




N'raac said:


> I'd say taking a life is never a good act ("respect for life" is listed under Good RAW, and "killing others" under Evil).




Depends, killing a Demon or Devil could well qualify as good.
Killing to defend others could well be a good act. (If you kill an evil high priest as he's about to sacrifice a baby for instance)





N'raac said:


> I'd also say that a plea for mercy needs to be considerd in context.  A GM who has the villains beg for mercy, then turn on the characters, is training his players not to honour those pleas, and should not be surprised at the result.
> 
> Is the Goblin planning on tricking the Paladin long enough to stab him in the back?  Then he has evil intent.  Creatures with actively evil intent detect as Evil, per the spell.  So the Paladin should be able to pause, Detect Evil on the begging goblin, and assess his sincerity.  If his intentions are to turn on the Paladin if spared (whether immediately or by gathering allies), he detects as Evil.  It is acceptable to kill him.  IOW, I would not consider it an evil act to kill a foe who remains intent on evil.  If his intentions are not evil (he truly intends to repent, or at least truly intends to behave to avoid the sword), then killing him is an evil act.
> 
> But the Paladin's Detect Evil is accurate.  If the creature merits mercy, he will not detect as evil.  If his evil intent remains, then he detects as such and can be slain as a non-evil, albeit non-good, act.




Based on my reading of Detect Evil the 'evil intent' means that a non-evil creature with evil intent radiates evil as if it was an evil creature rather than 'automatically detects as evil' so a low powered creature doesn't detect as evil irrespective of intent.


----------



## Varthol (Nov 26, 2011)

*re*

Another thing to keep in mind is that some part of the paladin's ethics come from his faith. A paladin of a LN god might be more inclined towards a lawful/planned choice than others.

An example if I may, my friend used to play a Paladin of Sune in FR back in 3.X and, NO MATTER WHAT, he would never attack (or insult, or etc) women.

And a different person once played a paladin of Heironous who might as well be a heartless demon hunter.

Paladins unlike traditional viewpoint, are Very Rarely devoted to kings. They are devoted to their faith and obey its verdicts but that's how far it goes. They would typically display respect for a region's laws but if it goes against their religious ethics, they would (half-heartedly) break them.

[Also keep in mind that LG divine characters usually need a mission to drive them forward in a story. It is very rare (almost PC exclusive actually ) that such a person would be an adventurer. Give such characters a means of communication or a connection to their mission or faith (without overshadowing other characters though) as the story progresses.]

As for the goblin choise, be easy on your players. Not even Gary Gygax should be able to roleplay a paladin 100% in the right way from the viewpoint of another DM. Have the player ask himself what would he think would be his faith's verdict on the issue at hand when a morally grey choice is required.


----------



## Herobizkit (Nov 26, 2011)

Accepting a goblin surrender: honorable and good.

Refusing a surrender from/killing a known evil race: not so honorable (unless we're using Samurai instead of the chivalric code), and possibly bordering on chaotic, but not evil.

If the Paladin accepts the creature's surrender, then turn around and stabs the creature when he's not looking: not honorable, definitely chaotic, and probably evil at that point.


----------



## N'raac (Nov 26, 2011)

Epametheus said:


> If a goblin knows how to say "I surrender, don't hurt me," in common, it probably learned that from a victim that it then killed and ate (or killed by eating).




My, aren't we judgemental.  Of course, the Goblin is not human, so we can decide they are hardwired for evil.  In such case, it hardly seems unreasonable to put them down.  But, if they are truly hardwired to that behaviour, it seems they are more neutral than evil, in that they lack the capacity for moral choice.  They still need to be put down for the safety of others, though.

I prefer goblins with free will.

p 166 of the basic rules tells us good implies respect for life.  Killing is, then, not a choice to be made on a whim, or without making every effort to find other options.  Those options may not be convenience, but "Goopd characters make personal sacrifices to help others".  

Evil, from the same page, implies killing others.  Creatures who "have no compassion" and "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" are explicitly noted as evil.  Those who "have compunctions about killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifces to protect or help others" are neutral.  

The question asked for RAW. Those are the RAW. 


Good isn't stupid.  There may well be situations where killing is the only choice, and accepting surrender just to be stabbed in the back on a recurrent basis is not required.  But Good is also not about taking the path of least resistance, it's not always easy, and it's not about personal convenience.

My group handles this sort of thing as "a Paladin can refuse to accept a creature's surrender."



Epametheus said:


> While goblins are free-willed, a normal goblin is raised to view nearly anything that isn't a goblin as prey.
> 
> In other words, if you facing something that views babies of your species as food, your paladin almost certainly has active authority to put it down. Co-existence is so remote an option that it might as well not exist.




That sounds EXACTLY like the citizens of that country we're always in border skirmishes with, so I guess we can put them down with impunity as well, right?



Epametheus said:


> Actually killing helpless goblin babies is more complicated. They can be functional if they're brought up in a sane society that spare the resources to raise a bunch of midget pyromaniacs. But putting them down probably isn't any worse an act then putting down a litter of skunks born under your house. It's a distasteful task, but sometimes that just how it pans out.




Skunks are not sentient and lack the capacity to make a moral choice.  That makes it different.

A society that is Good will "make sacrifices to help others", which means they will tighten their belts and make those resources available, not decide they're "just bad blood" and slaughter them without a second thought.  This is, at best Neutral - not willing to make personal sacrifices to help others.



Epametheus said:


> Now, actual evil outsiders are, in essence, malicious spirits given flesh and form. Accepting surrender from a demon has about as much meaning as accepting surrender from a rabid dog.




Outsiders follow a whole different set of rules.  They are hard coded Evil, so they can reasonably be taken down.  If, in your game, Goblins are the same, the same rules should apply.  But if Goblins are hard wired Evil, we may as well hard wire the humanoid races Good while we're at it.  Why have any deviation?  What makes some races hard wired and others not, on this plane?



ComradeGnull said:


> Lawful characters judge their actions by an external, consistent standard. Depicting what they set of ethics is would help it be clearer if their actions were lawful or good.




Lawful and Good are separate.  Killing for an evil master is explicitly noted as evil.  Paladins don't get to "just follow orders" - they must ensure their orders are consistent with Good.



Mad Hamish said:


> Welcome to a topic that has been debated for around 40 years in RPGS (and thousands of years in philosophy)




Yup



Mad Hamish said:


> The short answer is really "it depends on the game you're playing" games can vary between
> "game of hats" to "extremely complicated shaded morality"
> 
> In a game of hats game then unless there's a reason to believe that a particular goblin isn't evil you can probably hack it down with a free concience.




Again, yup - "hats" - "hardwired alignment".



Mad Hamish said:


> Also note that you only detect as evil if you've got a link to an evil force of the universe or you've got significant personal power (5HD or more) by the rules a goblin could be intending to prepare Human Baby Tartare and still wouldn't detect as evil.




Revisiting p 266 - 267, while  "Creatures with actively evil intent count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell", only creatires with 5+ HD actually have an aura of evil, so my previous comments are not accurate.  I am inclined to consider that the "presence or absence of evil" is still detected (otherwise, that poor paladin has no actual ability for several levels, so why should he have it from L1 in the first place), but there will not be "evil auras" for the 2nd and 3rd round effects of the spell.



Mad Hamish said:


> That makes killing them convenient, it doesn't mean that killing them isn't evil




Bingo!


----------



## El Mahdi (Nov 26, 2011)

@Donp 

The RAW of alignment is not black and white, and that's by design. It allows for it to be interpreted based on the group and individual that are playing the game, rather than the rules dictating what "must" and "must not" be done. The "Rule 0" on alignment in the Pathfinder Core Book, is practically word for word from the 3.5E Players Handbook:



> Pathfinder Core Rulebook pg. 167
> 
> Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.​



​ 
That means that even the DM shouldn't try to "restrict" a player based on alignment. However, a thorough discussion of the alignment of the player's characters before play, is acceptable and recomended. Once a player decides on their interpretation of their character's alignment, then it's okay in "general" terms for a DM to expect the player to follow it - but only in general terms. Even in the real world, people's behavior is far from consistent.

For classes like Paladins, where alignment is an integral part of the archetype, more restriction is acceptable...but, only after discussing what the player's views for their character is before play, and what the requirements of their church or order are (IMO, mostly determined by you but should be somewhat collaborative). If a player is being honest about what they feel is good and evil, you'll know. Just as you'll know when a player isn't being honest about their views, and is just taking actions to gain an "in game" advantage - like playing a Paladin with all of their cool abilities, but not adhering to the balancing alignment requirements.

In your case, it sounds like your players view is even more stringent than your interpretation, so I'd say let them roll with it. Besides, from an in-game perspective, if the Paladin believes that something is wrong, then to the Paladin it "is" wrong.

There's an appropriate quote about "belief" from one of my favorite movies, _Bull Durham_:



> Crash Davis (Kevin Costner): _If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you *are*!_




With Paladins and Clerics, alignment is a little more restrictive than other classes, but it's still just a tool to realize a character concept - not an absolutely rigid template of that characters behavior. Even within an organization (like a church or order), there are always conflicting opinions about what's right and wrong, or "Good" and "Evil". In such cases, I see those differences of opinion as fodder for adventure hooks and in-game interaction, rather than an opportunity for me (as DM) to hammer a player.  The code of a Paladin is meant to highlight a facet of the class, that with great power comes great responsibility.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Nov 26, 2011)

Look, if you're the DM, the rule is simple: don't be a jerk. If the player of the Paladin is making an honest effort to do the right thing all the time, and he can make even a halfway decent argument for why what he did *was* the right thing, he is playing a Paladin properly and in accordance with the rules. Taking away his powers because you don't agree with his interpretation of Lawful Good is being a jerk; *don't be a jerk*.

Now, if you're a player it's a lot more complicated because then you have to worry about whether or not the DM understands this rule; judging by what happens in any thread on any D&D forum that so much as *contains* the word "Paladin", the vast majority of DMs do not. In my experience it is simply safer to refuse to play a Paladin under any circumstances, because it is impossible to *win* an argument over the Paladin's Code of Conduct. Once your Paladin falls, your only options are to replace the PC or replace the DM.

Finally realizing that roleplaying restrictions should only have roleplaying consequences may well be the smartest decision Wizards made in designing 4e.


----------



## ComradeGnull (Nov 26, 2011)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> Look, if you're the DM, the rule is simple: don't be a jerk. If the player of the Paladin is making an honest effort to do the right thing all the time, and he can make even a halfway decent argument for why what he did *was* the right thing, he is playing a Paladin properly and in accordance with the rules. Taking away his powers because you don't agree with his interpretation of Lawful Good is being a jerk; *don't be a jerk*.
> 
> Now, if you're a player it's a lot more complicated because then you have to worry about whether or not the DM understands this rule; judging by what happens in any thread on any D&D forum that so much as *contains* the word "Paladin", the vast majority of DMs do not. In my experience it is simply safer to refuse to play a Paladin under any circumstances, because it is impossible to *win* an argument over the Paladin's Code of Conduct. Once your Paladin falls, your only options are to replace the PC or replace the DM.
> 
> Finally realizing that roleplaying restrictions should only have roleplaying consequences may well be the smartest decision Wizards made in designing 4e.




Agreed.  I think even if you're really into the deep-immersion style of RP'ing, it's far better to have a character who is conflicted over his moral code because of his own conscience than because of fear of losing his magical powers.

As a DM, I would be fine saying that for clerics and paladins that initiation as a divine character is a kind of indelible empowerment- until you pledge your soul to some other divinity, you keep your paladin/cleric powers.  It allows players to think about these 'do baby orcs have souls' issues if they want that kind of a game, and ignore it otherwise.

On the question that prompted this thread, for instance, I think everyone has made it clear that there are completely valid arguments from both sides.  A DM picking one and saying 'bad pally, no magic powers' without making it clear to the player in advance what the expectations are in that situation isn't gritty or realistic, it's just kind of obnoxious.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 26, 2011)

Mad Hamish said:


> A Paladin would not be the King's executioner
> It might be legal to execute a forger but it's unlikely that a Paladin would agree to do so.
> The exact crime the criminal commits would have a fair bit to do with what a Paladin would accept as appropriate punishment.




I'm not so sure about that.  If the Paladin's king orders him to be the royal executioner, what kind of act would it be for the Paladin to refuse the orders of his king?  Hint: Not a Lawful one...

I liken this example to the deserter of The Wall in Game of Thrones.

Lets say that the person being executed was conscripted to be a solider to guard "the wall".  He was a petty thief, and his choice was "die or pledge your life guarding the wall."  He chose to live and guard the wall.

While at the wall, he comes face to face with horrible monsters.  Rather then stand and fight, he cowardly turns tail and run, deserting his post.  Deserting your post is an act of treason.  Treason is punishable by death according to local laws.

So lets say we have a deserter/traitor about to be executed.  Instead of Eddard Stark, we have a LG Paladin that was ordered by Eddard, his king, to do the beheading (all of the "the man that passes the sentence swings the sword" aside).

What does he do?

Also, taken from a Game of Thrones...  When King Robert comes to Winterfell and "asks" Eddard Stark to be the new Hand of the King, while it appeared to be Eddard's choice, it really wasn't a choice at all.  He was asked, so he kinda had to, duty (and his king) called for it.


----------



## Systole (Nov 26, 2011)

Oh boy, another alignment thread.

Guess what?  This is never going to be resolved.  In real life, our society can't decide on what to do with enemy combatants.  Moving the discussion to a fantasy world where demons and angels poke their fingers into everyday decisions doesn't make this discussion clearer.  This is never going to be resolved -- it's just going to end up as another useless 5 page thread.

As a GM, you've got two choices:
1. Evil creatures are gleefully, maliciously 100% pure evil.  They don't ask for mercy, or if they do, it's a trick and they should be slaughtered anyway.  The path of LG is always clear, but not necessarily easy.
2. Alignment is fuzzy and dependent on intent.  If a LG character thinks he is doing the right thing, then it's the right thing.  Period, end of story, move along.  (Note: This is different from "knows he's doing the wrong thing, but it rationalizing it away."  It's a GM call.)

Otherwise, you end up with every RP session being a philosophical conversation between the paladin and his confessor.  Which would be boring as hell.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Nov 26, 2011)

Mad Hamish said:


> A Paladin would not be the King's executioner
> It might be legal to execute a forger but it's unlikely that a Paladin would agree to do so.




Why not?


----------



## Epametheus (Nov 26, 2011)

N'raac said:


> That sounds EXACTLY like the citizens of that country we're always in border skirmishes with, so I guess we can put them down with impunity as well, right?




If the rank-and-file citizens of that country we're always in border skirmishes with are raiding our villages so that they can eat our flesh, then damn right.  I'm not quite sure what you were actually trying to argue there.

As they're normally written, goblins, orcs, gnolls, derro, and the like have free will, but they are normally brought up to be utterly terrible.  To them, mercy is a weakness to exploit, not a virtue to be honored.  Some of those creatures, like hobgoblins or duergar, may actually have personal codes of honor and actually mean it.  But most won't.  Most probably wouldn't offer to surrender, either - if they don't give a damn when others try to do it, why would they expect differently?  

If you run a campaign where those races are just neutral, don't really actively prey on other sentient creatures, and are misunderstood due to relentless propaganda, then sure, you'd be in the wrong to refuse surrender from one.

Likewise, hauling off and attacking a "monster" settlement that's actually living in peace and leaving its neighbors alone (ro even trading with its neighbors) is at best a chaotic act, if not an outright evil one.

But as normally written, most of the monster races form into what amount to bandit clans and enclaves, and launch raids on any of their neighbors at any time.  The closest you can reach to peace with them is managing to hurt them badly enough that they'll stop attacking you.  At least until their numbers recover...


----------



## N'raac (Nov 27, 2011)

RigaMortus2 said:


> Notice, this is respect for ALL life, not a respect for "only neutral and good creature's lives"...




BINGO

"He would not be concerned with your life."

"No, he wouldn't.  But if we stoop to their level, we are no better than them."



RigaMortus2 said:


> This is a good one, thank you for this scenario...
> 
> When we consider the Lawful Good alignment, so much emphasis gets put on the Good part. There are a lot of conflicts the DM can throw at us where doing the Good thing is not the Lawful thing, and vice versa. More often then not, the choice is made on the side of Good.
> 
> ...




I think this demarcates an excellent point.  The Paladin would, one must assume, not agree to serve a regime which itself is neither lawful nor good.  If the laws of the kingdon allow unjust executions, then the Paladin simply cannot serve that kingdom.




Mad Hamish said:


> A Paladin would not be the King's executioner
> It might be legal to execute a forger but it's unlikely that a Paladin would agree to do so.




In such a regime, I would not expect the Paladin to serve that unjust law.  To the first point, however, when the King asks the Paladin and his adventuring party to deal with the marauding Orcs plaguing a nearby village, how is acceptance of that mission not "being the King's executioner"?



Mad Hamish said:


> Depends, killing a Demon or Devil could well qualify as good.
> Killing to defend others could well be a good act. (If you kill an evil high priest as he's about to sacrifice a baby for instance)




Demons and Devils become a bit of an odd case.  Are outsiders "living beings" to begin with?     Killing them here just sends them back there.  I would typically (some games may differ) classify them as manifestations of their alignment.  They are Evil made manifest, and not "life".

To the second issue, the killing itself is not a good act.  It is outweighed by the protection of innocent life, so the act as a whole becomes "good".  A "more good" act would defend the inncocent without taking a life.  But we live in an imperfect world.  



Mad Hamish said:


> Based on my reading of Detect Evil the 'evil intent' means that a non-evil creature with evil intent radiates evil as if it was an evil creature rather than 'automatically detects as evil' so a low powered creature doesn't detect as evil irrespective of intent.




I can definitely read it that way as well. But then I look at the context.  These are 1st level spells.  The Paladin gains this ability at 1st level.  If it is nimpossible to Detect Evil on any being of less than 5 HD, in any way shape or form, what is the point of L1 characters having access to these abilities?  Why not swap it with Divine Health - he won't ne using Detect Evil at L1 anyway, except to discover an Evil far too powerful for him to realistically deal with.

I choose to conclude these abilities have some impact, even at L1, and as such that "there is evil here" includes low level evil, and evil intent.  That, however, opens up another can of worms.  Even a Good person can commit an Evil act.  A Detect at the wrong time may not provide the full picture.  EVEN A PALADIN could intend to commit an evil act, then pull away at the last second and remain a Paladin.  And only a Paladin is so constrained that the commission of even a single evil act will taint him.



Viktyr Korimir said:


> Look, if you're the DM, the rule is simple: don't be a jerk. If the player of the Paladin is making an honest effort to do the right thing all the time, and he can make even a halfway decent argument for why what he did *was* the right thing, he is playing a Paladin properly and in accordance with the rules. Taking away his powers because you don't agree with his interpretation of Lawful Good is being a jerk; *don't be a jerk*.




First, I think the player should be advised that the DM considers the proposed action an evil act.  The player may not, but in a world where evil is black and white, the Paladin should know the difference.

Second, in my view at least, there are no "Paladin's Dliemmas" that can cost the Paladin his status.  If there is no right answer, then there can be no wrong answer.

Third, if you want Good, Heroic characters, then adherence to their morals must be rewarded, not penalized.  It's easy to set the scene that the characters are in open warfare, and their Evil foes will use the vilest of tricks to achieve their ends.  Shooting on sight is clearly not Good, but failure to do so is suicide.  In such games, Heroic characters who remain true to the absolute ideals of Good are cannon fodder - they have no hope of survival, much less success.  So we have two choices.  Accept that the setting requires, at best Neutrals with Good tendencies who wish for a better world, or water down the standard for "Good" to allow it to mesh with a world that does not allow the ideals to succeed.

If your game is one where sparing Gollum means Evil Wins, then it is one where a Good character such as Frodo cannot thirve, so expect your players to learn not to play such characters.



RigaMortus2 said:


> I'm not so sure about that. If the Paladin's king orders him to be the royal executioner, what kind of act would it be for the Paladin to refuse the orders of his king? Hint: Not a Lawful one...
> 
> I liken this example to the deserter of The Wall in Game of Thrones.
> 
> ...




If the punishment does not fit the crime, then he must refuse.  The Paladin must be both lawful and good, but a single Evil act removes his paladinhood, so it is pretty clear which is expected to prevail should the two conflict.  Perhaps this means the setting is one where a character cannot remain true to the ideals of Good and survive/succeed.



Epametheus said:


> If the rank-and-file citizens of that country we're always in border skirmishes with are raiding our villages so that they can eat our flesh, then damn right. I'm not quite sure what you were actually trying to argue there.




In such case, it does not matter whether the other country is Goblin or Human.  We simply assume they cannot be reformed and should be killed on sight, their babies slaughtered so they never grow to avenge their parents.  

If the Dwarves defile the ElvenWood for wood for their fires, the Elves are justified in killing Dwarves on sight.



Epametheus said:


> As they're normally written, goblins, orcs, gnolls, derro, and the like have free will, but they are normally brought up to be utterly terrible. To them, mercy is a weakness to exploit, not a virtue to be honored. Some of those creatures, like hobgoblins or duergar, may actually have personal codes of honor and actually mean it. But most won't. Most probably wouldn't offer to surrender, either - if they don't give a damn when others try to do it, why would they expect differently?




I like the mention of Orcs.  Last I looked, half orcs were a valid PC race.  Slaughter all the children in that Orcish encampment, and a future PC is potentially slain.  If they do not have free will, how is it that they are viable PC's?

If I am to take this position with free-willed Goblins, I must also apply it to the citizenry of any nation where they are born and raised to beliefs that oppose my own, must I not?  Is it a Good act for the Paladin to wipe out those foreign devils, whether they are a different species (perhaps Goblin, perhaps Elf), worship a different God, or have skin of a different colour? The Orcs were raised in Orcish ways, and the Easterlanders were raised in the ways of Easterland.  Both are Evil.  Both must be wiped out to the last survivor.



Epametheus said:


> But as normally written, most of the monster races form into what amount to bandit clans and enclaves, and launch raids on any of their neighbors at any time. The closest you can reach to peace with them is managing to hurt them badly enough that they'll stop attacking you. At least until their numbers recover...




The game can certainly be played on the basis that the only good Goblin (or Easternlander) is a dead Goblin (or Easterlander).  The Paladin may well find himself in combat with such creatures, evil or neutral, and have no choice but to take their lives for the greater good.  When he starts to consider it moral to take their lives, or even enjoy taking those lives, I don't see him as that heroic paragon of virtue he may see himself as.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 27, 2011)

This sort of thing is why I don't play Paladins any more. Unless the DM and I agree before the game begins on what constitutes an "evil" act, this just cause problems. Alternately, the DM could never have this situation arise, but then the Paladin is overpowered--as his weakness/drawback will never come into play.

Of course, when I'm DM'ing, this is the sort of thing I love to throw at the Paladins. In my opinion, if you are playing a Paladin you are somewhat asking for these sorts of dilemmas to be included in the game.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 27, 2011)

Has the Goblin Village done anything evil yet?

No?

Then the paladin doesn't have to wait to see if he will lose his powers by killing a surrendering goblin - he already _has_.

As mentioned above - Good is respect for _all_ life, not only that fraction of life that agrees with you.

The Auld Grump


----------



## prosfilaes (Nov 27, 2011)

Epametheus said:


> If a goblin knows how to say "I surrender, don't hurt me," in common, it probably learned that from a victim that it then killed and ate (or killed by eating).




So basically if they can speak your language, they deserve to die, if they can't, then we don't care what they say?



> My group handles this sort of thing as "a Paladin can refuse to accept a creature's surrender."
> 
> While goblins are free-willed, a normal goblin is raised to view nearly anything that isn't a goblin as prey.



If goblins are free-willed, then they can choose non-evil. If they can choose non-evil, then a paladin can not kill on sight. I don't particularly have a problem with paladins killing enemy combatants who try and surrender. But people who haven't raised arms against the paladin or his party, that's a different matter.

I can't accept as any sort of respect for life the broad attack on any "normally evil" creature. And I do have a problem with the impression I've got in D&D that if humans encroach on elf land, and the elves kill a few, the elves are isolationist but good; but if goblins or orcs do the same, it's because they're evil.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Dec 2, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> If goblins are free-willed, then they can choose non-evil. If they can choose non-evil, then a paladin can not kill on sight. I don't particularly have a problem with paladins killing enemy combatants who try and surrender. But people who haven't raised arms against the paladin or his party, that's a different matter.




Or if they'd raised arms against innocents. But otherwise, I absolutely agree with you. Paladins don't have to accept surrender, and they don't have to offer quarter or even declare hostilities-- but they're not allowed to make pre-emptive strikes. They don't get to just up and kill someone unless they know that the targets have done something wrong.


----------



## was (Dec 3, 2011)

As a DM, I have my paladin players write out their honor codes before hand.  I do chime in with a few suggestions here and there, but leave it largely up to the character to define it.  I find that there are much fewer arguments about code violations with this method.


----------



## N'raac (Dec 3, 2011)

was said:


> As a DM, I have my paladin players write out their honor codes before hand. I do chime in with a few suggestions here and there, but leave it largely up to the character to define it. I find that there are much fewer arguments about code violations with this method.




Seems like a good approach for consensus, and for individualizing Paladins.  There's still a need to ensure the Code of Honor is reasonably restrictive and consistent with the ideals of LG.

"I vow to make my own decisions and follow no one else's orders"

or 

"Enemies deserve no mercy and shall receive none"

would be grounds for some revision.

Good players would likely come up with some solid, and diverse, codes of honour.


----------



## was (Dec 3, 2011)

N'raac said:


> Good players would likely come up with some solid, and diverse, codes of honour.




or be severely injured in a hail of d20's by fed-up fellow players.


----------



## ComradeGnull (Dec 3, 2011)

Faiths of Purity has some good sample codes for paladins of different faiths.  The codes for Sarenrae, Torag, and Iomedae specifically deal with handling evil enemies- trying to redeem them, giving the option (but not requirement) of accepting their surrender, etc.  The code for Torag specifically says 'no mercy for the enemies of my people'.

I think this makes the most sense to me- that what is both lawful and good for a follower of a particular deity is determined by the values of that deity.  What is the right response to the follower of a god whose portfolio is mercy and healing would be different than for a god of protection and crusading warfare.  A Dwarven god might specifically deny any quarter to orcs, goblins, and duerger, for instance.  A god of justice and laws might say that an escaped criminal is to be killed rather than captured.

Also worth noting that good characters 'respecting all life' does not require them to be naive.  Allowing an evil humanoid to beg for mercy and go free could well place other innocents in danger.  While it isn't the only interpretation possible, it is certainly potentially consistent with LG alignment to value the potential harm to innocents higher than the value of offering mercy to someone who has committed evil acts.


----------



## Starman (Dec 4, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> This sort of thing is why I don't play Paladins any more. Unless the DM and I agree before the game begins on what constitutes an "evil" act, this just cause problems. Alternately, the DM could never have this situation arise, but then the Paladin is overpowered--as his weakness/drawback will never come into play.
> 
> Of course, when I'm DM'ing, this is the sort of thing I love to throw at the Paladins. In my opinion, if you are playing a Paladin you are somewhat asking for these sorts of dilemmas to be included in the game.




I think the most important lesson from these sorts of threads is that DMs and players need to discuss this sort of thing ahead of time so both are pretty much on the same page when it comes to alignment, a Paladin's codes, and so on.


----------



## Crunchy_Bill (Apr 13, 2021)

Here's another twist:
How about carving a few goblin steaks from an already-dead goblin to use to try to tame/win over some wolves that the now-deceased goblins had imprisoned and, according to information obtained via "Talk with Animals", were starving.  I figured that since the goblin was already dead, and my lawful neutral (NOT lawful good) Paladin is part of a nature religion ("nature, red in tooth and claw"), it was fair for him to conclude that, well, dead is dead, meat is meat, no sense letting it go to waste when there are four or five very hungry wolves to placate.

My GM and several fellow players feel otherwise and exhibited reactions ranging from apparent horror to conspiratorial chuckles.  The word "repercussions" has been muttered . . . 

I'm newly-returned to D&D, but enjoyed many surprisingly serious debates about ethics and morality back when I used to game a lot.  Nice to know some things haven't changed!  

P.S. Of additional potential relevance - my Paladin is half orc and was raised as a member of an orc tribe.  I really don't think that from his perspective, in the context of his religion and the ethics of the quasi-Medieval time in which D&D occurs, carving up an already-dead Goblin is not even close to being an evil act.  I killed him fair and square in battle, and tried (without success) to prevent another player from slaying his fellows after they surrendered.  (I'm strong but kinda slow, and the rogue in the group took out the kneeling goblins before I could stop him.)


----------



## S'mon (Apr 13, 2021)

Player should listen to GM's decision.
There is no objectively right answer, but your approach seems fine to me.


----------



## Ixal (Apr 13, 2021)

Nearly 10 years.
Not a bad necro.


----------



## Disgruntled Hobbit (Apr 13, 2021)

Depends on if your DM believes non-humans have free will. 
Can't assume fantasy races are like real world people. That they all have free will and the ability to choose between good and evil. 

If goblins, orcs or gnolls were solely created by some evil god then they may not have free will. They might not be able to choose between good and evil and always be evil. In that case, killing one begging for mercy isn't evil. It's good as the goblin WILL go off and do more evil later. It's their nature. 
If goblins and the like were created in part with a good god, an evil god that believed in free will or were granted free will then it's uncertain. It depends on the goblin. A selfish and wicked goblin will go off and do more evil and killing them might be like offing the Joker. Saves lives in the long run. Or the goblin might choose to turn its life around. Because it CAN choose to.


----------



## Tonguez (Apr 14, 2021)

I take my cue from Detect Evil so that only aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, or undead can actually be called Evil.

Sentient mortal races in the world can ‘Do evil’ but they are not always evil and thus a Paladin cant know if any given goblin is evil or not unless they are actively Doing evil things

ergo a surrendering goblin is not evil, whereas a goblin who is torturing babies is


----------



## Jaeger (Apr 14, 2021)

Donp said:


> My friend says that if he were playing a Paladin, and he were to attack a Goblin village (race with evil alignment) he would probably spare those who surrendered, or those who were weak or children etc. He would feel that if he were to kill those Goblins who begged for mercy that would be an evil act, disastrous for the Paladin (also he doesn't want to do any evil).
> 
> I would say (I'm the DM), that based on the rules, I cannot see that killing an evil Goblin would be an evil act under most circumstances. (BTW these are not my personal feelings on the matter, just my interpretation of the rules..._*let's just leave RL morality discussion out of it*_). If he were to torture a Goblin, or something, that would be Evil, as it is obviously a sentient being. However, I see nothing in the rules that would make killing a begging-for-mercy Goblin an evil act, as *the Goblin is an evil creature, and in the very objective morality system presented in the D&D/Pathfinder world, destroying evil is not evil.*




Nothing wrong with having objectively Evil races to fight in an escapist RPG.

If Goblins are Evil; Then the killing of Goblins = Smiting Evil.

The Paladin is literally destroying an agent of evil that would do someone else future harm if allowed to live.

He is a Hero.





cattoy said:


> The first time we encountered this situation, the goblin ran away and gathered allies and set up an ambush.




Now this is Goblins done right!

_#Goblinsareforkilling_


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 14, 2021)

Ixal said:


> Nearly 10 years.
> Not a bad necro.



_golf clap_


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 14, 2021)

Disgruntled Hobbit said:


> Depends on if your DM believes non-humans have free will.
> Can't assume fantasy races are like real world people. That they all have free will and the ability to choose between good and evil.
> 
> If goblins, orcs or gnolls were solely created by some evil god then they may not have free will. They might not be able to choose between good and evil and always be evil. In that case, killing one begging for mercy isn't evil. It's good as the goblin WILL go off and do more evil later. It's their nature.
> If goblins and the like were created in part with a good god, an evil god that believed in free will or were granted free will then it's uncertain. It depends on the goblin. A selfish and wicked goblin will go off and do more evil and killing them might be like offing the Joker. Saves lives in the long run. Or the goblin might choose to turn its life around. Because it CAN choose to.



No, the mere fact the goblin isn't bound to the evil alignment by the gods does NOT mean the act of killing it becomes evil. 

Heroes kill monsters all the time. Trying to distinguish between "righteous" and "wrongful" kills, and trying to shame some adventurers but not others, is the only crime as far as I can tell. 

Either you accept that murder is murder (and presumably go play something else), or you accept that at its basic fundamental level, D&D is a murder simulator, realize no actual goblins were harmed during the production of this scenario, lighten up, and gleefully return to the exciting adventure!


----------



## TheSword (Apr 14, 2021)

For me it depends. If the PCs are attacking the village because those goblins have been raiding the city then have at it. If you’re attacking the village because you don’t like goblins and want their stuff then I’d probably say that’s pretty evil... as evil as the goblins are at least... or maybe moreso as they aren’t doing the raiding.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Apr 14, 2021)

Crunchy_Bill said:


> How about carving a few goblin steaks from an already-dead goblin to use to try to tame/win over some wolves that (snip) were starving.  I figured (snip) dead is dead, meat is meat, no sense letting it go to waste when there are four or five very hungry wolves to placate.




Depends on the amount of seasoning.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 14, 2021)

Jaeger said:


> Nothing wrong with having objectively Evil races to fight in an escapist RPG.
> 
> If Goblins are Evil; Then the killing of Goblins = Smiting Evil.



"In the end, the only good goblins are those who never show their faces to the light of day." 

So sayeth a known expert on all things goblin:


----------



## AnotherGuy (Apr 14, 2021)

Alzrius said:


> "In the end, the only good goblins are those who never show their faces to the light of day."
> 
> So sayeth a known expert on all things goblin:




Who is this plumed Cylon? I recognise it not.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 14, 2021)

AnotherGuy said:


> Who is this plumed Cylon? I recognise it not.



They call him Goblin Slayer.


----------



## Disgruntled Hobbit (Apr 15, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> No, the mere fact the goblin isn't bound to the evil alignment by the gods does NOT mean the act of killing it becomes evil.
> 
> Heroes kill monsters all the time. Trying to distinguish between "righteous" and "wrongful" kills, and trying to shame some adventurers but not others, is the only crime as far as I can tell.
> 
> Either you accept that murder is murder (and presumably go play something else), or you accept that at its basic fundamental level, D&D is a murder simulator, realize no actual goblins were harmed during the production of this scenario, lighten up, and gleefully return to the exciting adventure!



If you put down a rapid dog it doesn't matter if it's charging at you or hiding in the corner whimpering, it's still a rabid dog.


----------



## Filthy Lucre (Apr 15, 2021)

Donp said:


> My friend and I are wondering about alignment for our upcoming Pathfinder game. We want to use the alignment system correctly but we differ a bit on the interpretation of the rules. We would like some input from more seasoned players.
> 
> My friend says that if he were playing a Paladin, and he were to attack a Goblin village (race with evil alignment) he would probably spare those who surrendered, or those who were weak or children etc. He would feel that if he were to kill those Goblins who begged for mercy that would be an evil act, disastrous for the Paladin (also he doesn't want to do any evil).
> 
> ...



Alignment doesn't refer to specific individuals but general trends as a group, therefor your premise that all goblins are evil is false, and from there the rest of your argument falls apart.

The very fact that Pathfinder 2e has a codified and explicit options for goblin player characters, and that it does not force them to be evil, is pretty final on this issue.

OP's entire argument is so fallacious that I can't believe this is even being seriously entertained. OP asked for RAW and by RAW not all goblins are evil - it's stated explicitly on page 47 of the CRB and page 180 of the bestiary.

*Jesus christ I didn't realize this was started by some schmuck 10 years ago who doesn't even participate in the forum.*


----------



## Filthy Lucre (Apr 15, 2021)

Donp said:


> Well, I would certainly agree with you if the Goblins were just normal people. But according to RAW, those with an Evil alignment seek to actively hurt, opress, and kill other sentients. So even if they aren't doing anything, they are probably cooking up an evil scheme, or preparing an assault or something. So wouldn't it be like attacking a band of wolves who hadn't done anything, just because you know that they pose a threat to you and would kill you at a moment's notice if given the chance?



According to the RAW, page 47 of the CRB and page 180 of the bestiary, not all goblins are evil. Period. Meaning not only might you encounter a goblin who is not evil to begin with but is nonetheless pressed into the service of evil leaders you might also find goblins who are evil but capable of redemption.

I don't see how your argument has any legs to stand on with one of your main premises being obviously false.

*See the above comment.*


----------



## GMMichael (Apr 15, 2021)

Filthy Lucre said:


> *Jesus christ I didn't realize this was started by some schmuck 10 years ago who doesn't even participate in the forum.*



Yet here we are, ten years later, with new editions of D&D and Pathfinder, both of which contain alignment rules.

PF2 (according to the SRD) at least went out of its way to say this:


> The GM is the arbiter of questions about how specific actions might affect your character’s alignment.




So that settles that argument.  Right?


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 15, 2021)

Getting upset about alignment is the wrong move, always.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 15, 2021)

At my table, paladins show mercy not because they are lawful or good, but because _they are paladins._  Their faith and devotion to higher powers, their sacred Oaths, are far more important than just the alignment axis.  Their belief in the powers of mercy and redemption, and their desire to redeem all who would ask for it, are what separate Paladins from "fighters who go to church."


----------



## GreyLord (Apr 16, 2021)

It's a long question from long ago, but has basically been answered by Paizo and others I believe.  In the pathfinder universe (golarion and starfinder for the most part) killing a goblin which was begging for mercy is an evil act.

Goblins are not necessarily murder machines in Pathfinder.

ON the otherhand, it is the GM's game to decide upon rule interpretations and they are the final word on the matter at the table, especially (or doubly so) if in their own homebrew world.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 16, 2021)

The nice thing about zombie threads, like all zombies, is they never beg for mercy in the first place.

As for the OP, I'm inclined to answer with a big fat "It depends." Assuming this is not the middle of a battle, the paladin should at least hear the goblin out. If it is feasible to take the goblin prisoner and give it a chance to redeem itself, the paladin should do so. On the other hand, Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid; the goblin does not get a free pass to run away and plot an ambush because it grovels a bit. And if the goblin does not in fact redeem itself while prisoner, it may end up facing execution for its crimes...

...assuming it committed any. Much depends on why the party was fighting the goblins to begin with. If the goblins were raiding and killing innocent people, that's one thing. If the PCs are on a quest and the goblins attack them, well, they may have started the fight, but you're intruding on their territory. You should be looking for an opportunity to make peace.

And if the PCs just saw some goblins minding their own business and carved into them, it doesn't matter what you do with the survivor of the massacre; the paladin fell from grace at the first blow.


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 19, 2021)

The real question is  goblins attacked the village and killed some villagers. The paladin and the party comes in saves the village. The last goblin flees saying I surrender and wont do it again. As its leaving the paladin pulls out her/his bow and shoots the goblin in the back.

the DM says that's an evil act and strips the paladin of holy powers. 

I'll speak for myself-I'm leaving the table. Organized play I politely excuse myself and check out. 

this is a game of killing monsters and getting treasure.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Apr 19, 2021)

Read supulchrave’s story hour (on this board) which starts off with a high level Paladin showing mercy to a succubus who tried to seduce and corrupt him.  After she begs for mercy and promises to ‘change’. Can fiends be remorseful ?  Is it possible?

read it.  It’s amazing.


----------



## Filthy Lucre (Apr 19, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> The real question is  goblins attacked the village and killed some villagers. The paladin and the party comes in saves the village. The last goblin flees saying I surrender and wont do it again. As its leaving the paladin pulls out her/his bow and shoots the goblin in the back.
> 
> the DM says that's an evil act and strips the paladin of holy powers.
> 
> ...



I would love to know what counts as an evil act to you, if not lying about showing mercy and then killing an unarmed/non-hostile creature.

The rules text for paladins clearly intends for there to be actions that paladins can't perform and that alignment is more than window dressing for them. So are you saying you don't agree with that rule? Or are you honestly going to try and make an affirmative case for the morality of out-and-out murder? Your last sentence is very much in the vein of the 'sword and sorcery' genre... but paladins as such are not in that genre.

The scene you describe is like... *the *classic "this character is a villain, not a hero" trope that you see in media.


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 19, 2021)

I didn’t say the paladin lied or said anything

my scenario is the goblins attacked and the line goblin says I’m sure ending and runs away

I argue the paladin can kill it at that point without losing powers. I’m treating the goblin like a wolf that runs away. To be clear the paladin has said nothing


----------



## Filthy Lucre (Apr 20, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> I didn’t say the paladin lied or said anything
> 
> my scenario is the goblins attacked and the line goblin says I’m sure ending and runs away
> 
> I argue the paladin can kill it at that point without losing powers. I’m treating the goblin like a wolf that runs away. To be clear the paladin has said nothing



K, that's fine, except that your scenario explicitly contradicts the rules-as-written. Because goblins are not wolves - they're as close to humans as elves are.

So, replace "goblin" with "elf" - an elf surrenders and promises to never raid a village again and then when he leaves you shoot him in the back. Good or evil?

You can run your own personal game however you want - but this discussion was never about peoples home games but rather what the RAW supports. So your comment that you would walk out of game that  people ran by the rules as explicitly defined in the core rule book comes off more than a little petulant.


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 20, 2021)

according to D&D beyond a goblin is a neutral evil creature and is far different from an elf while I believe a wolf is unaligned

so are we saying in D&D league play that if the goblins run away then the paladin cant give chase and kill them. The paladin know they will most likely come back . Not seeing this as a violation of their oath

I don't see that the paladin has to lose their powers. Are we saying that Moradin would take a dwarves powers away if they did this to a drow in the underdark


----------



## Filthy Lucre (Apr 20, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> according to D&D beyond a goblin is a neutral evil creature and is far different from an elf while I believe a wolf is unaligned
> 
> so are we saying in D&D league play that if the goblins run away then the paladin cant give chase and kill them. The paladin know they will most likely come back . Not seeing this as a violation of their oath
> 
> I don't see that the paladin has to lose their powers. Are we saying that Moradin would take a dwarves powers away if they did this to a drow in the underdark



You're in the Pathfinder/Starfinder forum, sport, not the D&D forum. So... none of that matters.

But, just for the record, Moradin would *absolutely* punish a paladin for killing a surrendered/helpless enemy. The price of being good is that you have to take unnecessary risks - otherwise you're just neutral/amoral. There is no good god in the D&D pantheon that would consider killing a helpless/surrendered creature, who has free will and is capable of being redeemed, a non-evil act.

So the answer is: In Adventure League play you can be absolutely sure that the scenario you describe is an evil act, as per even D&D's moral/alignment system.

Like I said, you run your game however you want, but your elementary-school level of morality is not supported by either PF2e or D&D 5e. Both of those systems allow PCs to *be *goblins and it *doesn't* force them to be NE. So the claim that "all goblins are evil" is demonstrably/completely false.


----------



## embee (Apr 20, 2021)

Real life example:

My family is Jewish. My grandfather came to the US from Germany in 1938, fleeing the Nazis. December 1941 - hostilities break out and the US is drawn into WWII. My grandfather enlists. When Uncle Sam realized that he was a native German speaker, they realized that he'd be useful translating. 

Fast-forward to 1945. He's assigned to one of the divisions liberating the camps. While rounding up SS stragglers, he asks one of the guards, "How could you kill all these people?" The guard said that they were Jews, not people. So, my grandfather took his gun, handed it to his platoon mates, and then beat the Nazi to death with his hands.

Question: Was this murder?

Legally speaking, yes. It was murder. The Nazi had surrendered and was a prisoner. What my grandfather did was a war crime. 

However, the analysis does not end there. 

The question then becomes was my grandfather justified? I'd say yes and I suspect many others would as well. This doesn't negate the moral culpability of the action but rather mitigates the punishment. 

Back to this example: Is killing a goblin who has surrendered an evil act?

Let's start by clarifying the question. Define "surrender." Is he allowing himself to be taken prisoner? If yes, that's a surrender. If no, that's not surrender; that's retreat. We'll get to that in a moment. 

Is killing a prisoner an evil act? By this, do you mean is killing a prisoner an act of murder? Legally speaking, yes. It is murder. Is the paladin justified in murdering the goblin? That would depend on the paladin's god. The GM needs to RP from the perspective of that god to determine whether to revoke the paladin's powers.

Is the goblin retreating? If so, what sort of threat does this one goblin pose? Could he reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the paladin, the party, or civilians? If yes, then I would say that that would not necessarily be murder but, again, depending on the paladin's god, could require some kind of act of expiation. 

Again, it's not a binary. The circumstances need to be examined and the GM needs to look at what happened from the point of view of not only the rulebook, but the deity granting those powers as well. Some gods recognize mercy while others demand vengeance.


----------



## Filthy Lucre (Apr 20, 2021)

embee said:


> Question: Was this murder?
> 
> Legally speaking, yes. It was murder. The Nazi had surrendered and was a prisoner. What my grandfather did was a war crime.



Analysis, for me, stops at "was it legally murder". Yes, so the act is evil. Done and dusted. So assuming that Paladins, as in core D&D, must be some stripe of good, must also worship a good deity, and no good deity in the D&D pantheon would condone murder, power ought to be stripped.

"Some gods recognize mercy while others demand vengeance." Yeah - specifically the non-good or evil gods. The kind that endorse and allow non-good and evil behavior.


----------



## wicked cool (Apr 20, 2021)

This seems a little grey in both pathfinder and 5e

where is the hard rule on this?

real world is a slippery slope

my argument was the goblin is fleeing not hands up


----------



## nevin (May 5, 2021)

The way I do it is by the power judging you.  For non clerics and paladins it's generally only going to be judged by the local authorities.  

Now if the character ever asks a god or power for help, it'll be the powers perception of the actions to date that matter.  Not some arbitrary definition of good or evil.  If most goblins are evil then a good power could hate them as much as anyone else.  I think of Powers as PC's that made it to the top.  They aren't omnipitent or or perfect in alignment.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 5, 2021)

Donp said:


> Well, I would certainly agree with you if the Goblins were just normal people. But according to RAW, those with an Evil alignment seek to actively hurt, opress, and kill other sentients. So even if they aren't doing anything, they are probably cooking up an evil scheme, or preparing an assault or something. So wouldn't it be like attacking a band of wolves who hadn't done anything, just because you know that they pose a threat to you and would kill you at a moment's notice if given the chance?



Going out of your way to kill wolves that have not attacked your people or livestock is absolutely, without question, an act of incredibly detestable evil.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 5, 2021)

To the direct point of the OP, the rules are less important than the people playing the game. Always. 

If your paladin player is going to have hard time believing his Paladin is Good if they're expected to kill goblins for existing, your game is going to suffer if you force that dynamic into it. 

Also I'm pretty sure Goblins in PF are even less "automatically and always evil" than they are in DnD.


----------



## Maxperson (May 5, 2021)

Filthy Lucre said:


> I would love to know what counts as an evil act to you, if not lying about showing mercy and then killing an unarmed/non-hostile creature.



You grossly misread his post.

"The real question is goblins attacked the village and killed some villagers."

So much for non-hostile and unarmed.  It murdered villages with quite a bit of hostility.

"The paladin and the party comes in saves the village."

Okay.

"The last goblin flees saying I surrender and wont do it again."

Nowhere does it say that the Paladin agreed to mercy, lying to it.  Or that it dropped its weapon.

"As its leaving the paladin pulls out her/his bow and shoots the goblin in the back."

He killed a hostile murderer that said it surrendered, and then it showed that it was still evil when it lied and ran away rather than surrendering. The Paladin is under no obligation to let it go so that it can murder other people later.


----------



## Maxperson (May 5, 2021)

Filthy Lucre said:


> So, replace "goblin" with "elf" - an elf surrenders and promises to never raid a village again and then when he leaves you shoot him in the back. Good or evil?



So we have an elf that just murdered villagers.  It promises to never raid again and asks to be able to leave, because if it doesn't ask I'm ordering it to stop and face justice and if it asks, I'm saying no and telling it that it's going to face justice.  If the murdering elf says it won't kill again and tries to flee justice, then I'm going to try and capture it, killing it if necessary.  It takes more than, "Hey, I really didn't mean it when I chopped the heads off of 5 villagers.  I won't do it again." to show that it has changed its tune.  That and if you surrender, you are captured.  You don't get to leave the village.  Leaving is not a part of surrendering.

Now to the good/evil part of your question.  Since I'm chasing down a fleeing prisoner who murdered villagers, capture is the goal.  However, capture is not always feasible.  If it fights to the death, the elf will die.  If it does choose to die by fighting back and not surrendering, it's neither a good act, nor an evil one.


----------



## Maxperson (May 5, 2021)

Filthy Lucre said:


> But, just for the record, Moradin would *absolutely* punish a paladin for killing a surrendered/helpless enemy. The price of being good is that you have to take unnecessary risks - otherwise you're just neutral/amoral. There is no good god in the D&D pantheon that would consider killing a helpless/surrendered creature, who has free will and is capable of being redeemed, a non-evil act.



Gary Gygax stated that if you have an evil creature that surrendered and then converted to good alignment, it would be a LG act for a Paladin to then execute the creature so that it doesn't backslide again.

I don't agree with what Gygax said, but perhaps Moradin wouldn't absolutely punish the Paladin for killing a surrendered helpless enemy of the dwarven people.  It depends on the DM and how dwarves and goblins are run in that game, as well as how alignment is run.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jul 6, 2021)

Donp said:


> This is basically what I'm talking about.



The thing is, I always assume paladins operate under a perception of the golden rule: a paladin would seek redemption in an evil being as much as purge it, because its a "get" for the good gods. If you kill a helpless foe at your mercy then you have shown no mercy (an evil act), and also do not give that foe a chance to redeem itself. A goblin might run away and get a gang together for revenge....sure, but the goblin might also realize he was granted mercy in the eyes of the paladin and that he may want to rethink his life strategy. In a world where the gods are real, knowing that the god/goddess behind the paladin has given you a second change through their agent (the paladin) might make a difference. 

Now, if in the universe you postulate alignments are not just "cultural averages" and goblins are are literally made of Pure Evil (a very special type of baryonic matter) then there may be no hope for redemption because they are in fact embodiments of an actual force for which no good is ever possible.....as GM I'd probably establish such a details to players in advance of the game so they don't accidentally presuppose that the objective morality of the setting has any wiggle room (so in the original example, a goblin of pure evil can never repent or be redeemed because it is literally and unequivocally made of evil and incapable of anything other than evil).


----------



## MattW (Jul 6, 2021)

Everything in RP games is dependent on the relative maturity of everyone involved and what sort of game they enjoy.

How old are the Paladin player and his friends?  12 years old?  Are they just playing as murder-hobos in a video game?   If so, then nobody cares.

Are the Paladin and his friends (allegedly) adults?  Do they have an interest in Role Playing?  If so, they should be able to discuss things like morality and how disturbing it would be to actually kill a sentient being who was begging for mercy.  (The DM should carefully describe the scene.  The panic and then the agony as the goblin painfully dies of blood loss and how its last words were something that translates as  "At least I'll be with you soon, Mother.").


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 7, 2021)

JRR Tolkien, writing in 1959 or 1960, thought that orcs deserved mercy. JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien, _Morgoth's Ring_ (1993) (emphasis mine):

Though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they [orcs] must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. *If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost*. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded. (pg 419)​


----------



## socialevil (Jul 7, 2021)

Accepting a goblin surrender: honorable and good.

It reminds me events of Postknight 2 (you can find it on apkworlds) Refusing a surrender from/killing a known evil race: not so honorable (unless we're using Samurai instead of the chivalric code), and possibly bordering on chaotic, but not evil.

If the Paladin accepts the creature's surrender, then turn around and stabs the creature when he's not looking: not honorable, definitely chaotic, and probably evil at that point.


----------



## TheSword (Jul 7, 2021)

The race is irrelevant… what has the goblin done? If it’s been kidnapping and raising local villages as in Burnt Offerings. Then irrespective of whether it surrenders or not I don’t believe summary execution is evil. Not in a world without prisons and rehabilitation and an extensive criminal justice system.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jul 7, 2021)

It is always a good thing to accept a surrender you believe is being offered in good faith. Knightly orders of chivalry or hospitality might not even allow their members to decline, or to judge for themselves whether or not a plea of surrender is in good or bad faith until it is clearly broken.

It is never a good thing to inflict cruelty on a helpless person under your power, nor to give your word in bad faith to anyone you _could_ challenge openly instead.

If you don't accept these as moral absolutes, you have _nothing to say to me_ on the topic of objective morality.

A goblin begging for mercy doesn't mean their surrender is in good faith. Goblins beg for mercy as a battle cry. On the battlefield, and in the aftermath, a clean death is _also_ considered a mercy. If you don't have the means to protect the goblin prisoner _from your allies_, you don't have the moral authority to accept a surrender. It's a difficult choice and honorable either way.

Once you've accepted the surrender, you are morally and honorably bound to the goblin's protection. Once you've made your choice, there is no more choice to make.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 8, 2021)

DMDavid has an article which talks about the dilemma of killing "evil" races' children here: Strong Moral Dilemmas in D&D and the Unwanted Kind that Keeps Appearing

Personally, I don't run or play RPG's to encounter this sort of problem. It just isn't fun for me so I don't put it in the games I run.


----------



## mewzard (Jul 9, 2021)

It's probably worth noting at this point that in Pathfinder now, Goblins are a core ancestry and are more and more starting to turn away from old Goblin stereotypes (though not entirely).

Hell, you want to talk about the absolute of Alignment, look at Nocticula. She was formerly the Demon Lord of Assassins, Darkness, and Lust. The first Succubus.

Now? She's Nocticula, the Redeemer Queen. A Chaotic Neutral goddess of marginalized artists and protector of the exiled who tempts even those of the Abyss towards redemption.

It was teased as a possibility back in 1e, as one reason she might want to ascend to full godhood.

Morality is so much more complicated than "Elf Good, Goblin Bad", and I'd say it's for the better of any story and adventure to have such struggles. Sometimes you'll make the wrong choice, or even if you make the right choice, you might get burned for it. But being good is often the more difficult, and rewarding, road.


----------



## MaskedGuy (Jul 9, 2021)

mewzard said:


> Now? She's Nocticula, the Redeemer Queen. A Chaotic Good goddess of marginalized artists and protector of the exiled who tempts even those of the Abyss towards redemption.



Chaotic NEUTRAL goddess thank you very much.

I like to point out that people seem to forget that Nocticula is very pragmatic sort of god.

Anyway, I do think threads title is kinda telling because it kinda comes across as "well if it was human bandit, would you answer differently?"


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 9, 2021)

MaskedGuy said:


> Anyway, I do think threads title is kinda telling because it kinda comes across as "well if it was human bandit, would you answer differently?"



Yep.  Replace the word "goblin" with something unspecified like "humanoid" or "opponent," and the question hits very differently.


----------



## mewzard (Jul 9, 2021)

MaskedGuy said:


> Chaotic NEUTRAL goddess thank you very much.
> 
> I like to point out that people seem to forget that Nocticula is very pragmatic sort of god.
> 
> Anyway, I do think threads title is kinda telling because it kinda comes across as "well if it was human bandit, would you answer differently?"




You're right and I even knew that. I don't know why I typed Chaotic Good. I'll be sure to fix that. And yeah, if changing who the question is about turns it into something horrifying, it was already probably pretty bad.



CleverNickName said:


> Yep.  Replace the word "goblin" with something species-neutral like "humanoid" or "opponent," and the question hits very differently.




It really SHOULDN'T hit different though. Whether it's Goblin, Human, Dwarf, etc, it's super messed up to just murder someone begging for mercy.

It's one thing if your PC has to kill in self defense, or to stop some immediate evil act, but yeah, just assuming a race is evil and going for the kill when they seek mercy is not what I'd throw under the Good alignment.

Maybe you'll face them again on the battlefield, or via some sort of ambush...or maybe, you might have changed someone's life for the better. Your act of mercy may inspire one to attempt to better themself. Who knows?

I think it's at least worth trying.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 9, 2021)

mewzard said:


> It really SHOULDN'T hit different though. Whether it's Goblin, Human, Dwarf, etc, it's super messed up to just murder someone begging for mercy.



Absolutely.  I was agreeing with @MaskedGuy about how the title of this thread implies a certain bias.  And I agree with you, that such bias is a problem.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jul 10, 2021)

mewzard said:


> It really SHOULDN'T hit different though. Whether it's Goblin, Human, Dwarf, etc, it's super messed up to just murder someone begging for mercy.



It really shouldn't matter what _kind of person_ they are... but it matters a whole lot what they were doing before they started begging for mercy. It matters a lot, what you think they're going to do after you lower your weapon and whether or not you have the power to stop that.

The Comics Code Authority isn't any kind of _moral_ authority. Spider-Man is a hero for all the times he's spared the Rhino or Sandman; for all the times he's spared Norman Osborn, or Miles Warren, or _Carnage_, he's a very flawed hero. A fascinating character, an example of Good, but not the _perfect example_ of Good.


----------



## MaskedGuy (Jul 10, 2021)

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> It really shouldn't matter what _kind of person_ they are... but it matters a whole lot what they were doing before they started begging for mercy. It matters a lot, what you think they're going to do after you lower your weapon and whether or not you have the power to stop that.
> 
> The Comics Code Authority isn't any kind of _moral_ authority. Spider-Man is a hero for all the times he's spared the Rhino or Sandman; for all the times he's spared Norman Osborn, or Miles Warren, or _Carnage_, he's a very flawed hero. A fascinating character, an example of Good, but not the _perfect example_ of Good.



When it comes to super heroes, its still silly logic to apply it though.

Like why exactly is it Batman's responsibility to kill Joker? Joker isn't some sort of supernatural being that can be only killed by Batman. In modern society vigilantes shouldn't execute people(that just opens massive Punisher shaped can of worms), if Gotham really wanted to get rid of Joker well they live in part of america were execution(as distasteful as it is) seems to be legal.

Second thing is that in real life, prison escape isn't as common as in comic books  Like is it really superhero's fault that superhero comics run on "Okay, this villain is popular so bring them back for another issue! Yeah yeah just say they escaped or something" logic? Like from in universe perspective, if people keep escaping from prison then there is something severely wrong with prison itself. Like why DO they don't just destroy Rhino's suit or keep it located in another facility?


----------



## DammitVictor (Jul 10, 2021)

MaskedGuy said:


> Like why exactly is it Batman's responsibility to kill Joker? Joker isn't some sort of supernatural being that can be only killed by Batman.



Rule .303. Batman has the capacity to find, thwart, and apprehend Joker on multiple occasions and he knows, _canonically_, what is going to happen each and every single time he apprehends the Joker. That means that he bears some degree of the moral responsibility for the inevitable consequences of taking Joker in, alive, and allowing Gotham's "justice" system to fail at its job.

Batman's also a good example, though, because _canonically_ he also knows-- to some fair degree of certainty-- that the long-term consequences of him, personally, killing the Joker would be worse than the Joker's cumulative lifetime of rampages. He knows that an obsessive billionaire who dresses up as a rodent to beat up the mentally ill is only a _thin red line_ from belonging in Arkham himself, and that his powers and training would make him more dangerous than any of his terrestrial enemies if he crossed it. _He's not wrong_. He also knows the kind of heat that would bring down on his "batfamily", who are mostly normal human beings operating by the grace of the same corruption that makes them necessary.

It's an interesting moral argument, born out of a Doylist need to justify a faintly ridiculous Watsonian character trait that was imposed upon the entire genre of superhero storytelling by external moral hypocrisy. (And, you know, _marketing_.)

On the other hand, when he threatens to suicide-bomb an entire planet full of sentient non-combatant aliens to stop Darkseid, neither his allies nor Darkseid himself is willing to _call his bluff_-- because they all know, to the last person, that Batman is not bluffing. This is also the right call; Earth is not the only planet full of sentient non-combatant beings that Apokolips is currently/always a clear and present danger to.

Doesn't really apply to Spider-Man, whose _technical pacifism_ is frequently expressed in a way that makes it look like narcissistic martyrdom. Marvel's bent over backwards to give it the Thermian explanation that Spider-Man is attuned to the Web of Life, and that failing to uphold his commitment to always saving everyone possible would mean spiritually losing his capacity to save lives. It's kinda hokey, but I use it myself in some of my own Marvel storytelling. However, that's a _relatively recent development_ that is largely not held in high regard by other hardcore Spider-Man fans.

And in a fictional universe where Spider-Man's magic powers weren't attached to a load-bearing pillar of morality...



MaskedGuy said:


> In modern society vigilantes shouldn't execute people(that just opens massive Punisher shaped can of worms), if Gotham really wanted to get rid of Joker well they live in part of america were execution(as distasteful as it is) seems to be legal.



I'm not talking about execution here; conversation started with refusing to accept the surrender of a goblin combatant.  Most of what comicbook vigilantes do is highly illegal-- looking for and beating up people _planning to engage_ in crimes breaks all sorts of laws, and even by the laxest legal standards of self-defense, no individual has the _right to kill _another individual.

It's funny how comicbook fans can watch their heroes commit violent crime after violent crime, maiming other (only sometimes) violent criminals who have a right to a judge and a jury, and it's only when they do what is perfectly legal and moral-- using lethal force in direct defense of their own, or another's, life from clear and present danger-- that we, as comic book moral philosophers, kick up a fuss.




MaskedGuy said:


> Second thing is that in real life, prison escape isn't as common as in comic books  Like is it really superhero's fault that superhero comics run on "Okay, this villain is popular so bring them back for another issue! Yeah yeah just say they escaped or something" logic? Like from in universe perspective, if people keep escaping from prison then there is something severely wrong with prison itself. Like why DO they don't just destroy Rhino's suit or keep it located in another facility?




Well, point blank, Batman doesn't have the means to fix Arkham Asylum or Gotham City's notoriously corrupt police department. He's not _capable_ of making everyone else involved _do the right thing_. He does not bear _more_ responsibility for the Joker's third-and-subsequent crime sprees than the Joker himself does, or Gotham PD, or the faculty and staff at Arkham Asylum. He's just the only person who ever has the _capacity _and the _authority_ to do so at the same time.

He chooses to take the Joker down non-lethally, when this presents more of a risk to the Joker's victims, and it's only because the writers bend over backwards-- for good reasons!-- to avoid calling attention to this that... well, we aren't constantly having our attention called to it. In a "more realistic" adolescent power fantasy, Barman and Spider-Man would have watched countless innocent people die while they were walking on eggshells to protect people _literally in the act of committing murder_.

I'm not suggesting that we change the conventions of the superhero genre, though that's already happening on its own. I'm just saying that we shouldn't mistake them for real-life moral principles or worse, apply them to genres or heroic storytelling that lack all of the modern and/or historical context that made those convenitions apply to superhero stories in the first place.


----------



## MaskedGuy (Jul 10, 2021)

I mean, I do consider it to be different thing to "Kill someone about to kill an innocent", but when people talk about superheroes killing villains they seem to kinda frame it in form of "they should hunt them down" or "not give them mercy".  Like I haven't really seen many scenes of "civilians die because batman didn't shoot joker in the moment", though let's face it wouldn't be much of superhero story if it was "man I really should have brought sniper rifle instead of my fancy gadgets"

Either way though, it is still kinda annoying considering that superheroes are pretty much younger audience's genre that authors keep trying to make them dark and edgy. Like trying to write scenario where superman has to kill someone in order to save people kinda misses point of genre to me. But that is getting really on sidetrack.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jul 10, 2021)

MaskedGuy said:


> Either way though, it is still kinda annoying considering that superheroes are pretty much younger audience's genre that authors keep trying to make them dark and edgy. Like trying to write scenario where superman has to kill someone in order to save people kinda misses point of genre to me. But that is getting really on sidetrack.




Mostly my point is that superhero genre conventions about the morality of continuum of force don't really have much basis in real-life ethical considerations and _definitely_ should not apply to sword & sorcery fantasy adventures.


----------



## Larnievc (Jul 10, 2021)

Donp said:


> My friend and I are wondering about alignment for our upcoming Pathfinder game. We want to use the alignment system correctly but we differ a bit on the interpretation of the rules. We would like some input from more seasoned players.
> 
> My friend says that if he were playing a Paladin, and he were to attack a Goblin village (race with evil alignment) he would probably spare those who surrendered, or those who were weak or children etc. He would feel that if he were to kill those Goblins who begged for mercy that would be an evil act, disastrous for the Paladin (also he doesn't want to do any evil).
> 
> ...



I think Evil in the game is something that you do, rather than what you are. So unless the shop keeper or the goblin were doing something evil it would be undetectable.


----------



## Blue (Jul 10, 2021)

TheSword said:


> The race is irrelevant… what has the goblin done? If it’s been kidnapping and raising local villages as in Burnt Offerings. Then irrespective of whether it surrenders or not I don’t believe summary execution is evil. Not in a world without prisons and rehabilitation and an extensive criminal justice system.



I was about to post that the race is possibly the most relevant thing.

If, in the lore of the setting, the race is irredemably evil.  Demons and devils in most settings as an example, perhaps mindless, uncontrolled undead, then it can be killed without regard.  A plea for mercy from them *cannot* lead to a net positive.

On the other hand, races whihc can be redeemed it's important.  Perhaps even if this particular individual orc can't be swayed the knowledge that it is possible to be treated as a person may affect the actions of other of that race or other races.

And it's really per setting - if in my setting all gnolls are tainted by Yeenoghu while in yours that isn't true, it can vary there.  If in 13th Age Orcs literally are evil bubbling out of the earth, they may be irredeemable.

Basically, races is a common divisor between "this ca't be redeemed" which is where it's okay to kill.  Much like 80s cartoons often had robot foes because it was okay to destroy them, there are some things that, based on the setting, may be okay not to show mercy to.  Everyone and everything else needs to be considered.


----------



## TheSword (Jul 10, 2021)

Blue said:


> I was about to post that the race is possibly the most relevant thing.
> 
> If, in the lore of the setting, the race is irredemably evil.  Demons and devils in most settings as an example, perhaps mindless, uncontrolled undead, then it can be killed without regard.  A plea for mercy from them *cannot* lead to a net positive.
> 
> ...



Sure if something is elementally evil or fundamentally inimical to life then it should/could be killed irrespective of what it’s done… demons,  demonic gnolls, mind flayers etc.

For most creatures capable of free will, rational thought and self determination let the punishment fit the crime.


----------



## Blue (Jul 10, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Sure if something is elementally evil or fundamentally inimical to life then it should/could be killed irrespective of what it’s done… demons,  demonic gnolls, mind flayers etc.
> 
> For most creatures capable of free will, rational thought and self determination let the punishment fit the crime.



Exactly.  In other words, race is one of the very few identifiers where you know if you can kill without hesitation.  I'm glad you see that your statement that race is irrelevant was incorrect.


----------



## TheSword (Jul 10, 2021)

Blue said:


> Exactly.  In other words, race is one of the very few identifiers where you know if you can kill without hesitation.  I'm glad you see that your statement that race is irrelevant was incorrect.



I’ll be honest I don’t view demons as races. They are monsters. You don’t say the race of griffons or the race of black puddings.

Consider it a amendment to my statement not a repudiation of it. Regarding sentient creatures not inimicable to human life, like the example of goblins given in this thread, I do consider race irrelevant.


----------



## the_David (Jul 11, 2021)

Donp said:


> I sort of see the fact that Goblins are, as a race, Evil, as meaning that they are like intelligent wolves, or like Nazis who were evil from birth.



How can you come to a conclusion like that? German boys had to join the Hitler jugend for manditory indoctrination lessons, before they were drafted into the army as cannonfodder. How can you think an entire group of people is evil? Those people were victims of an oppressive regime. Okay, maybe not all of them, but many were. Pope Benedict was in the Hitler Jugend. Schindler was a nazi.

As for your player, he's telling you that he doesn't like your black and white morality and that he wants more shades of gray. Maybe it's a good idea to start writing some real villains with actual motivation rather than the boring evil for the sake of evil Disney villains. If you don't you might lose a player, as he doesn't seem pleased with your GM style.

And seriously, if you don't want moral grey areas, why would you let the goblin beg for mercy in the first place?


----------



## CleverNickName (Jul 11, 2021)

At my table?

If a creature has enough sentience, intelligence, and self-awareness to beg for mercy in the first place, and you choose to ignore its pleas and kill that creature, I would rule that you have committed an evil act.   The laws of the realm might disagree over what you did was a _crime, _though, since goblins (or other sentient, intelligent, self-aware creatures) might not have fair status and representation in certain parts of the realm.  Whether or not the town guard will prosecute you for what you've done, and how the gods will judge you for it, are two different consequences of that action.  Both should be considered carefully.


----------



## John R Davis (Jul 11, 2021)

Remember the pathfinder goblin is so irredeemably stupid in appearance they should be erased from all books and games.
It's my birthday so I must be correct


----------



## d24454_modern (Jul 11, 2021)

the_David said:


> As for your player, he's telling you that he doesn't like your black and white morality and that he wants more shades of gray. Maybe it's a good idea to start writing some real villains with actual motivation rather than boring the evil for the sake of evil Disney villains. If you don't you might lose a player, as he doesn't seem pleased with your GM style.



Kinda off topic but I hate the idea that a straight-up evil villain is automatically boring or bad.

I would say "yes, killing the Goblin in that state would be evil". Even if the Goblin raped and murdered a village, it's bad to kill anyone in that sate. It would be understandable but still evil.

Killing the Goblin because you can't enact proper punishment against them would be neutral though.


----------



## the_David (Jul 11, 2021)

d24454_modern said:


> Kinda off topic but I hate the idea that a straight-up evil villain is automatically boring or bad.



You might have a point there but I'm talking about... uhm. The best example I can come up with right now is Swiper from Dora the Explorer. Sorry. The kind of antagonist who is just there because the writer thought the story needed an antagonist. 

Another example would be the goblins in Sunless Citadel. There's nothing in the plothooks that tells the players they are evil, and yet the adventure expects that the players will invade the home they've been living in for at least 13 years and slaughter them all. The only thing they might have done that could be percieved as evil is owning a barrel of elf pudding and there's no way for the players to find out this information except by finding that barrel.

In contrast, skeletons and zombies on Golarion are evil because someone killed them, took their soul and mangled it and then put it back into their rotting corpse. Demons are the reincarnations of the sins of mortals cast into the abyss. Mind flayers eat the brains of what they consider to be lesser beings, much like we might eat the meat of animals. For them it's a necessity to survive, but we would consider that evil. Even Javert in Les Miserables has a reason to do the things he does, even though it's a flimsy one at best.
All af these are better justifications for being evil than just needing an antagonist for the story.

I'm curious if you can come up with an example of a straight-up evil villain who isn't boring or bad. I'd love to hear about those.


----------



## d24454_modern (Jul 11, 2021)

the_David said:


> You might have a point there but I'm talking about... uhm. The best example I can come up with right now is Swiper from Dora the Explorer. Sorry. The kind of antagonist who is just there because the writer thought the story needed an antagonist.
> 
> Another example would be the goblins in Sunless Citadel. There's nothing in the plothooks that tells the players they are evil, and yet the adventure expects that the players will invade the home they've been living in for at least 13 years and slaughter them all. The only thing they might have done that could be percieved as evil is owning a barrel of elf pudding and there's no way for the players to find out this information except by finding that barrel.
> 
> ...



I always find it funny how undead always become super evil even if they were nice people when they were alive. If the necromancy process actually turns them evil, then it's a good reason why necromancers have such a bad name.

It's not that a pure evil villain can't have a backstory; it's that said backstory isn't enough to justify whatever actions they committed.

Lex Luthor had a horrible home life but that's not enough to justify him becoming a corporate tyrant. that also doesn't hinder his entertainment value as a villain.


----------



## MaskedGuy (Jul 12, 2021)

the_David said:


> You might have a point there but I'm talking about... uhm. The best example I can come up with right now is Swiper from Dora the Explorer. Sorry. The kind of antagonist who is just there because the writer thought the story needed an antagonist.
> 
> Another example would be the goblins in Sunless Citadel. There's nothing in the plothooks that tells the players they are evil, and yet the adventure expects that the players will invade the home they've been living in for at least 13 years and slaughter them all. The only thing they might have done that could be percieved as evil is owning a barrel of elf pudding and there's no way for the players to find out this information except by finding that barrel.
> 
> ...



yeaaaaah lots of traditional D&D adventures have "player is expected to kill everyone at this location just because they exist in this location"

And lot of older bestiary entries in classic D&D are like "here is few paragraphs on what goblin culture is like. None of it actually explains why the statblock says they are always chaotic evil".

I much prefer PF2e approach here. Like why are gnolls evil? Answer is "Well, they aren't actually always evil, but tend to be often CE or CN because their culture is utterly about pragmatism and survivalists. Different tribes have different focus, CE ones focus more on raiding and slavery while CN ones focus more on isolationism. That and they are cannibals and consider it disrespectful to not eat your corpse which tends to put them at odds with other cultures."


----------



## d24454_modern (Jul 12, 2021)

MaskedGuy said:


> yeaaaaah lots of traditional D&D adventures have "player is expected to kill everyone at this location just because they exist in this location"
> 
> And lot of older bestiary entries in classic D&D are like "here is few paragraphs on what goblin culture is like. None of it actually explains why the statblock says they are always chaotic evil".
> 
> I much prefer PF2e approach here. Like why are gnolls evil? Answer is "Well, they aren't actually always evil, but tend to be often CE or CN because their culture is utterly about pragmatism and survivalists. Different tribes have different focus, CE ones focus more on raiding and slavery while CN ones focus more on isolationism. That and they are cannibals and consider it disrespectful to not eat your corpse which tends to put them at odds with other cultures."



I feel like it comes from the idea that the only way to get XP is by outright killing the enemy when that was never the case.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 12, 2021)

That this is a question requiring 6 pages of discussion and debate is the surest possible proof that D&D's alignment system is the product of brainworms and should be resigned to the dustbin of history alongside similarly terrible features, such as gendered Strength caps and THAC0


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 12, 2021)

N'raac said:


> But the Paladin's Detect Evil is accurate.  If the creature merits mercy, he will not detect as evil.  If his evil intent remains, then he detects as such and can be slain as a non-evil, albeit non-good, act.




Detect Evil is NOT a lie detector. It only tells you if the creature is evil, not if it plans to betray you.


----------



## MaskedGuy (Jul 12, 2021)

Gradine said:


> That this is a question requiring 6 pages of discussion and debate is the surest possible proof that D&D's alignment system is the product of brainworms and should be resigned to the dustbin of history alongside similarly terrible features, such as gendered Strength caps and THAC0



I mean do note, this is ten year old thread that got necromancered after ten year break between posts


----------



## Imaculata (Jul 12, 2021)

MaskedGuy said:


> I mean do note, this is ten year old thread that got necromancered after ten year break between posts





Rise! RIIIIIIISE! Muhahahaha!


----------



## Galandris (Jul 12, 2021)

"Please, don't kill Dzat. Dzat good goblin now, Dzat promises!"
Paladin, holding his holy avenger on the foul creature's throat: "Hum, let's wait a decade while I commune with my goddess, Enworld, to know if I should give your mercy".
"But... In 10 years, Dzat will be dead of old age! Commune is supposed to have a casting time of ONE MINUTE" _croaks at some point_
Paladin, lowering his sword: "Praised be the Goddess, for she works in mysterious ways but somehow neatly resolved my alignment conundrum."


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jul 12, 2021)

MaskedGuy said:


> I mean do note, this is ten year old thread that got necromancered after ten year break between posts



True, but the fact that it's still up for debate despite that decade-long interim seems like further proof that D&D has some concepts that are just stuck in amber. And not in a good way!


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jul 12, 2021)

the_David said:


> I'm curious if you can come up with an example of a straight-up evil villain who isn't boring or bad. I'd love to hear about those.



I think it depends on the narrative, and specifically how much access you have to that villain's inner life or motivations.

In non-gaming narratives, character's like Randall Flagg (aka The Walkin' Dude) in The Stand (novel) or the way Satan is presented in Constantine (movie) are arguably interesting and compelling. And as much as the movie Seven mines John Doe's supposed righteousness, he is straight-up evil, with nothing redeeming and a perspective that the movie rejects (even if some dummies in the audience don't).

In games, though, because they're so player-facing, I think you often don't get as much of a chance to know what drives a given villain, anyway. Not saying that's a universal rule, but unless the tone allows for villain monologues, some big bads will remain sort of a cipher until the very end. And I think that can still absolutely work, especially if they're unknowable. Like the Mythos in Call of Cthulhu, or any other inherently alien force. As long as there are more relatable villainous types around, those more opaque and just all-out evil ones can be plenty interesting. They become less like some X-men or Buffy quasi-villain, all gorgeous angst and romantic rebellion, and more like a theme or symbol.

And I'd argue that inaccessible evil can work in non-gaming narratives too, like the Zodiac killer in the movie Zodiac, or Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs. That they're impossible to sympathize with is what makes them, and their stories, so compelling--you're staring into the abyss, rather than nodding along because hey, the abyss makes some good points.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jul 12, 2021)

d24454_modern said:


> I feel like it comes from the idea that the only way to get XP is by outright killing the enemy when that was never the case.



It's a natural consequence of official DM advice to lower XP rewards if the players take steps to make the encounter "easier", such as softening them up first or creating environmental disadvatanges for them. After all, what's easier than not fighting at all?


----------



## Gradine (Jul 12, 2021)

MaskedGuy said:


> I mean do note, this is ten year old thread that got necromancered after ten year break between posts



...


----------



## d24454_modern (Jul 12, 2021)

Gradine said:


> That this is a question requiring 6 pages of discussion and debate is the surest possible proof that D&D's alignment system is the product of brainworms and should be resigned to the dustbin of history alongside similarly terrible features, such as gendered Strength caps and THAC0



Ehh, I feel like that idea is born out of laziness. After all, if killing a surrendering Goblin is considered bad, then it would cheat player out of casting fireball.

Essentially, it's only considered a problem because the player can be punished for doing so.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Jul 12, 2021)

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> Well, point blank, Batman doesn't have the means to fix Arkham Asylum or Gotham City's notoriously corrupt police department. He's not _capable_ of making everyone else involved _do the right thing_. He does not bear _more_ responsibility for the Joker's third-and-subsequent crime sprees than the Joker himself does, or Gotham PD, or the faculty and staff at Arkham Asylum. He's just the only person who ever has the _capacity _and the _authority_ to do so at the same time.



He’s a billionaire in a city that is known to be corrupt.  He absolutely has the means to fix Arkham Asylum or the police department.

Can the mob really outbid Bruce Wayne on the next election for police commissioner?  If they do, is it even worthwhile to do so?


----------



## jerryrice4949 (Jul 12, 2021)

I don’t get all the debate.  Killing a creature that is surrendering is neither lawful nor good.  Sure it can be rationalized, most terrible acts can.

Now whether such an act is evil, well that is debatable.  Who is to say.  Few evil people would see themselves as evil and often have, at least in their mind, justifiable reasons for what they are doing, even if most people think their acts are repugnant, immoral and evil.


----------



## aco175 (Jul 12, 2021)

Back in 2e days, a player was playing a paladin and detected alignment on just about everyone he encountered.  It became more a problem than a cool power.  If he detected evil on a shopkeeper or such, he treated them as scheming or looking to swindle him.  He would even bully them for being evil.  It was middle-school and our ideas on good and evil were not fully formed yet.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 12, 2021)

I mean, if you can pull out "the ends justify the means" as a justification for an evil act (murdering an unarmed individual) for a *Lawful Good *character, then your alignment system lacks a fundamental consistency or basis in objectivity in pretty much every way.


----------



## d24454_modern (Jul 12, 2021)

Gradine said:


> I mean, if you can pull out "the ends justify the means" as a justification for an evil act (murdering an unarmed individual) for a *Lawful Good *character, then your alignment system lacks a fundamental consistency or basis in objectivity in pretty much every way.



Are you talking about the alignments system or the players because this sounds like a player problem.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Jul 12, 2021)

d24454_modern said:


> Are you talking about the alignments system or the players because this sounds like a player problem.




I think the point is that someone brought up Gygax's own idea that an LG Paladin could do this, which would seem to make the alignment system itself worthless and easily gameable.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jul 12, 2021)

Justice and Rule said:


> I think the point is that someone brought up Gygax's own idea that an LG Paladin could do this, which would seem to make the alignment system itself worthless and easily gameable.




Call it what it was: according to Gygax, a Lawful Good Paladin was _obligated_ to do this. A Paladin who refused was a _coward_ and fallen from grace.

Whenever someone tells you that the alignment system is simple and straightforward, remember that this is what its author considered _objective morality_-- this was the obvious truth from which no honest observer could depart.

Alignment is an irredeemably rotten institution because it was built on a foundation of rot.


----------



## d24454_modern (Jul 12, 2021)

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> Call it what it was: according to Gygax, a Lawful Good Paladin was _obligated_ to do this. A Paladin who refused was a _coward_ and fallen from grace.
> 
> Whenever someone tells you that the alignment system is simple and straightforward, remember that this is what its author considered _objective morality_-- this was the obvious truth from which no honest observer could depart.
> 
> Alignment is an irredeemably rotten institution because it was built on a foundation of rot.



Pathfinder has literal books on how alignment works.



			paizo.com - Pathfinder Player Companion: Champions of Purity
		



			paizo.com - Pathfinder Player Companion: Champions of Balance (PFRPG)
		



			paizo.com - Pathfinder Player Companion: Champions of Corruption (PFRPG)


----------



## Shair-afiyun (Jul 12, 2021)

1) Does the party have a high enough insight / sense motive check?
2) Is the creature's alignment an exception to the norm?
3) What are the player's codes/tenents, if they have any.
4) What is the creature?
5) What sort of situation is the party in?

Sounds like a lot of conditions, but its not. Also obviously its merely walking around in circles trying to fill out these questions on a hypothetical. As I could state one thing but many other combinations can also be true. The only safe way to answer this is when you are actually in the moment.


----------



## DammitVictor (Jul 13, 2021)

d24454_modern said:


> Pathfinder has literal books on how alignment works.




Oh, goody. I am certainly glad we've solved that problem, then.


----------



## kalonx (Aug 20, 2022)

Angrydad said:


> Killing a creature that has surrendered and is begging for mercy would always, in my DMing opinion, ruin a paladin's status, even if it is a demon/devil. It may not be an evil act in the case of a demon, but it is definitely not a Lawful Good thing to do and would cause the paladin to lose power for a while. I like my Good guys to actually be Good (with the capital G for emphasis), so showing mercy to surrendering foes to allow them to be dealt with justly or be given a chance to repent is the best way to go.



You have clearly confused “lawful good” with “lawful nice”. You are also supporting the “stupid paladin” stereotype. A demon? You think a paladin should spare a demon that begs for mercy? That’s the polar opposite of good…that would literally be unleashing evil into the world. A goblin might not be evil. A demon is the very essence of evil. You KNOW, not suspect, but have absolute knowledge and confidence that a demon freed will go on to do harm to the innocent.


----------



## Imaculata (Aug 20, 2022)

I'm sure we are all going to agree on this matter, after a calm, polite and intellectual discussion.


----------



## Galandris (Aug 20, 2022)

Since this thread was necro'ed, I wondered...

The evil of killing is particular in that you can't compensate it. If one burns your house, he can repair the damage (by paying to repair your house). If one kills you, then there is nothing to be done IRL to make you whole.

In a fantasy setting were resurrection is available (even if extremely expansive), would it carry the same weight?

Nobleman #1, entering the gentleman's club: "Hi guys, I killed John again yesterday at the MusketQuest range, he won't join us for the habitual pool game."
Nobleman #2: "well that sucks, I have a party scheduled on Friday!"
Nobleman #3: "I killed Robert in a duel yesterday and I had the church plan a raising ceremony tomorrow, maybe we could accomodate both raises to occur on the same day?"
Nobleman #1: "Sure, i missed the debutante ball last time I was killed and I was really infuriated by it. I am pretty sure John would like it if he's raised in time."

Meanwhile, at Nobleman #1's manor:
Mum of #1: "Honey, our son is asking for an increase to his allowance, he has a lot of 500 gp diamonds to buy... I hope he'll introduce his girlfriend to us soon!"
Dad of #1 (remembering his dissolute youth): "Erm... yes, let's send him some more money but don't get your expectations too high..."


If you think 5e lacks a money sink, introduce... casual killing as a social activity for the landed gentry.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 20, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Since this thread was necro'ed, I wondered...
> 
> The evil of killing is particular in that you can't compensate it. If one burns your house, he can repair the damage (by paying to repair your house). If one kills you, then there is nothing to be done IRL to make you whole.
> 
> ...



Isn’t resurrection typically a high-level spell meaning that only a handful of people can do it in any given setting?

It might as well be “unforgivable” if the victim can’t be resurrected anyways.


----------



## Thrawn007 (Sep 28, 2022)

There are more factors than alignment.  A dwarven paladin of Torag who has edicts from their god to kill all goblins, then they probably should kill the goblin.


----------



## doctorhook (Sep 29, 2022)

Thrawn007 said:


> There are more factors than alignment.  A dwarven paladin of Torag who has edicts from their god to kill all goblins, then they probably should kill the goblin.



Yeah I like how PF2e (not sure about PF1) lays out the edicts and anathemas for each religious character. It sidesteps a lot of the alignment questions and gives you very specific Dos and Do Nots.


----------



## Thrawn007 (Sep 29, 2022)

doctorhook said:


> Yeah I like how PF2e (not sure about PF1) lays out the edicts and anathemas for each religious character. It sidesteps a lot of the alignment questions and gives you very specific Dos and Do Nots.



PF1 had codes and edicts as well.  Torag in particular got softened greatly with the kill all goblins part of the dogma being removed to make room for warm fuzzy goblins accepted by society.  Fluff-wise goblins becoming a PC race was one of the top reasons PF2 was rejected and organized play died in my area.


----------



## doctorhook (Oct 1, 2022)

Thrawn007 said:


> PF1 had codes and edicts as well.  Torag in particular got softened greatly with the kill all goblins part of the dogma being removed to make room for warm fuzzy goblins accepted by society.  Fluff-wise goblins becoming a PC race was one of the top reasons PF2 was rejected and organized play died in my area.



I do lament the “everything must be cute and friendly” approach of some games over the past few years. That said, goblin characters have always been popular as hell as anti-hero characters, so I can appreciate why they’re core now. And cooking racial strife into the game (dwarf religion demanding “kill all goblins”) does come awfully close to some very uncomfortable topics in reality, so I can see why they wanted to downplay that.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 2, 2022)

Total transparency: I didn't read the thread.

Here's the thing: if you as GM are treating the NE shopkeeper differently than the NE goblin (or whatever) you are already failing at using alignment as a useful play tool. Just drop it. You aren't using alignment,  you are using race and culture to define "good" and are just asking for trouble.

BUT if you actually want to make the NE shopkeeper and NE goblins morally equivalent in D&D, you can do that but you need to divorce it from actions such as lying versus murdering farmers. Instead you need to make them actually ALIGNED to the NE forces in the cosmos. Maybe that's an ideal. Maybe it is a specific God. But it means that the cosmos defines what NE is, not the person. It is more like a zodiac sign, and how much you adhere to it impacts your post mortal existence.

Alignment as a "personality and morality descriptor" is just terrible. If you want to use is it the fiction and as a game mechanic, you need to give it concrete meaning.


----------



## John R Davis (Oct 2, 2022)

That's why they have Detect Evil.

If the goblin Detects as Evil, then it is 100% evil, and is only pretending to surrender so it can works it's foulness later on.

If it isn't Evil then it should have the chance to redeem itself, somehow.

Just make sure that only Evil things detect as Evil. 

This debate has run for 50 years and will likely run for another 50.

It's a game also remember.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 2, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> That's why they have Detect Evil.
> 
> If the goblin Detects as Evil, then it is 100% evil, and is only pretending to surrender so it can works it's foulness later on.
> 
> ...



Interesting.

So, I was going to be a smarty pants and point out that that's not what "detect evil" does in 5E but then I decided to scroll up just to double check and discover that, indeed, this is a Pathfinder thread. So I checked the Archives and discovered that in PF1 a typical (1 HD) goblin will not ping with Detect Evil -- it needs at least 5 HD/class levels. In PF2 it is 6th level or higher only. unless the goblin is a caster, anyway. Starfinder does not appear to have a "detect evil/alignment" spell.


----------



## Blue Orange (Oct 2, 2022)

I mean, _I'd _consider it evil, as part of an industrialized society where the average citizen rarely fights in wars and even killing in self-defense is unlikely. By the Geneva Convention (1949), you are supposed to respect a surrender.

But, from what I can tell, you weren't necessarily obliged to respect a surrender in the _Middle Ages _these games are theoretically very loosely based on. So it's up to your paladin and their god, if any. God of war, storm, death? Kill the coward. God of healing or life? Probably let them live. God of knowledge or magic? If good, probably let them live; if evil, do you need any parts for a potion? It really depends how much Values Dissonance (thanks TVTropes) you want in your game.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Oct 2, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> I mean, _I'd _consider it evil, as part of an industrialized society where the average citizen rarely fights in wars and even killing in self-defense is unlikely. By the Geneva Convention (1949), you are supposed to respect a surrender.
> 
> But, from what I can tell, you weren't necessarily obliged to respect a surrender in the _Middle Ages _these games are theoretically very loosely based on. So it's up to your paladin and their god, if any. God of war, storm, death? Kill the coward. God of healing or life? Probably let them live. God of knowledge or magic? If good, probably let them live; if evil, do you need any parts for a potion? It really depends how much Values Dissonance (thanks TVTropes) you want in your game.



In a world where Good and Evil are cosmic forces linked to eternal planes, I wouldn't think the definitions would change thtouout the years and be subject to cultural differences.


----------

