# The "orc baby" paladin problem



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 6, 2007)

It's finally come up in my Midwood campaign (OK, I finally made it come up ):

After dispatching a pair of murderous river trolls (scrags) in their underwater cave, the party discovered a series of water-filled barrels brought to the area by the trolls. Each contains a scrag tadpole. The paladin sees them registering as evil, but he also doesn't believe they will be a threat for quite some time.

The rest of the party wants to dispatch them. The paladin is aghast at killing helpless tadpoles. He's normally pretty practical, although he's also extremely idealistic (his fondness for Superman has served him well, IMO).

So, what would your paladins do in this situation? As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 6, 2007)

I like D&D to be heroic and I find placing the PCs in a situation they have to perhaps kill kids and babies is very not heroic.  

My paladin would kill them since they do register as evil.  As a DM I would have no issues with that take.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 6, 2007)

When you find a nest of rattlesnakes in your house, you kill them all, including the babies.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 6, 2007)

Killing them is a neutral action. On the one hand, they are motivated by a reasonable fear of the suffering those creatures will bring. On the other hand, it's not a good act, since they are not respecting the lives of innocent creatures. The act, in itself, won't cause a fall from a state of Good, but repeated instances could eventually result in an alignment slide.

However, killing an innocent, even an evil one, who poses no threat, is a violation of the paladin Code of Conduct under all but the direst circumstances. For a paladin to slay a creature that poses no threat, the creature must at the very least be guilty of something and likely to do something evil again, and slaying must be one of the best alternatives available under the circumstances.

Loss of paladin powers until atonement. The paladin should strenuously prevent the act by others, even defending the creatures with force, but is not beholden to join in mortal combat on their behalf. In other words, he should wrestle the wizard, but he can back down with a clean conscience if the wizard warms up a fireball.

That's my take.


----------



## painandgreed (Feb 6, 2007)

IMC, a paladin's job is to lawfully hunt down and cleanse evil. That's their job. Killing the tadpoles would be the norm (although as good, the paladin would take no pleasure in such work). If he thought they could be redeemed by either setting them free, taking them to other authorities, or raising them himself, it's his choice to make. He would be taking responsiblity for their further actions to some extent by such actions however.


----------



## DMH (Feb 6, 2007)

That depends on you. Are troll, orcs and such inately (sp?) evil or is it just a cultural thing. If the former, the paladin should just walk away and let the butchers* deal with them. If the later, he should take them to somewhere they can be brought up "correctly". Heck, temples could be filled with all kinds of odd races as they wage the war against evil with words.

*My term for typical adventurers. Murdering and looting is not heroic. And I am not going to argue with anyone over it either.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 6, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I like D&D to be heroic and I find placing the PCs in a situation they have to perhaps kill kids and babies is very not heroic.



The campaign's run a year now and this is the only serious paladin code issue that's come up. I don't want to make a player's life hell for playing a paladin -- I love that this group is doing the grand heroic stuff, which later chapters of the Midwood Story Hour will show -- but I also want to occasionally make it clear that it's a tough path for him to follow. Emmerson prays for guidance both before and after adventures quite regularly.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 6, 2007)

As far as I'm concerned, if the creature in question isn't sentient, it can't (by definition) be evil.  So, personally I wouldn't have had them register as evil, though killing them for no reason would be.  I find the "paladins can be evil (kill babies and innocents as in the above example) as long as they're hypocrites" methodology of playing paladins to be absurd in the extreme.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Feb 6, 2007)

Depends, depends, depends.  This is one of those questions that should be worked out in advance by the DM and the players, specifically as follows:

1) Are "evil" humanoids like orcs and goblins (a) genetically *EEEEVIL* (like demons, or like JRRT's orcs), (b) generally predisposed to evil behavior, or (c) the product of evil cultures? IF the latter, or even the second, orc babies probably wouldn't register as evil to the smackdown radar.

2) Does Lawful Good and/or the paladin's CoC require him to preserve the life of all beings, even those who *might* be dangerous, if they pose no immediate danger to anyone?

3) If 1(b) or (c) above is true, then is refusing to save the babies a non-Good act? 

I think one can answer all of those questions in advance. IMC, for instance (although I don't use the D&D alignment system, orcs, goblins, etc. are *not* necessarily evil by nature. Infants of those races certainly aren't. Orc babies could be brought back to civilization and raised in an orphanage or the like. But such is not true of all campaigns.


----------



## Dragolen (Feb 6, 2007)

Nothing is born innately evil.  It grows up and learns to be evil.  So those tads should not have registered being evil.

Dragolen


----------



## takyris (Feb 6, 2007)

As far as I'm concerned, there's no debate.

They radiate evil. If the paladin wasn't supposed to kill them, his Smite wouldn't fire correctly.

If they don't radiate evil, that's an entirely different situation.

Anything that radiates evil deserves to die. It's either personally loathsome and guaranteed to bring harm to the innocent, or worse, it's actively in the service of an evil power. Both of those deserve smiting.

And again, lest I be held up as a big ol' intolerant jerk... they radiated evil. If they didn't radiate evil, you have a dilemna. What you have now is a paladin who needs to start smiting.

(And yes, in my campaign, I wouldn't have them radiate evil.)


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 6, 2007)

Yeah, I'm with the majority on this one.  If they radiate evil as babies, then it points to genetic evil.  In this case, the paladin's job is to exterminate them.

I would have no problem with trying to redeem the trolls or killing them, as long as your ruling is consistant.

My question is, will this decision have any bearing on the Paladin's class abilities?  If so, then the player should know what choice will negatively affect said class abilities.  Whether or not he follows through with said choice is up to the players.

I don't think that playing any class should come down to a guess what the DM's morales are.  If you don't penalize the choice, then it could be a good roleplaying opportunity.  If you do, then the player should be aware of which choice would cause which effect.

Without knowing your DMing style, your players' experiences and the campaign, I would have to side with the PHB and allow the paladin to kill the babies.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 6, 2007)

I disagree with the premise you can kill something simply because it's evil. Being good means respecting the lives of even evil things.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 6, 2007)

If the trolls are inherently evil, then dispatching them is the paladin's duty -- as distasteful as it may be.  Going this route makes things simple.

If the trolls are only predisposed to evil, but are not inherently/intrinsicly evil, then you have a stickier situation.  You have two questions to answer:

1.  Is there a reasonable possibility that the trolls can be raised to be good, posing no danger to society?

and

2.  Is there a reasonable and just alternative to killing them?

Addressing #1:  I find the possibility to be unlikely, at best.  Who would take on this responsibility?  Who would be legally responsible?  Who would provide the money?  How would these creatures fit into society?  Et cetera, et cetera.  In most campaigns, this is an unreasonable and unrealistic expectation.  Given that, killing the trolls before they grow into the dangerous and evil monsters they're sure to become may be the best choice, unless some other alternative presents itself (e.g. #2).

Addressing #2:  The most obvious alternatives are imprisonment, forced alignment change (possibly with polymorph, too), magical stasis, or magical banishment to another plane/dimension.  

In most campaigns, imprisonment is impractical and unrealistic.  Even human criminals face capital sentences in most campaign worlds.  Prisons for long-term incarceration of many (possible magical) creatures usually do not exist.  If they were to be created, who maintains them and pays for them?  Is this an unjust burden on society?  Et cetera.

Forced alignment change/polymorph is an interesting thought.  Practical considerations are the biggest barrier (who does it, who pays for it, how are these new members of society integrated, how are the monsters held prior to their change, et cetera).  Also, it raises the possibility of dispel magic/undoing the change.  Might be safer to kill them, eh?  Magical stasis is similar: where are they stored, who pays for it, wouldn't a BBEG love to get his hands on a bunch of evil monsters in stasis (ready made army).

Magical banishment suffers from some of the same problems, but also the question of "is making our garbage someone else's problem a good solution" or even "wouldn't it be better to kill them and lessen the total amount of evil in the multiverse" types of questions.


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 6, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I disagree with the premise you can kill something simply because it's evil. Being good means respecting the lives of even evil things.




I believe that this comes down to precedence and redeemability.  If I run a campaign that specifies that trolls are genetically evil from birth and that no matter what you do, the trolls will grow up to be evil and spiteful, I would not treat them as "lives", but instead as a disease to be wiped out.  A paladin isn't supposed to babysit evil creatures, keep them caged up so they can't hurt others or allow them to have the opportunity to kill others.

If, on the other hand, I run a campaign that allows evil creatures to become good then a paladin may be penalized for killing them.  They may or may not be duty-bound to attempt to redeem them.  Perhaps they are ordered to bring them to a special sanctuary for their training.


----------



## humble minion (Feb 6, 2007)

I'd argue this is a problem for the DM to sort out, rather than the PC.

Your PC cannot have been the first paladin to face this problem.  What's more, your paladin is lawful (by definition), and most likely is part of a larger established church.  Sir Shinysword is not an island in this matter.  He doesn't have to rely on his 5 ranks of knowledge (religion) - he has access to all the teachings and wisdom of great figures in his religion throughout the ages.  He has access to the counsel of his personal confessor.  If all else fails, he can commission a _divination_ or _commune_ spell or have a celestial summoned and ask it for advice - a cleric would almost be duty-bound to aid him in this.

In this case, it's a matter for the DM to decide whether in the eyes of the paladin's god, killing juvenile scrags is necessary, or if it is evil.  Once the DM has decided that, the paladin knows what he has to do to remain a paladin, and the only question remains is if he can square it with his conscience.  If he can't, of course, there's all sorts of interesting roleplaying opportunities.  

And as a metagaming bonus, if Sir Shinysword takes the tadpoles back home while he seeks advice on what to do with them, then they become the problem and responsibility of the collective church, and not just him, if mercy is the approved solution.  This saves your PC from having to personally set up Sir Shinysword's Home For Orphaned Evil Monsters, and lets him continue adventuring.  Though of course, if mercy is the right thing to do in this situation, the church should _already_ have such an institution set up and running, unless Sir Shinysword is the first paladin ever to have this problem.  Them baby monsters have to go somewhere, after all!


----------



## Nifft (Feb 6, 2007)

Skeletons and Zombies: mindless, yet evil. Paladins shall Smite them and do so with gusto.

For living critters, it's campaign specific. Is Evil something that grows from your blood, or is it cultural, or is it some form of diabolical taint that is not mortal in origin?

The DM needs to make a choice and stick with it... not the same choice for all critters, but he must be consistent. If Orcs are inherently evil, they're evil as kids. On the other hand, a human city ("Sodom") may be full of evil people due to cultural reasons.

In the above campaign, it would be okay to kill orc babies, but not okay to kill children in Sodom, even though both are going to turn out evil if you leave them alone.


I've got (what I hope is) an internally consistent vision of good & evil for my campaign, and my players are exploring it. I don't expect that what they find will be exactly like any other campaign. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## ruleslawyer (Feb 6, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I disagree with the premise you can kill something simply because it's evil. Being good means respecting the lives of even evil things.



I disagree also; however, if we're going with the idea of genetic evil (something, incidentally, that makes me *very* uncomfortable in the case of "natural" beings that aren't alignment exemplars, undead, or constructs; JRRT sidesteps the problem by making orcs into constructs of a sort), then I think one has to assume that it's simply impossible to leave the orc babies alive. If there's no way to make them into productive citizens, *or even merely nonaggressive beings who'll leave humanity alone*, then what can the paladin do other than a) kill them or b) leave them to die of exposure? 

I tend to prefer a less black-and-white universe in which undead and constructs, not really being alive in the first place, are fair game (and in which those creatures can be innately evil merely as the result of being the product of evil magic or curses), but in which humanoids and giants are less precisely definable. Orcs IMC, for example, are generally sadistic, merciless, murderous, and devoid of even a basic animal instinct of community, but they're not *born* evil. A litter of orc young found in the wild could make good citizens if raised properly.


----------



## Arkhandus (Feb 6, 2007)

While I might have no problem with it otherwise, I note that the Paladin's Code requires they do not behave dishonorably.  It would be dishonorable to slay a helpless creature that has not put up a fight, even moreso an infant (even if it were a half-fiend) as such could not have actually committed evil yet (though likely evil anyway by its very nature).  Therefore, I would rule that the paladin cannot slay the scrag tadpoles, despite their evil nature, as he would be breaking the honor requirement of his Code.


----------



## Vanuslux (Feb 6, 2007)

One has to think about *why* the tadpoles are radiating evil.  With that and everything the paladin is likely to know about scrags he has no reason to think that any good will come from leaving them alone and every reason to expect evil to come of it.  Therefore the paladin has two choices:

1. Get over his squeamishness and smite the vile things.
2. Arrange to have them put in the care of someone Good in an attempt to see if they can be redeemed through being nurtured in a good environment.  

The first is the practical solution.  The second is an exceptionally idealistic gamble but I'd accept it as a DM.

If it was my game and the paladin left the evil creatures be I'd likely have the paladin's dreams the next night be filled with visions of the harm those tadpoles will grow up to cause and make him suffer a -1 on his rolls for the next day...persisting until the paladin went back and finished the job.

That's just my take.  In my games paladins are expected to pray for guidance when in doubt about a moral quandry and can expect to recieve it to a degree so in my games there would be little question about what their god expected of them.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 6, 2007)

Dragolen said:
			
		

> Nothing is born innately evil.  It grows up and learns to be evil.  So those tads should not have registered being evil.
> 
> Dragolen




Where did you find this rule?


----------



## takyris (Feb 6, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I disagree with the premise you can kill something simply because it's evil. Being good means respecting the lives of even evil things.




I disagree with your disagreement. It's evil, and it's gonna try to kill you when it grows up. If it's evil as a baby, it's evil in the blood. Evil by nurture you can cure. Evil by nature has no cure available.

Paladins have d10 hit dice and the nice attack bonus for a reason. And that reason is "killing evil stuff".

If you want moral ambiguity, make things distasteful and unpleasant but not evil. A baby dire wolf, for example, or a troll in a world where trolls aren't evil from the moment they pop out of the womb. Both are likely going to grow up into threats, and both force the paladin to make a difficult choice. But an innately evil creature, defined as evil by its very existence? Not morally ambiguous. If my god's power lets me smite it successfully, my god wants me to smite it.


----------



## Asmo (Feb 6, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Where did you find this rule?




In the Trollonomicon.

Asmo


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 6, 2007)

humble minion said:
			
		

> Your PC cannot have been the first paladin to face this problem.  What's more, your paladin is lawful (by definition), and most likely is part of a larger established church.  Sir Shinysword is not an island in this matter.  He doesn't have to rely on his 5 ranks of knowledge (religion) - he has access to all the teachings and wisdom of great figures in his religion throughout the ages.



An excellent point.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 6, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I disagree with the premise you can kill something simply because it's evil. Being good means respecting the lives of even evil things.



Arr same here.  I know a lot of people just play with black and white alignments and the RAW, but I find them lacking in the extreme.  It isn't honourable in the slightest to go killing people you don't know (or know the exploits of, evil or good), simply because some magic claims they're evil.  And even so, the paladin would technically need to give the target a fair fight, which by definition babies are not capable of.

Even if you do think "evil" alignment gives the paladin the RIGHT to go killing anyone they want, they could easily be murdering someone that was "evil" through most of their lives and is slowly shifting away from that path, or any number of similar scenarios.  I find this type of justification for committing what are essentially evil acts really hollow and dissatisfying (basically, paladin = good and therefore there are no consequences to murdering anyone paladin wants, as long as he can claim they're "evil" before hand).  I mean, it's essentially saying that evil characters are held to a higher standard than paladins (i.e., don't do evil things or you become evil and will be targeted by paladins, but then the paladins themselves are not subject to this).  Bleh.  Could just be that I dislike paladins and the way they are commonly played.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Feb 6, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> I disagree with your disagreement. It's evil, and it's gonna try to kill you when it grows up. If it's evil as a baby, it's evil in the blood. Evil by nurture you can cure. Evil by nature has no cure available.
> 
> Paladins have d10 hit dice and the nice attack bonus for a reason. And that reason is "killing evil stuff".
> 
> If you want moral ambiguity, make things distasteful and unpleasant but not evil. A baby dire wolf, for example, or a troll in a world where trolls aren't evil from the moment they pop out of the womb. Both are likely going to grow up into threats, and both force the paladin to make a difficult choice. But an innately evil creature, defined as evil by its very existence? Not morally ambiguous. If my god's power lets me smite it successfully, my god wants me to smite it.




A-F***in'-men.

I would say that ultimately, Mr. Dustyboots, it's up to you to determine what is the nature of what makes these monsters so evil in your campaign. I dunno, these tadpoles are going to need food from _somewhere_ and if scrags function in your campaign as some sort of caregivers, and are thus dependent on their now-slain parents...wouldn't it be more evil to let them go and die horrible deaths via starvation and cannibalism? Might as well kill them. Adopting a tadpole that grows into a 8'+ tall, 1,400 lb. killing machine is absurd.


----------



## Numion (Feb 6, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So, what would your paladins do in this situation? As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?




Kill. As a DM I'd say his god would be all the happier for it.


----------



## Drowbane (Feb 6, 2007)

*Smite makes Right*



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> When you find a nest of rattlesnakes in your house, you kill them all, including the babies.




I agree with the next to rattlesnakes analogy.

Unless the Paladin has a reason to doubt his Detection (such as some sort of history with it being inaccurate due to outside influences), you as the DM mandated the slaughter of those tadpoles once they registered as evil.  Trolls aren't people.  They're vicious ravenous monsters... thier young are just as blinded by hunger and bloodlust.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Feb 6, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Trolls aren't people.  They're vicious ravenous monsters... thier young are just as blinded by hunger and bloodlust.




They probably chewed their way through a bunch of helpless broodmates upon hatching. If they're womb-born, hell, they might have killed their wombmate and chewed their way out.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 6, 2007)

Raloc said:
			
		

> (basically, paladin = good and therefore there are no consequences to murdering anyone paladin wants, as long as he can claim they're "evil" before hand).



No, the distinction is inherently evil, not just evil at the time.  Humans, for example, are clearly NOT inherently evil.  They can exercise free will and choose their path; they can also choose to change.  That's why a paladin can't just go around smiting commoners he detects as evil.

The question is whether monsters like trolls are inherently evil (such that they can't choose to be good) or not.  If they are inherently evil, then it's a good act to kill them, because there's no hope for their redemption.

A question for the DM, really.  IMO, I'd make some monsters inherently evil (it's a heroic fantasy game, eh?)  Others I'd leave open to question.  Perhaps there's some debate with the good churches of the world on which creatures fall into what category.


----------



## Vanuslux (Feb 6, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> While I might have no problem with it otherwise, I note that the Paladin's Code requires they do not behave dishonorably.  It would be dishonorable to slay a helpless creature that has not put up a fight, even moreso an infant (even if it were a half-fiend) as such could not have actually committed evil yet (though likely evil anyway by its very nature).  Therefore, I would rule that the paladin cannot slay the scrag tadpoles, despite their evil nature, as he would be breaking the honor requirement of his Code.




Personally, my view is that a paladin has every reason to view anything that shows up red under Detect Evil as a threat, and therefore their duty to neutralize.  Paladin's can't go around smiting evil humans in the city just because they radiate evil because that would go against Lawful, not against Good.  Evil monsters in the forest get no such protection from law, so killing any creature that radiates evil is not just acceptable...for a paladin in my world, it's their friggin' duty. 

Of course, in my world sentient creatures are not normally born evil.  They have to commit evil before they radiate it.  Hence in my world, the scrag tadpoles wouldn't have radiated evil unless there was a good enough explanation to justify their smiting, mature or not.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 6, 2007)

nature/nurture. DM's call there.


----------



## Slife (Feb 6, 2007)

Kill them before they start an Edition War!


----------



## takyris (Feb 6, 2007)

Raloc said:
			
		

> Arr same here.  I know a lot of people just play with black and white alignments and the RAW, but I find them lacking in the extreme.




In a House Rules discussion, that's fine. In this discussion, the DM took creatures listed as "Usually Evil" in the SRD and actually made them MORE evil by having them radiate evil even as babies.



> It isn't honourable in the slightest to go killing people you don't know (or know the exploits of, evil or good), simply because some magic claims they're evil.  And even so, the paladin would technically need to give the target a fair fight, which by definition babies are not capable of.




1) Yes, it is. That's what the paladin's god wants the paladin to do. I mean, yeah, if you pass an evil guy on the street, you don't automatically go all smite-y, but you might want to follow that person (although you better have some Shadowbane Stalker levels to be any good at it) and figure out what they're up to.

2) We do, in fact, know them. We know that they eat people (the parents kidnapped some kids, and that there are a bunch of dead people in the area, half-eaten). We know that the parents were evil, and we know that the kids, even this young, already clearly radiate evil. We know about all we need to know to make an informed judgment in the matter.

3) "Some magic" in this case is the divine word of the paladin's god. That source of "some magic" is also the source of "all the paladin's powers", so it's a pretty good measure of whether the paladin would be in the wrong to kill those people who radiate evil.

4) Paladins only need to give creatures a "fair fight" in declared duels. Paladins are allowed to win initiative. They are allowed to attack by surprise if they catch evil monsters unawares. They are allowed to flank, disarm, power attack, and cleave. Lawful and Honorable means that the paladin does not deviate from the rules of honorable combat when an honorable combat has been declared. It does not mean that the paladin disavows tactics, and it does not mean that the paladin puts away his holy avenger just because he's fighting a lemure and not a balor.



> Even if you do think "evil" alignment gives the paladin the RIGHT to go killing anyone they want, they could easily be murdering someone that was "evil" through most of their lives and is slowly shifting away from that path, or any number of similar scenarios.




In which case they'd show up as Neutral.

It could also be the case that an evil warlock placed a false aura on the baby trolls, making them APPEAR to radiate evil when in fact they don't, and hey, they could also be pretty human babies polymorphed or glamored into looking like trolls. This could be an enormous setup to get the paladin to kill babies.

Or the paladin could go with what's actually the case 99% of the time... that radiating evil makes you, well, evil. And not "cheat on income taxes" evil. "Kill innocent people in service of my dark master or in service of my own depraved desires" evil. That's the only thing that actually merits "Evil" in D&D's rules as written.



> Could just be that I dislike paladins and the way they are commonly played.




Sounds like you want a game without alignments. I like d20 Modern and Grim Tales specifically because it has Allegiances instead of Alignments. The evil warlock has an actual allegiance to Evil, but his guards just have an allegiance to the warlock -- so if I have Smite Evil, it works on the warlock, but not the guards.

I really enjoy playing that type of game, but I also know that D&D, out of the book, ain't that game.


----------



## Rothe (Feb 6, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> .... Each contains a scrag tadpole. The paladin sees them registering as evil, but he also doesn't believe they will be a threat for quite some time.
> 
> ....So, what would your paladins do in this situation? As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?




It depends on what "registering evil" means in your campaign.  Does it mean they have a predisposition to evil, have committed evil acts, are there degrees of evil such that at some point one is beyond redemption?  As another said, the Paladin's religion should have figured this out long ago, and I'm sure it was in his ethics 101 reading. 

IMC I don't use hard wired alignments (or really D&D alignments in general) so anything that registers as evil has knowingly committed evil acts and probably enjoyed it.  The only creatures that are inherently evil are of a non-natural extra-planar nature and they don't have children or offspring as we know them, so the dilema doesn't arise.

The dilema that could arise, is in the killing of the parents of the children or those that are on the edge.  
Do you spare the orc women who defintively register as evil because they care for the innocent children? 
What of the adolescent orc who has been raised to believe in torture and rapine, is he beyond redemption?  
Do you have a duty to aid the orc women & children once you've slain all the defenders and hunters of the tribe?  
What do you do when the local villagers, otherwise good folks, want to kill all the orcs in revenge? Do you use lethal force or any force to protect the orc children?  
What if not slaying the orc women could seriously compromise your mission that serves a "greater" good?


----------



## Rothe (Feb 7, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> I agree with the next to rattlesnakes analogy.
> 
> Unless the Paladin has a reason to doubt his Detection (such as some sort of history with it being inaccurate due to outside influences), you as the DM mandated the slaughter of those tadpoles once they registered as evil.  Trolls aren't people.  They're vicious ravenous monsters... thier young are just as blinded by hunger and bloodlust.




A very convenient analogy...and the one used throughout history to justify genocide.  X aren't people they are [insert your favorite reason why they are inferior creatures needing destruction].  Or if we don't kill the children of X they will just grow up to kill us.

Unless a sapient creature has no free will, and hence will invariably without fail grow up to follow the alignment listed in the monster manual, such analogies to animals are false ones. Although, that certainly has never stopped people in the real world from making them, believing them and acting on them.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> No, the distinction is inherently evil, not just evil at the time.  Humans, for example, are clearly NOT inherently evil.  They can exercise free will and choose their path; they can also choose to change.  That's why a paladin can't just go around smiting commoners he detects as evil.




One of my favourite paladin concepts revolves around the mythology of the Great Final Battle between the forces of Good and Evil at the End of Time.  All evil creatures who die in this lifetime will join the Army of Evil in the Final Battle, while all good creatures will make up the forces of Good.

So the paladin's job is not to Smite Evil.  That would be foolish - it will just swell the numbers the other side has at the End of Time.  No, the paladin's job is to _Redeem_ Evil.  And once they've been converted to goodness?  _Then_ Smite them.  

-Hyp.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Feb 7, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> A very convenient analogy...and the one used throughout history to justify genocide.  X aren't people they are [insert your favorite reason why they are inferior creatures needing destruction].  Or if we don't kill the children of X they will just grow up to kill us.
> 
> Unless a sapient creature has no free will, and hence will invariably without fail grow up to follow the alignment listed in the monster manual, such analogies to animals are false ones. Although, that certainly has never stopped people in the real world from making them, believing them and acting on them.




Hitler Card! Except that we're not talking about people. We're talking about monsters. Monsters in a fantasy world that can, at the DM's discretion, be hard-wired to be evil. Murderously evil, without fail. This is also assuming that every monster is "born" rather than spawned in some arcane fashion, or falsely "created" by an evil god.


----------



## takyris (Feb 7, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> A very convenient analogy...and the one used throughout history to justify genocide.  X aren't people they are [insert your favorite reason why they are inferior creatures needing destruction].  Or if we don't kill the children of X they will just grow up to kill us.




Yep.

So don't make baby trolls detect as evil in your world. If trolls in your world are a metaphor for people of a different race or ethnicity, then yeah, having them ping evil is, uh, bad.

But if trolls are meant to be sinister inhuman forces of non-metaphorical destruction, then flip the "Evil" switch and assume that people are gonna smite away.

In my campaign, I make demihumans the metaphors for people of a different race or ethnicity. I make trolls and ogres metaphors for big monolithic monsters that need to be destroyed without hesitation. Well, trolls, anyway. Ogres are too stupid to be quite that threatening.


----------



## Trickstergod (Feb 7, 2007)

I'd argue that the tadpoles shouldn't be evil, anyway. The same with any creature that's still effectively a baby - they'd have a neutral alignment, same as an animal, because they're incapable of making moral decisions and lack the sentience to tell the difference between right and wrong. 

Evil is, as far as I'm concerned, a choice. As is good. Upbringing helps, of course, and there are certain natural predilictions, but it's still something that only forms upon gaining a certain degree of sentience and free will. 

The only exception to this, in my opinion, is with outsiders, who are fundamentally made up of their alignment given flesh and form. Occasionally redeemable or corruptible, but more or less without choice in their alignment, anymore than we have the decision about being made of meat. 

But, that's how I'd run things, with no scrag-poles showing up as evil. 

As they did, however? My inclination is to kill them, in the same way I think a paladin can freely butcher evil outsiders wantonly. As apparently evil isn't a choice in the game, it's innate nature.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> In which case they'd show up as Neutral.




Well, that's a whole 'nother debate.

Is alignment a record of past deeds, or an indication of inclination and disposition?

Let's take a vicious Warrior Princess, who has led her armies rampaging across a continent spreading slaughter and misery, and delighting in every minute of it.  Either way - record or inclination - she's Evil.

And then she has a revelation - meets someone who provides a good example, perhaps - and realises she has wasted her talents fighting for the wrong side.  She resolves to atone for her past and become a champion of goodness... to make up for all the pain she caused by fighting evil and righting wrongs.

What is her alignment at this moment?  You'll see people give three different answers.

1. Evil.  She's been a bad girl, and she hasn't actually accomplished anything to balance that, despite her new resolution.

2. Neutral.  She's sworn off evil, so she isn't one of the bad guys any more, but she's yet to prove that she can cut it on Team Good.

3. Good.  If you gave her the choice right now between a bag of gold or saving the life of a peasant, she'd save the peasant... and that's the Good choice, not the Evil choice.  Her past deeds were the acts of an Evil person, but she wouldn't commit those same acts any more.

Now, I personally favour the Inclination reading, so I'd say that having made her resolution sincerely, she is now good-aligned.  (The Helm of Opposite Alignment, for example, describes the character as having a 'new outlook'.  If alignment were simply a record of past deeds, it would have no effect on one's outlook...)

But what this means is that a troll baby, despite never having done anything evil in its life, could still be an evil creature... as long as its inclination would be to make an evil choice over a good one when such a situation might arise in the future.

Others disagree, though, and consider alignment a record... so the troll baby who hasn't done anything wrong _yet_ is neutral, even if it's currently plotting how to escape its playpen and devour all the peasants in the nearby village.

-Hyp.


----------



## painandgreed (Feb 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I disagree with the premise you can kill something simply because it's evil. Being good means respecting the lives of even evil things.




Correct, that's why paladins must also be lawful, to guide them in their decisions on when to kill evil or not. Guy walking down the street in a major city, probably not. Monsters in the wilderness that will not ever follow societies rules, probably.


----------



## takyris (Feb 7, 2007)

True. I consider it a big messy mix, frankly. I'd put our Warrior Princess at Neutral, given that your line instantly hit my "Yes" button. You can instantly stop being Evil and climb to Neutral, but you have to EARN your way to Good. (Ideally with the help of a cute little strawberry-blond bard who's so good that it hurts.)

That's likely my Catholic background coming back to haunt me, though.  I've got little interest in gods who aren't interested in forgiveness, and declaring that you're still smite-worthy even after a professed moment of clarity and atonement doesn't seem forgiving.


----------



## Vanuslux (Feb 7, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> A very convenient analogy...and the one used throughout history to justify genocide.  X aren't people they are [insert your favorite reason why they are inferior creatures needing destruction].  Or if we don't kill the children of X they will just grow up to kill us.
> 
> Unless a sapient creature has no free will, and hence will invariably without fail grow up to follow the alignment listed in the monster manual, such analogies to animals are false ones. Although, that certainly has never stopped people in the real world from making them, believing them and acting on them.




That's not a very valid argument in this situation.  This isn't a situation of simply ignoring the good of a people and focusing (and often wholly manufacturing) the evil of them to justify their destruction.  These creatures aren't just culturally different...if they radiate Evil under Detect Evil from birth then they are monsters, not people.  By RAW, Scrags aren't born evil but apparently in this DMs campaign they are so it's not just a weak excuse for genocide.  

A creature being born radiating evil indicates to me that the potential for for good in the creature is so limited by its nature that it is extremely improbable under the best of circumstances that it would ever become good and it's unlikely that you'll ever find one that won't rend the flesh off the bone of any small child it finds and won't enjoy their screams of pain.  I'm fairly sure that any society that's every promoted genocide could have easily found good and decent members of those people they wished destroyed.  These scrags aren't just different from humans, they are factually ravening flesh-eating monsters by nature based on the fact that they radiate evil from birth.


----------



## Whimsical (Feb 7, 2007)

Before I game with a DM that I don't know, one of the questions I ask is: Are orcs and other evil humanoids people or monsters?

If they are monsters, then it's like destroying undead and evil outsiders. Always a good act.

If they are people, then killing orc babies are murder.

When in doubt, cast _augury_. Your god will tell you.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> You can instantly stop being Evil and climb to Neutral, but you have to EARN your way to Good.




Now, how about the other direction?

Hugo the Magnificent, Archmage Extraordinaire, has devoted his entire life to the service of others.  With his natural affinity for magic, he could have ruled the world... but instead, he turned his talents to ensuring peace and prosperity for the common folk of the kingdom.  He is wracked with assorted pains and ailments - the results of sacrificing his own life energies on numerous occasions when protecting the kingdom from Dark Forces - but he'd do it again in an instant, because With Great Power Comes etc etc.

Then one day he's having a quiet drink in a tavern, and he overhears a conversation at the next table - a man has lost his entire savings in a card game, playing beyond his means in an effort to impress his mistress.  "What'll you tell your wife?" someone else asks.  "I won't," the man says.  "I'll go see old Hugo - spin him some line about needing money to cure some orphans of a horrible disease, or something.  He's supposed to be a pushover, from what I hear."

Hugo reviews his life, and realises that people take him for granted.  He's sacrificed everything for them, and they look on him as a piggy-bank.  Well, no more!  He took a scroll off that mad warlock last year - it's safely sealed in the vault in his tower, but he can use it to suck the life energy out of the entire population of the city to rejuvenate himself.  And then he can go about grabbing the power that should always have been his, and the hell with anyone who stands in his way!

On his way to the tower, he passes a paladin who happens to be Detecting Evil at the time.  Does he ping?

-Hyp.


----------



## takyris (Feb 7, 2007)

Got me. 

Personally, I'd drop him to Neutral when he made the decision to do it, and Evil when he carried it out. The easiest self-justification is that if ol' Hugo wanted to take a level in Blackguard, for which he qualified in every respect except alignment (having summoned an evil outsider while defending the world from mind flayer ninjas or something), I wouldn't let him take the class until he'd actually done the deed.

In my book, for what it's worth, sincere intent can move you to Neutral, but only action can move you to Good or Evil.

And everyone critiquing that should note the number of "but that's just me" caveats in there.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So, what would your paladins do in this situation? As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?



There are really only two questions that matter:

What do YOU, the DM, think the correct resolution is for a paladin - or IS there a correct resolution at all?
Do the players KNOW what your position is on this?


The rest is roleplaying and doesn't particularly matter.  No paladin is going to be ignorant of what is good and right in _virtually_ any situation.  If such a situation comes up and the PLAYER does not know immediately the correct resolution for a paladin in THIS campaign then he should only need to ask the DM OOC to learn it.  Should the player choose to have his character then do the WRONG thing, or do not just what is acceptible but what is exceptionally good in the situation then the DM will apply the appropriate consequences and reactions.  But I do NOT accept that a paladin, who eats, drinks, and sleeps lawfulness and good would be at a loss for what is right and proper in such situations.

Moral dilemmas should exist for paladins when the PLAYER is considering doing what's not right - they should NOT occur as a result of the CHARACTER not KNOWING what's right.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> The rest is roleplaying and doesn't particularly matter.  No paladin is going to be ignorant of what is good and right in _virtually_ any situation.  If such a situation comes up and the PLAYER does not know immediately the correct resolution for a paladin in THIS campaign then he should only need to ask the DM OOC to learn it.  Should the player choose to have his character then do the WRONG thing, or do not just what is acceptible but what is exceptionally good in the situation then the DM will apply the appropriate consequences and reactions.  But I do NOT accept that a paladin, who eats, drinks, and sleeps lawfulness and good would be at a loss for what is right and proper in such situations.




So what's the purpose of the Phylactery of Faithfulness?

-Hyp.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

Raloc said:
			
		

> Arr same here.  I know a lot of people just play with black and white alignments and the RAW, but I find them lacking in the extreme.  It isn't honourable in the slightest to go killing people you don't know (or know the exploits of, evil or good), simply because some magic claims they're evil.  And even so, the paladin would technically need to give the target a fair fight, which by definition babies are not capable of.
> 
> Even if you do think "evil" alignment gives the paladin the RIGHT to go killing anyone they want, they could easily be murdering someone that was "evil" through most of their lives and is slowly shifting away from that path, or any number of similar scenarios.  I find this type of justification for committing what are essentially evil acts really hollow and dissatisfying (basically, paladin = good and therefore there are no consequences to murdering anyone paladin wants, as long as he can claim they're "evil" before hand).  I mean, it's essentially saying that evil characters are held to a higher standard than paladins (i.e., don't do evil things or you become evil and will be targeted by paladins, but then the paladins themselves are not subject to this).  Bleh.  Could just be that I dislike paladins and the way they are commonly played.





This whole viewpoint is funny to me. Somehow, it suggests a Paladin who comes across Troll tadpoles ought to bring them home and raise them as his own. Or else, he's breaking his code, and now is a Bad Man(tm). If I played in a game like this, I'd do exactly what you want, right down to opening the Orphanage for baby monsters, and playing Nurse Nanny to the whole lot of em. Pretty boring adventure for the rest of the group, what with all of us managing a nursery, but I guess the DM gets what he wanted?


----------



## gribble (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So, what would your paladins do in this situation? As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?




For starters, I'd take a close look at the description of the Detect Evil Spell.
Even when concentrating for 3 rounds, the aura of a *full grown* Scrag (6HD) would be very faint (Faint is defined as up to 10 HD). Your typical orc's evil aura (1HD) would be so faint as to almost be unnoticable. So I'd rule that even if a creature *could* have a genetically evil alignment without commiting any evil acts (such as these tadpoles must have), the aura of these scrag babies would be incredibly faint...
Clearly it isn't a black and white decision... something isn't either evil or not evil, or else the spell wouldn't define degrees of evil in this way. 

On top of this, the Scrags alignment is *usually* chaotic evil, so clearly it is possible to redeem a Scrag from it's baser genetic nature.

Hence, all the Paladin could know is that these tadpoles have incredibly weak evil auras, haven't actually comitted evil acts (they're only capable of swimming around a barrel full of water) and are from a race which can be redeemed.

Doesn't sound like an honorable/good act to kill such creatures to me... sure, it might be *expedient*, because the paladin doesn't have to worry about raising them and making sure they're on the right path, but since when has the paladin's code ever been about the easy/expedient path?


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 7, 2007)

Dragolen said:
			
		

> Nothing is born innately evil.  It grows up and learns to be evil.  So those tads should not have registered being evil.




Actually many creatures in D&D are inately evil or good from birth; if it has an 'Always [alignment]' then all creatures of that species are born that way and cannot, without extraordinary means such as a _Helm of Opposite Alignment_, change.

As always it's a GM's call as to whether or not he follows that idea, but if he deviates from what the rules usually say in this matter then he needs to tell the players this before they begin creating characters so that no arguments come up later.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 7, 2007)

gribble said:
			
		

> On top of this, the Scrags alignment is *usually* chaotic evil, so clearly it is possible to redeem a Scrag from it's baser genetic nature.



Yep. In fact, it's also technically possible to redeem even those listed as always [_____] evil. Or even for them to "redeem themselves", as it were.




> Doesn't sound like an honorable/good act to kill such creatures to me... sure, it might be *expedient*, because the paladin doesn't have to worry about raising them and making sure they're on the right path, but since when has the paladin's code ever been about the easy/expedient path?



When what could be seen as easy and/or expedient happens also to be the right thing to do, I imagine.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

gribble said:
			
		

> For starters, I'd take a close look at the description of the Detect Evil Spell.
> Even when concentrating for 3 rounds, the aura of a *full grown* Scrag (6HD) would be very faint (Faint is defined as up to 10 HD). Your typical orc's evil aura (1HD) would be so faint as to almost be unnoticable. So I'd rule that even if a creature *could* have a genetically evil alignment without commiting any evil acts (such as these tadpoles must have), the aura of these scrag babies would be incredibly faint...
> Clearly it isn't a black and white decision... something isn't either evil or not evil, or else the spell wouldn't define degrees of evil in this way.




Except those degrees of evil _are_ defined.

They aren't "Incredibly Faint", "Very Faint", "Pretty Faint", "Kinda Faint", "A Little Bit Faint", and "Faint".  There's one degree, "Faint", which covers the 1HD orc, the 6HD scrag, and the 
10HD Ogre Bbn-6.  If all three of them were in a room, and I used Detect Evil through the closed door, the information I would receive is "Three faint evil auras"; they would be otherwise indistinguishable.

On the other hand, if the ogre were a Bbn-7, I would detect two Faint auras and a Moderate aura.

-Hyp.


----------



## gribble (Feb 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Except those degrees of evil _are_ defined.




Ok, fair enough. Personally, I don't like the idea of a discrete continuum, and I'd use it as a continuum going from 0 - infinity, where a 1HD creature has a weaker aura than a 10HD creature. 

There is some precedence in the "lingering auras" and "good alignment/stunning" sections of the spell description to indicate that the table isn't complete (i.e.: that there can be other strengths of aura - dim and overpowering enough to stun a good character), and I imagine they had to introduce an element of discreteness to simplify things - a table that included incredibly faint, very faint, mostly faint, faint, etc... would take up way too much room.

Still, you are correct by the RAW. Regardless, the aura would still be "Faint".


----------



## DragonShadow (Feb 7, 2007)

Figured I'd toss in my two cents, giving my opinion based on the situation layed out by the OP.

While I don't agree that anything but outsiders should be born evil (though you're entitled to your opinion), the fact that the tads are tripping the Evilsense means that the Pally has the responsibility to act.

Killing them is a viable option, but only as a last resort, IMO. The reason for this being, Paladins aren't (or at least shouldn't be) mindless slayers of all things evil. Taking action doesn't necessarily mean smiting. Can the tads be brought up to deny their heritage? I'm assuming there have been other monstrous-types in the past that have fought against the norm of their race. 

Unfortunately, most options being out of the question, based on the dungeon/danger setting, killing them is really the easy way out; you ensure that they won't grow up to be truly evil. 

I wouldn't think that the Paladins deity would be upset with him/her for this, though I suppose that depends on the deity -- Heironeous has a different stance on such things than St. Cuthbert does. If, however, it rains on the conscience of the Paladin so much that he can't let it go, by all means do something in atonement. ---> It wouldn't be the first time somebody needlessly atoned.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Feb 7, 2007)

Detect evil is positive - _kill it_.

Ahhhh. The Paladin's Detect Evil & the Thought Police. The "orc baby" problem, indeed.

We all knew what we would read here in the five word topic header, didn't we?  It's all variation on a theme as old as the game.

The main quandaries of the Paladin and the "Orc baby" problem classicly present themselves as:


 is the creature inherently evil?
 are all monsters hard-wired to be "evil"?
 even if it is predisposed towards evil, can it be redeemed?
 is evil just a behavior or does it require a true selling of one's soul to outside influences or the unlife beyond the grave to "count", absent a demonstrable crime to match the alingment?
 are humanoids and others deemed to have free will and souls to be treated differently?
 does the detection of evil in the absence of a correspondingly evil act amount to the Thought Police? Does the relevance of that question change with the creature detected?
 does detect evil only work on those few creatures who have actively aligned themselves with an evil external power or greater cause?

These are the main points that constantly resurface in these discussions. There are, of course, others.

I think, on the whole, we as human beings tend to make a differentiation along the evolutionary track when considering any other species, be it real or imagined: those creatures that most resemble humans are given the benefit of the doubt with respect to redemption and a presumption of innocence, while as we move away from the human to the , humanoid and then to the monstrous and the abominations, our granting to the creature those presumptions of free- will, redemption and innocence deteriorates until the thing - of whatever age or cycle of development - just merits death for being what it is.

The same can be said for our sense of revulsion at the general appearance of any creature in the real world. The closer something is to us on the evolutionary tree, the less abhorent it is to us. 

Kittens are cute>> a mouse is a pest but *can* be cute (woohoo mammals!)>>snakes are kinda creepy>> spiders are really creepy>>> a slug is just plain **icky** - step on it NOW!

(In the real world, invertebrates have no rights!) 

FWIW, I can accept how a mind flayer tadpole is not given the benefit of any doubt and is simply killed not as a dangerous animal  - but as a dangerous _monster_.

How unique and free-willed monsters are treated in the game world is handled by every group (yes, group - I don't just mean the DM on this point) differently.

The rules don't help us much though when it comes to trolls. In D&D terms; the orc is humanoid, the troll is a giant. The orc is OFTEN Chaotic evil, while the troll _USUALLY_ is.

The devil is in the details. "Often" suggests a much larger parameter for self governance  and free will than "usually". Both fall short of "always".

What is very clear during play is that when a creature is listed as says "always" chaotic evil, it's usually for a good reason. The moral quandary of what to do with such a critter never manifests itself. 

YMMV.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I disagree with the premise you can kill something simply because it's evil. Being good means respecting the lives of even evil things.




Why? 

Why does good have to respect the right of an evil being right to live. Do you think evil beings turn around and give good beings the right to live?

Now I don't like when a paladin walks around with detect evil going off and then hacking down anyone who gets pinged as evil without the paladin first investigating why that person pinged.

But paladins have a duty to protect innocents and that duty comes before protecting some evil creature right to life.

I honestly don't get why so many people go out of their way to hog tie paladins the way they do. Paladins are *usually* holy warriors it is why they have a decent BAB, decent hitpoints can wear heavy armor and have martial skills.

They have the ability to detect evil and the ability to smite evil why give them these abilties if they are not supposed to use them.

Now if a character wants to play a paladin who isre about redeeming evil instead of smiting I can see the philosophy of evil creatures should have a chance at life so I need to redeem them so they don't harm any innocents.

But to say all paladins have to follow this code is just IMO wrong and unfair to the player playing the paladin. And if a DM enforces this kind of behavior from a paladin then it is not fair to put the paladin in these kind of moral dilemmas.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's finally come up in my Midwood campaign (OK, I finally made it come up ):
> 
> After dispatching a pair of murderous river trolls (scrags) in their underwater cave, the party discovered a series of water-filled barrels brought to the area by the trolls. Each contains a scrag tadpole. The paladin sees them registering as evil, but he also doesn't believe they will be a threat for quite some time.
> 
> ...




I really wonder if these threads are trolls, probably designed to attack people who don't like paladins (in a subtle way). If you're trying to lure me into saying "paladins suck because they often/have to kill baby scrags" then it won't work. You can dislike paladins and still be rational about it.

Now onto the situation: it shouldn't happen. Scrag tadpoles shouldn't be evil. They haven't even had a chance to grow up yet. Even if scrags nearly universally turn evil, regardless of upbringing, their tadpoles shouldn't be evil and shouldn't register as evil. They're not outsiders made of pure evil. As a result, the paladin shouldn't detect them as evil and shouldn't kill them. But if the DM decided that in their campaign, scrags young really were evil, then they should be treated like dretches, fiendish animals and other such barely sentient fiends - kill 'em.

(This would be a more reasonable thread if you were actually talking about orc babies. I'd have to ask the GM why they think orc babies should detect as evil.)

Then they could move onto some other much more reasonable situation where paladins can make the game less fun for other players *sigh*


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I really wonder if these threads are trolls, probably designed to attack people who don't like paladins (in a subtle way). If you're trying to lure me into saying "paladins suck because they often/have to kill baby scrags" then it won't work. You can dislike paladins and still be rational about it.



Yes, that's it. And I created a second account, made lots of posts with it and then posted as my "player" on another thread about the same issue to complete the illusion. Damn you for seeing through my fiendish ruse.



> Now onto the situation: it shouldn't happen. Scrag tadpoles shouldn't be evil. They haven't even had a chance to grow up yet.



Tadpoles != eggs

A lot of folks on this thread seem to be confusing the two. There's a whole range of being a tadpole, up until the moment that limbs are grown, but at no point are they equivalent to innocent eggs or immobile babies. The scragpoles are sentient free-willed beings who have had the opportunity to act.

They're evil because they _have and intend to again_.



> Then they could move onto some other much more reasonable situation where paladins can make the game less fun for other players *sigh*



Please get off the cross. We need the wood to burn the witches.


----------



## DragonShadow (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Tadpoles != eggs
> 
> A lot of folks on this thread seem to be confusing the two. There's a whole range of being a tadpole, up until the moment that limbs are grown, but at no point are they equivalent to innocent eggs or immobile babies. The scragpoles are sentient free-willed beings who have had the opportunity to act.
> 
> They're evil because they _have and intend to again_.




I'm not entirely sure how evil and menacing a tadpole can be whilst in a barrel, but you do have a point.

Evil even on the atomic level is still evil.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

They're just in the barrels at the moment. They were free range scragpoles back home, before they were trucked in to be part of the new invasion force.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 7, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Then they could move onto some other much more reasonable situation where paladins can make the game less fun for other players *sigh*





How does having a paladin in the party make the game less fun for the other players? I don't get that I have played in many a game with a paladin and they have never made the game less fun for me or anyone else at the table.

If anything CN lone wolves have ruined more game fun than any lawful good paladin.


----------



## Mistah J (Feb 7, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> if it has an 'Always [alignment]' then all creatures of that species are born that way and cannot, without extraordinary means such as a _Helm of Opposite Alignment_, change.





Actually, if the creature has an "always X" alignment then:

"The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. *It is possible for individuals to change alignment,* but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions" MM p. 305, emphasis mine.

RAW, Trolls are _usually_ evil so they aren't born that way. The DM here however has changed that so it has lost some of its effectiveness as a guide.

To the actual question, I think what kind of Paladin your player is playing should help decide. A lot of times, people think all Paladins should be the same in attitude and ethics - you see one, you've seen them all. 

I really don't think that is the case, Lawful Good is an alignment - it is just as open to interpretation as any of the others. No two people have the same personality and that makes it really hard for them to behave the exact same way in given circumstances, impossible I'd say.

Same thing goes for the Paladin code: you can have a Paladin whose interested in jumping into the most evil pit she can find and make sure she is the only one to walk out again. You can also have a paladin who'd rather spend his time teaching - guiding people into the path of good. If they met, they'd probably disagree on a few things.

In the end, there is no one "right way" to be a Paladin. Don't get me wrong, there are most definately "wrong ways" to be one - and you have to watch out for it in all cases. "Smiting" paladins have to watch their zealotry and make sure they don't go after someone not because they are evil but because they are "not as good as me." Redeeming" paladins have to ensure they aren't being hoodwinked into letting evil slip by them.

As for the "scrag-poles," the main thing for your paladin is that *something* has to be done. The infants can't just be ignored or left behind - they must be dealt with. As long as the paladin does that, in whatever way, then its clear.

I dunno, maybe Paladin dilemmas should focus less on what they must do and more on what they musn't do.


----------



## DragonShadow (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> They're just in the barrels at the moment. They were free range scragpoles back home, before they were trucked in to be part of the new invasion force.




That makes sense, then, as even a Scrag tadpole can be dropped into well water to wreak havoc in city sewer systems as best they can, until they can finally grow some...legs.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> If anything CN lone wolves have ruined more game fun than any lawful good paladin.



Over the years, I have often toyed with the idea of banning True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral characters from my game for this very reason. Neutral Disruptive characters just aren't fun for anyone by the individual player, most of the time IME.


----------



## Falkus (Feb 7, 2007)

> Why does good have to respect the right of an evil being right to live. Do you think evil beings turn around and give good beings the right to live?




And how is that a justification? He doesn't respect life, so I don't have to?



> But paladins have a duty to protect innocents and that duty comes before protecting some evil creature right to life.




Except that in the situation under discussion, there's no innocent life at risk.



> I honestly don't get why so many people go out of their way to hog tie paladins the way they do. Paladins are usually holy warriors it is why they have a decent BAB, decent hitpoints can wear heavy armor and have martial skills.




They're also supposed to be GOOD above all else, and that means not talking the easy and quick path when presented with a dilemma.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 7, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I disagree also; however, if we're going with the idea of genetic evil (something, incidentally, that makes me *very* uncomfortable in the case of "natural" beings that aren't alignment exemplars, undead, or constructs; JRRT sidesteps the problem by making orcs into constructs of a sort), then I think one has to assume that it's simply impossible to leave the orc babies alive. If there's no way to make them into productive citizens, *or even merely nonaggressive beings who'll leave humanity alone*, then what can the paladin do other than a) kill them or b) leave them to die of exposure?




Whether or not a creature is innately evil or chooses it, it is not your choice how it behaves. Even though the human assassin may be the result of moral failure, and the red dragon of inclination, you still know the human assassin is just as dangerous. And you cannot smite either one without some pretext. As I've noted before, preemptive smiting, that is, a firm amount of prudence, is ultimately a neutral perspective.

Killing evil creatures at birth is certainly prudent, it's just not Good.  A truly good creature sacrifices some prudence in order to practice a higher principle. 

If the paladin has no better recourse, slaying orc babies is certainly an option. But it's not the first option. If slaying 39 orcs is enough to force their retreat, the paladin should not slay 40, and if the orc babies can be left in the care of another, they should be. 

I've heard it asserted that some creatures in D&D are essentially, irredeemably evil. That is not true. Creatures like red dragons have an inlination toward CE, but they are capable of choosing another enlightenment; doing so means overcoming their born nature, but they are intelligent and could be so persuaded. Even angels can fall and demons be redeemed; though they retain their alignment subtypes, their actual alignments can change if they are persuaded to change them. Again, they are fighting inclination, but moreso, they are fighting their nature. An angel trying to be evil would feel the temptation to do good; angels,  by nature, are never tempted to evil, and if they fall to evil, they do so by deliberate choice.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 7, 2007)

Falkus said:
			
		

> And how is that a justification? He doesn't respect life, so I don't have to?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Big difference evil does not have any respect for life. They will take it without remorse and to suit their needs. By the paladin respecting an evil creatures right to life he is allowing this creature the ability to kill other innocent creatures. 

Who has more right to live the evil creature or the innocent who has never done any wrong?

The paladin has a chance to think this over because they are not a threat yet. But they will be if he does nothing. So he has to make some kind of decision. Now the DM has said these creatures are evil because they have already done evil acts and will do them again. In this case the duty of the paladin seem pretty clear. There is a part of the code that says must protect innocents.

I see nothing wrong with the paladin slaying these creatures for the greater good. I also don't see anything wrong if the paladin has a less lethal way of handling the situation. 

Let me tell you about the quick and easy path. Sometimes it is stupid not to take the quick and easy path.

I played a paladin in Forgotten Realma game with a DM who thought like you do. 

We chased some evil drow clerics into the woods for over seven days after they had kidnapped some elven children. They were to be used in an ancient ritual to unleash a horrible plague onto the land and throw the world into darkness. 

We caught up to them right before they killed the last child. We battled and killed all but the high priestess who surrendered. In the battle tow of our party were slain. I wanted to kill the last drow right then and there but the DM told be that I would be violating my code. So we tied the cleric up gagged her and off we went back on the seven day journey.

Now since there was only two of us left we had to take watches alone while the other slept. On day three she got lose and killed the other PC on watch she then grabbed the child and ran I went after her but she had a head start. I could hear her chanting something as she ran. She threw herself and the child off a cliff thus finishing the ritual and unleashing hell.

Even to this day this makes me mad that my lawful good paladin hands were tied in such a stupid way as to allow the destuction of the world.

There are times that a paladin has to do the quick and the dirty and there are times when he has more choice. 

I think a good dM leaves the choice up to the player it is usually kind of obvious what path to take.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 7, 2007)

The game is, in part, predicated on near genocide as most races are inherently evil and fit only to by killed by the PCs. Philosophical discussion and wasting time with dialectic is silly and pointless. Keep your mouth shut, do what they game was designed to and kill them.


----------



## GreatLemur (Feb 7, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> I agree with the next to rattlesnakes analogy.
> 
> Unless the Paladin has a reason to doubt his Detection (such as some sort of history with it being inaccurate due to outside influences), you as the DM mandated the slaughter of those tadpoles once they registered as evil.  Trolls aren't people.  They're vicious ravenous monsters... thier young are just as blinded by hunger and bloodlust.



What's your definition of "people"?  Trolls have a base Int of 6, can take class levels, and have variable alignments.  I'd say that pretty much makes them "people" in game terms and for the purposes of this discussion.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I've heard it asserted that some creatures in D&D are essentially, irredeemably evil. That is not true.




It depends on what you mean by 'essentially'.

A Red Dragon who is _not_ Chaotic Evil is 'either unique or a rare exception' (MM p305).  What is 'rare'?  Don't know, but the 3E MM in the same paragraph instead had 'either unique or a one-in-a-million exception'.

Are there even a million red dragons out there?  Would you ever bet your life that this might be the one red dragon in a million that _might possibly_ be redeemable?

-Hyp.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 7, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I like D&D to be heroic and I find placing the PCs in a situation they have to perhaps kill kids and babies is very not heroic.
> 
> My paladin would kill them since they do register as evil.  As a DM I would have no issues with that take.




Roger roger.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> We caught up to them right before they killed the last child. We battled and killed all but the high priestess who surrendered. In the battle tow of our party were slain. I wanted to kill the last drow right then and there but the DM told be that I would be violating my code. So we tied the cleric up gagged her and off we went back on the seven day journey.




"So you need to sacrifice this last child as part of your ritual to unleash hell, and if _you_ don't kill her _as part of the ritual_, it can't happen?"

"Sorry, little one.  As long as you're alive, you're a danger to the entire world.  But don't worry.  At least this way, your soul will be safe for all eternity..."

-Hyp.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It depends on what you mean by 'essentially'.
> 
> A Red Dragon who is _not_ Chaotic Evil is 'either unique or a rare exception' (MM p305).  What is 'rare'?  Don't know, but the 3E MM in the same paragraph instead had 'either unique or a one-in-a-million exception'.
> 
> ...




If the DM is one of these closet Paladin haters, you can bet it is, AND further, that it was just trying to redeem its evil ways now, thats why you just lost your powerz, fighter with no feats and high charisma!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

GreatLemur said:
			
		

> What's your definition of "people"?  Trolls have a base Int of 6, can take class levels, and have variable alignments.  I'd say that pretty much makes them "people" in game terms and for the purposes of this discussion.



Indeed, one of the river trolls in this adventure (and in the complimentary thread from the point of view of my paladin player) was an adept, albeit only a first level one.

It's easy to get cocky about the blind scrag until she casts _obscuring mist_, has the blind-fighting feat and starts making with the 10' reach. Only a happy coincidence by another player moments before in another end of the cave saved the group from a TPK.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> If the DM is one of these closet Paladin haters, you can bet it is, AND further, that it was just trying to redeem its evil ways now, thats why you just lost your powerz, fighter with no feats and high charisma!



Paladins don't fit nicely into closets. That's where I keep my kender.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 7, 2007)

I say have the paladin ask for divine guidence and if his diety said "kill the tadpoles" problem solved.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 7, 2007)

Interesting discussion.  I don't think the issue of "evil babies" is especially relevant.  Saint Augustine specifically mentions that babies are tainted by evil - remember "original sin"?  You could argue that from a Christian perspective, human babies should ping as slightly evil (selfish).  Would a Paladin kill them?  Certainly Christianity has forbidden infanticide since day one.

The question isn't whether something is evil, the question is whether it is a proximate threat.  An evil (selfish) peasant or an evil (lustful) prince don't get murdered by the Paladin when he walks past them.  Racial alignment and predisposition to evil and the rest of it don't make any difference: if it's coming at you to kill you (or somebody else) then you waste it.  If it is harmless, even if that's only because it doesn't have its adult teeth yet, then there's no reason to kill it.

The logic "it will grow up to be evil" doesn't hold, either.  Even if that's a true prediction (and there's no way to know) it's ultimately beside the point: "good" doesn't mean wiping out evil, it means doing what is decent in any given situation.  If a Paladin's job was to kill everything capable of doing evil he'd have to blow up the planet.

The whole Paladin as "baby killer" issue really just supports one conclusion: "evil" is a red herring on the issue of whether to kill.  You kill things that are threatening you or someone else with violence.  You don't kill anything else.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Interesting discussion.  I don't think the issue of "evil babies" is especially relevant.  Saint Augustine specifically mentions that babies are tainted by evil - remember "original sin"?  You could argue that from a Christian perspective, human babies should ping as slightly evil (selfish).  Would a Paladin kill them?  Certainly Christianity has forbidden infanticide since day one.
> 
> The question isn't whether something is evil, the question is whether it is a proximate threat.  An evil (selfish) peasant or an evil (lustful) prince don't get murdered by the Paladin when he walks past them.  Racial alignment and predisposition to evil and the rest of it don't make any difference: if it's coming at you to kill you (or somebody else) then you waste it.  If it is harmless, even if that's only because it doesn't have its adult teeth yet, then there's no reason to kill it.
> 
> ...




Whose conscience is it on when the troll grows up big and strong and rapes, then eats someones wife? Someones mother? Butchers an entire town?

All preventable by a swift moment of action.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Whose conscience is it on when the troll grows up big and strong and rapes, then eats someones wife? Someones mother? Butchers an entire town?
> 
> All preventable by a swift moment of action.




But on the flip side, there are things known as alignment abnormalities which do often appear at the whims of a tyrantical gm.  How are we to know that in that barrel there wasn't one lawful good troll-ling which would have been murdered by its "brothers"/"sisters" or by the adventuring party considering that the paladin only tried to detect evil (and not good)?


----------



## thedungeondelver (Feb 7, 2007)

Trolls!  Evil!  Kill them!


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Whose conscience is it on when the troll grows up big and strong and rapes, then eats someones wife? Someones mother? Butchers an entire town?
> 
> All preventable by a swift moment of action.




The troll's.


----------



## Tetujin (Feb 7, 2007)

Dragolen said:
			
		

> Nothing is born innately evil.  It grows up and learns to be evil.  So those tads should not have registered being evil.
> Dragolen




Pardon me if someone already brought up this point, but the thing is that in D&D, things *are* born innately evil, it's called the [Evil] Subtype.  This isn't just "Usually Evil" or even "Always Evil", their very *existence* is evil.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "So you need to sacrifice this last child as part of your ritual to unleash hell, and if _you_ don't kill her _as part of the ritual_, it can't happen?"
> 
> "Sorry, little one.  As long as you're alive, you're a danger to the entire world.  But don't worry.  At least this way, your soul will be safe for all eternity..."
> 
> -Hyp.



 Or you kill the evil drow cleric thus preventing the end of the world. 

If I am remembering correctly the blood of unsullied innocent elvez had to be spilled while the moon amd a star were in alignment that happened only once every 175 years and lasted for 13 days.

The drow had to finish the ritual in this time period or the ritual was useless.


----------



## Delta (Feb 7, 2007)

I lean towards the "kill them like a nest of hornets" understanding here. I think there's pretty good precedent in D&D for that being the basic construction of the game. I really wouldn't want to focus on the issue or make encounters that intentionally highlight it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

Tetujin said:
			
		

> Pardon me if someone already brought up this point, but the thing is that in D&D, things *are* born innately evil, it's called the [Evil] Subtype.  This isn't just "Usually Evil" or even "Always Evil", their very *existence* is evil.




The description in the MM specifically states that 'Always Evil' creatures are born with an evil alignment; on the other hand, it merely says that most creatures with the [Evil] subtype also have an evil alignment.  'Born evil' is more closely associated with 'Always Evil' than with the [Evil] subtype.

Also, the 'Usually' text indicates that this alignment may be the result of cultural bias, _or_ a legacy of their origin.  The example it gives are the elves have inherited their CG alignment from their patron, Corellon Larethian.  To me, that suggests that for an elf, the CG alignment is Nature, not Nurture; if you took a hundred elf babies and raised them separately with no connection to elf culture at all, you'd still expect a majority of them to turn out CG.

The MM entry for the Troll states 'Usually CE', but gives no indication as to whether this is a result of cultural influence or a legacy of their origin.  If the DM elects to make it the latter in his own campaign world, then I would expect most troll babies to have the CE alignment.  Whether or not they have had time to absorb any troll culture would be irrelevant, since the alignment relates to the species' origin, not its culture.

-Hyp.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> But on the flip side, there are things known as alignment abnormalities which do often appear at the whims of a tyrantical gm.  How are we to know that in that barrel there wasn't one lawful good troll-ling which would have been murdered by its "brothers"/"sisters" or by the adventuring party considering that the paladin only tried to detect evil (and not good)?



One scragpole per barrel. These suckers were big.


----------



## Griffith Dragonlake (Feb 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hugo the Magnificent, Archmage Extraordinaire, has devoted his entire life to the service of others.  With his natural affinity for magic, he could have ruled the world... but instead, he turned his talents to ensuring peace and prosperity for the common folk of the kingdom.  He is wracked with assorted pains and ailments - the results of sacrificing his own life energies on numerous occasions when protecting the kingdom from Dark Forces - but he'd do it again in an instant, because With Great Power Comes etc etc.
> 
> Then one day he's having a quiet drink in a tavern, and he overhears a conversation at the next table - a man has lost his entire savings in a card game, playing beyond his means in an effort to impress his mistress.  "What'll you tell your wife?" someone else asks.  "I won't," the man says.  "I'll go see old Hugo - spin him some line about needing money to cure some orphans of a horrible disease, or something.  He's supposed to be a pushover, from what I hear."
> 
> Hugo reviews his life, and realises that people take him for granted.  He's sacrificed everything for them, and they look on him as a piggy-bank.  Well, no more!



This reminds me of the Blackadder Christmas Carol:

[Christmas morning. Ebenezer wakes up.] 
*Baldrick:* [from outside the room] Mr Blackadder! [enters, holding a sock] Looks like Father Christmas just forgot about me this year. 

*Blackadder:* [stands] Oh, dear me... [takes sock, and begins reaching inside it] But don't be too unhappy; because, if you look very carefully, there's something in this stocking from me... 

*Baldrick:* Oh! 

*Blackadder:* In fact, it's something I made for you... 

*Baldrick:* Well, that's the kind of prezzie that shows the most love! What have you made for me, Mr B? 

*Blackadder:* I've made you... [takes his hand out] ...a fist. 

*Baldrick:* A fist? 

*Blackadder:* Yes — it's for hitting [punches Baldrick in the face]... and what's wonderful about it is that you can use it again [punch!] and again [punch!] and again [punch!]. Well, what do you say...? 

*Baldrick:* [weakly] Thank you, Mr B... 

*Blackadder:* Think nothing of it, Baldrick -- I, after all, think nothing of you [punch!]. 


[Hanging onto the window, calling through, is the young boy.] 
*Boy:* Oi! Gitface! How about a penny for the season? 

*Blackadder:* Hark! Do I hear the voice of a darling little cherub at the window? 

[Blackadder walks to the window and opens it, causing the boy to fall down with a scream.] 
*Blackadder:* [looks outside, then shuts the window] No — I must have imagined it. 


[The doorbell rings.] 
*Baldrick:* Shall I get that, sir? 

*Blackadder:* No, Baldrick — leave them out in the snow until I get dressed. I'll only be about forty minutes. 


*Baldrick:* Mr. B! Where's the milk of human kindness? 

*Ebenezer Blackadder:* It's gone off, Baldrick. It stinks.


----------



## Griffith Dragonlake (Feb 7, 2007)

Oh and if a creatures detects as Evil, it is the paladin's god-given duty (literally) to smite them. Otherwise, what's the point? It's not Detect Evil Outsider or Smite Evil Outsider after all. If you as a DM don't like it, then house rule the paladin to your heart's content. Or ban them. Whatever.

Also, don't bother arguing that it is Chaotic to Smite a creature just because they're Evil. Or that a paladin can't Smite Evil unless they've broken a law or something. The paladin's God has already judged the creature and rendered a sentence. I believe that if a paladin refuses to Smite Evil and do his God's will then that will be cause to lose paladinhood. If a creature who Detects as Evil is protected by an evil society and/or evil laws, the paladin will find some way to Smite the Evil even if that means breaking evil laws. Paladins belief that Divine Law always trumps secular law.

You the DM don't have to like paladins or include them in your campaign. Heck you don't have to use the alignment system either. But if you're going to allow paladins in your game, then you should allow them to do their job.

Personally I think Detect Evil and Smite Evil in a 'morally grey world' is absolutely absurd. Gygax designed D&D with a B&W morality. If you're going to play 'morally grey world' then ban paladins, clerics, and especially aligned spells. Nothing wrong in doing that.

Trust me:  It is the height of "unfun" to play a paladin in a 'morally grey world.'


----------



## billd91 (Feb 7, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Big difference evil does not have any respect for life. They will take it without remorse and to suit their needs. By the paladin respecting an evil creatures right to life he is allowing this creature the ability to kill other innocent creatures.




That's a big assumption. Maybe the evil creature just wants to sell them bad real estate in a swampland for big bucks or prefers to turf orphans out of their institutions to sell for money. Not all evil creatures are murderous. Not all evil acts should be punishable by death.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Who has more right to live the evil creature or the innocent who has never done any wrong?




They have the same right to live if the evil things done by the evil creature don't warrant death.



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The paladin has a chance to think this over because they are not a threat yet. But they will be if he does nothing. So he has to make some kind of decision. Now the DM has said these creatures are evil because they have already done evil acts and will do them again. In this case the duty of the paladin seem pretty clear. There is a part of the code that says must protect innocents.




Like troll tadpoles who don't know any better and just do what their momma has them do?

<snip>



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I played a paladin in Forgotten Realma game with a DM who thought like you do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## billd91 (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Whose conscience is it on when the troll grows up big and strong and rapes, then eats someones wife? Someones mother? Butchers an entire town?
> 
> All preventable by a swift moment of action.




It wouldn't be on mine. That troll was given a chance, a choice, and it blew it. Any number of kids could grow up to do stuff that bad and worse. Does it justify killing anybody and everybody?


----------



## Mighty Veil (Feb 7, 2007)

That's the one thing of D&D I just can't stand. Thanks to endless ecologies, players have gotten to know the monsters enough that they begin to feel for them. Think their people.

Why can't an orc just be some evil guy humanoid. Born from mud. When times get bad, more emerge from the filth of the ground. When times are good, they go back into the ground.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Feb 7, 2007)

DMH said:
			
		

> That depends on you. Are troll, orcs and such inately (sp?) evil or is it just a cultural thing.




Yes, I'm sure the *tadpoles* were abused and twisted by the scrag clerics to be evil.  

IMC I'll come up with a spell that teleports any non-evil person you cast it on back to a paladin re-education camp where they can be raised and reformed to be good productive members of humanoid society.

Hmmmm. Or give Paladins sleep as a 1st level spell.


----------



## ivocaliban (Feb 7, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Are "evil" humanoids like orcs and goblins (a) genetically *EEEEVIL* (like demons, or like JRRT's orcs), (b) generally predisposed to evil behavior, or (c) the product of evil cultures? IF the latter, or even the second, orc babies probably wouldn't register as evil to the smackdown radar.




This was the first thing that came to my mind, as well. Personally, I don't think babies of any naturally-occurring, humanoid race are evil. In other words, it's nurture, not nature, that puts the evil into the troll. Being born with a pre-disposition towards evil is fine, but being born evil is for fiends and such. Otherwise, I'd probably put newborns and infants (tadpoles, in this case) in the Neutral column (with a possible argument for Chaotic Neutral). 

Of course, if they register evil as in this particular case, then I'd say it's a coin toss. The paladin should make this decision for himself. If he's the sort of Lawful Good that thinks evil is always evil and it cannot be altered, then killing the little river trolls should be permitted without any punishment. After all, they are likely to grow up and bring harm to neighboring communities.

However, if he's the sort of paladin that believes that harming a helpless creature is inherently evil in and of itself then he has every right to defend the lives of the little scrags. He may even believe that the creatures can be brought up to turn away from evil...it's called redemption, something which a paladin should understand.

So, the solution should depend greatly on how the paladin interprets Law and Good, as well. I commend any player who plays a thoughtful paladin and doesn't see every solution as the easist one ("Kill it before it multiplies"). Not every paladin is the same, despite the like alignment. Any variety you can milk from the class should be rewarded.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Feb 7, 2007)

Dragolen said:
			
		

> Nothing is born innately evil.  It grows up and learns to be evil.  So those tads should not have registered being evil.




Nothing in _our_ world is born innately evil...

If I was the GM, I'd simply let the paladin make his own choice - and not penalize him for his decision in either way. I might later let him come across paladins who made a different choice in this situation - without loosing their paladin powers.

Frankly, I'd rather have the PC in question explore what it means to be "good" on his own than force my views on him.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Feb 7, 2007)

Whimsical said:
			
		

> When in doubt, cast _augury_. Your god will tell you.




Personally, if a player casts Augury in this situation, he will get an answer of "nothing". I wouldn't penalize a paladin or a cleric either way, no matter what his decision is. And whether the tadpoles or whatever live or die certainly won't have an impact on his immediate future.

Similarly, if the cleric casts Commune, the answer to the question: "Would killing the tadpoles be a good idea?" is also "unclear" - unless the deity has something like "monster hunting" in its portfolio. Like the spell description says, deities aren't omniscient, and they don't know the repercussions of all the actions of the PCs in advance. Alternatively, the deity might answer with "Do as you see fit" or "Do what you consider best". That's not neccessarily a cheap trick - benevolent deities might _want_ their followers to think about questions of morality instead of simply following a static doctrine.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The paladin sees them registering as evil...




Don't let anyone's babies "register as evil".

If you let them register as evil, it means they are already capable of discerning between good & evil, and they choose evil. Let infants of evil races be like animals or no-Int creatures are with regard to alignment.


----------



## DMH (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Whose conscience is it on when the troll grows up big and strong and rapes, then eats someones wife? Someones mother? Butchers an entire town?
> 
> All preventable by a swift moment of action.




Then why don't paladin's kill more evil nobles and royalty? They have the power to cause great harm, yet not many settings have them purging governments based on alignment.

As to the person who suggested that paladins should be the ones to raise children, why? They should hand them off to monks or clerics of their faith who will raise them "right".


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Feb 7, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Don't let anyone's babies "register as evil".
> 
> If you let them register as evil, it means they are already capable of discerning between good & evil, and they choose evil. Let infants of evil races be like animals or no-Int creatures are with regard to alignment.




Why? For some creatures, being evil _might not be a conscious choice_ depending on your cosmology. Some creatures are just "born bad". And fiction is full of "bad seeds".



			
				DMH said:
			
		

> As to the person who suggested that paladins should be the ones to raise children, why? They should hand them off to monks or clerics of their faith who will raise them "right".




How many monasteries are out there that are capable of raising orc or troll children? And of these monasteries, how many have the capacity to take on more?


----------



## Falkus (Feb 7, 2007)

> Big difference evil does not have any respect for life. They will take it without remorse and to suit their needs. By the paladin respecting an evil creatures right to life he is allowing this creature the ability to kill other innocent creatures.




We're not talking about a creature that's currently in the process of burning down a town here.



> Who has more right to live the evil creature or the innocent who has never done any wrong?




You're talking about hypothetical future situations. That's not a Paladin's responsibility. He can't kill somebody because of something they might do.



> The paladin has a chance to think this over because they are not a threat yet. But they will be if he does nothing.




Any creature has the potential to be a threat.



> I see nothing wrong with the paladin slaying these creatures for the greater good.




You really should pick a better term than greater good, since it's a term almost exclusively used by evil aligned people.



> There are times that a paladin has to do the quick and the dirty and there are times when he has more choice.




If you wanted an easy choice, you shouldn't have played a paladin.



> Whose conscience is it on when the troll grows up big and strong and rapes, then eats someones wife? Someones mother? Butchers an entire town?




Well, by that logic, a paladin could kill just about any baby free of remorse, since they all have the potential to be evil murderers when they grow up.


----------



## Lockridge (Feb 7, 2007)

This argument over whether or not something is inherently evil or just learns to be evil could go on forever.

To be honest, I don't play D&D to decide whether or not to kill babies.  As DMs, can't we think of better ways to create drama and moral dilemma than to have a paladin encounter baby orcs, trolls or whatever?  I think it would be much more interesting to have the paladin encounter the infant son of an enemy - oh I'm sure he wouldn't kill the baby but there are all sorts of story ideas there.  Maybe the party's rogue wants to hold it hostage - what's the paladin do then?  Maybe the party's mage or cleric wants to cast spells to extract information from it - how does the paladin react?  Maybe an NPC wants to kill it - how does the paladin react when the NPC is his liege?

There is a reason that dungeons aren't typically designed with humanoid nurseries - its a distastful subject.


----------



## prosfilaes (Feb 7, 2007)

I agree strongly with the argument that this is something the church would have answered, in a world with adventuring paladins fighting orcs and trolls as a common basis. I don't think those who know every word of scripture backwards and forwards are going to miss a chance to explain the right action to the paladins who get all the fame.



			
				Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> How many monasteries are out there that are capable of raising orc or troll children? And of these monasteries, how many have the capacity to take on more?




In a world where the church requires that be done, than most monasteries of that church can probably raise orc or troll children.


----------



## Sir Elton (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's finally come up in my Midwood campaign (OK, I finally made it come up ):
> 
> So, what would your paladins do in this situation? As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?




I'd quit the party.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 7, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Depends, depends, depends.  This is one of those questions that should be worked out in advance by the DM and the players, specifically as follows:
> 
> 1) Are "evil" humanoids like orcs and goblins (a) genetically *EEEEVIL* (like demons, or like JRRT's orcs), (b) generally predisposed to evil behavior, or (c) the product of evil cultures? IF the latter, or even the second, orc babies probably wouldn't register as evil to the smackdown radar.
> 
> ...




I agree with these.  You can't argue alignment unless this stuff is well defined, which is all campaign specific.  And if it IS well defined, then there normally wouldn't be any arguement because it would be pretty black and white.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> That's a big assumption. Maybe the evil creature just wants to sell them bad real estate in a swampland for big bucks or prefers to turf orphans out of their institutions to sell for money. Not all evil creatures are murderous. Not all evil acts should be punishable by death.



In this case, the Heroes of Midwood had just rescued two small children from a cell that was quite clearly the trolls' larder, containing bits of fishermen and half of a kobold adventurer. It was a far cry from being called in by the Better Business Bureau (although that'd be a heck of a hook in an urban adventure!).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 7, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> When you find a nest of rattlesnakes in your house, you kill them all, including the babies.




Exactly. 

It's no different than putting down a rabid dog. You don't have to enjoy it, but it's the right thing to do, and it has to be done.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 7, 2007)

I can see why so many paladin threads go so many pages and that is that no one can agree on what is an evil act. 

It may be fun to debate things like this on a board but I can tell you it is not fun in a game.

DnD is a game and to put paladins in the postion where if they sneeze wrong they lose their paladin powers is just ridiculous.

Games are supposed to be fun. Isn't that why we play?  

Any other class could kill these scags with no penalty. And move on to the next adventure but not the paladin no he who has detect evil at will and smite evil X times a day must walk a tightrope to figure out how to *please a DM * or lose his class abilities.

Because that what this comes down to pleasing the DM on the DMs opinion of what is evil. No other class goes through this.

I think it is bad DMing to say a creature is evil if you are going to handicap the paladin and not allow him to use his class ability to smite. If you want to add moral dilemma into the game then don't have the babies detect as evil.


I DM a paladin right now and while I would not allow him in most cities to just detect evil and then walk up and smite because of it. I allow him a lot more leeway when he is out in the wildnerness there he has the right to make a judgement on the level of threat and if he feels it is warranted he can be J/J/E.

In the one Duchy which is a theoracy all paladins and clerics are considered to have the ability to be J/J/E of lawbreakers. 

Now in my game thieves, adulters, crooked merchants do not detect of evil unless they are also doing evil acts. What is an evil act in my game killing an innocent, causing great harm like a crooked merchant selling food that he knows is tainted. Choosing to serve an evil diety as a cleric.

I use the Kingdom of Kalamar rules on clerics all clerics must be the same alignment as their diety.

A noble who allows his surfs to starve because of his greed will detect of evil.

I also do not use the RAW rules on detect evil. I use my DM opinion on how evil something is so I have degrees of faint, moderate, strong and overwhelming.

The merchant who has only sold bad food once may detect as faint and evil cleric who has killed innocents in the service of his God  will detect as strong or depending on how many evil acts they have done as overwhelming.

We also use the BoXD rules on redeeming an evil creature if that is what the paladin  wants to do.

In my game any sentient creature can choose to be good or evil and my players know this.

I have found that allowing my paaldins to have more freedom in what they can do has not made them turn into murdering thugs with a sword killing everything that pings as evil.  I have seen paladins show mercy to an evil creature and try to  redeem it as often as they have smited it.

I don't have inter party conflicts because of having a paaldin in the group because the other players know that the paladins is not going to be putting them into unnecessary danger trying to live up to an impossible to follow code that says all evil doers has to do is surrender and then escape later to try and kill the party as they sleep.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Feb 7, 2007)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> I agree strongly with the argument that this is something the church would have answered, in a world with adventuring paladins fighting orcs and trolls as a common basis. I don't think those who know every word of scripture backwards and forwards are going to miss a chance to explain the right action to the paladins who get all the fame.




Sure, I'd expect that they have already an answer to such questions.

But, and this is important, this might not be the _only_ correct answer. Let each paladin PC struggle with such questions on his own - this is the stuff good role-playing is made from.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> In this case, the Heroes of Midwood had just rescued two small children from a cell that was quite clearly the trolls' larder, containing bits of fishermen and half of a kobold adventurer. It was a far cry from being called in by the Better Business Bureau (although that'd be a heck of a hook in an urban adventure!).




Sure, but I presume it wasn't the tadpoles that brought the people in there. I don't think anyone should blame my toddler because he ate the bologna sandwich I made him. I did the shopping. I provided the provender. He did what his daddy told him to do because he doesn't really know any better.

The point I was making is that just because someone pings as evil that they are or will be some kind of murdering maniac. Death is not always the correct response to evil.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Sure, but I presume it wasn't the tadpoles that brought the people in there. I don't think anyone should blame my toddler because he ate the bologna sandwich I made him. I did the shopping. I provided the provender. He did what his daddy told him to do because he doesn't really know any better.



At some point, doesn't a child figure it out? (These tadpoles are more intellectually developed than toddlers.)



> The point I was making is that just because someone pings as evil that they are or will be some kind of murdering maniac. Death is not always the correct response to evil.



I'm not arguing a specific point of view here that much, just providing additional information.


----------



## Harlath (Feb 7, 2007)

One good way to deal with this situation in character is to have the paladin or another party member with Knowledge: Religion use the skill to remember a story from the paladin's faith outlining the 'correct' resolution(s). This can come for a popular book of Saints and their deeds etc. [There is also the option of forgina a new path and having some sort of crazed doctrinal war, which is always a good laugh, see Wyre]. This helps communicate the DM's idea of what the paladin should do, and underlines the importance of having a feasible solution in mind.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So, what would your paladins do in this situation?




I would gather them up in my canteen or something, then take them back to my church.



			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?




Whatever the player wants it to be.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 7, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I would gather them up in my canteen or something, then take them back to my church.
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the player wants it to be.




You did read that these tadpoles are so big they fit into a barrel? They would not fit into your canteen.

And that brings up the question if they are so big and the party does not have access to a wagon just how are they supposed to transport these babies to a monastary?

Also all the people who are saying take them to the church do your normal churches and monasteries have mid and high level NPCs at them?

Mine don't usually so if you dropped off a bunch of baby trolls who then went bad the clergy would be hard pressed to stop them.


----------



## Trench (Feb 7, 2007)

Jeez... every time I check these boards, there seems to be another paladin morality thread...

Before people make too many assumptions, one should check out the  paladin's player's thread on this very question.

It wasn't a trick to make anyone please the DM, or make a player fall, and it wasn't cheesy either. It was more like a test of ethics. 

Personally, I could see a paladin either killing or not killing the child-trolls/tadpoles and both being the right answer. It's just different interpretations of the same bible (as evidenced by the two LG members- both raised in the same religion, one a paladin one a fighter- of the party arguing about it...)

The best description I've seen tossed out is that Paladins are like Superman, moral-wise. WWSD?


----------



## Trench (Feb 7, 2007)

Also... I'm pretty sure Whiz didn't have ANY set idea what the paladin was supposed to do. He just wanted to see what would happen if the character was presented with the choice...

Probably so he could know what buttons to press for later issues... BASTARD!


----------



## Set (Feb 7, 2007)

If they detect as evil, then it doesn't matter how old they are, they are clearly possessed by some sort of demonic influence that makes them evil.  They've already been denied the chance to choose not to be evil by whatever is making them detect as evil, so killing them would be a mercy, really.

Or, in a more medieval verbiage, 'If my god didn't want me to kill them, he wouldn't have gifted me with this knowledge of their evil natures.  It would be a sin to defy the warning my god has sent me.'


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 7, 2007)

> it's not a good act, since they are not respecting the lives of innocent creatures.




The creatures are not innocent.

They register as evil.

Which means that their personalities carry the taint of cruelty, torment, and suffering inflicted upon others. Those aren't just troll babies, those are every piece the wicked beings they will be when they grow up, filled with the delight in the suffering of others just as their parents were. 

There is nothing wicked or bad or wrong in D&D about killing what is evil.

The Paladin might be thinking it's kind of dishonorable, and he'd be kind of right -- the prey is defenseless, after all. 

The Paladin might give them to a local church, hoping that _atonement_ and temple work would surround them with the light of Goodness. He might let them run free, hoping that he or future generations of paladins can meet them in respected combat, or that they meet their deaths before then (what chance do troll tadpoles have without their parents?) He may also view them as evil "things" rather than as evil "beings," and treat them the same way he'd treat an evil tome of necromancy: burn 'em.


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's finally come up in my Midwood campaign (OK, I finally made it come up ):
> 
> After dispatching a pair of murderous river trolls (scrags) in their underwater cave, the party discovered a series of water-filled barrels brought to the area by the trolls. Each contains a scrag tadpole. The paladin sees them registering as evil, but he also doesn't believe they will be a threat for quite some time.
> 
> ...






I would have a very hard time justifying tadpoles as being Evil, regardless of what they will one day grow up to become.  Killing the babies of any intelligent species is one big line I would never allow a Paladin to cross no matter how many contorted manipulations of Alignment he tried to present.  


They may have a tendency to become Evil, maybe even a very big tendency, but raising and culture are just as important, or all humans would be Neutral regardless of where they grew up.


----------



## GlassJaw (Feb 7, 2007)

Dragolen said:
			
		

> Nothing is born innately evil.  It grows up and learns to be evil.




Would you say the same about sexual preference?  Don't answer that - just illustrating a point.

I didn't read the whole thread but you could argue that killing a baby's parents and then leaving it there to die on its own is just as cruel as killing it and possibly even moreso.  So then what?  Is the paladin going to take the babies of every monster he's killed with him and raise it so it's not evil?  No.

In a standard D&D campaign, I say kill away, only because paladins are annoying and I don't want stuff like this slowing the game down.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 7, 2007)

Trench said:
			
		

> The best description I've seen tossed out is that Paladins are like Superman, moral-wise. WWSD?




Superman doesn't kill anyone, ever, no matter how evil they are. 

So the analogy immediately fails.


----------



## Harm (Feb 7, 2007)

Griffith Dragonlake said:
			
		

> Oh and if a creatures detects as Evil, it is the paladin's god-given duty (literally) to smite them. Otherwise, what's the point? It's not Detect Evil Outsider or Smite Evil Outsider after all. If you as a DM don't like it, then house rule the paladin to your heart's content. Or ban them. Whatever.




  Although, say, humans tend towards neutrality you will find a significant number of evil aligned humans in every human town.  A few will be in prison, or in chains as slaves, most will not as they're either too lawful to commit a crime, unable to perform a crime or just haven't been caught yet.  Under your idea of a paladin it is their duty to go around and butcher a fair percentage of the population of every town and city... which would get the paladin executed pretty fast as a mass murderer and lose them their paladinhood.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

This makes for one sort of cool thing.

All the DM's holding the position that they should be brought back to the baby orc/troll/giant/dragon raising monastery have created an easy way for their players to justify playing a Half-Ogre, Troll, Half-Dragon or what have you when their current character dies. They grew up in the Monastery, after all.


----------



## Arkhandus (Feb 7, 2007)

Right, let's all ignore the 'honor' clause in the Paladin Code and argue about the nature of evil and where the blurry line ends on what paladins can and cannot smite at any given time.  _*That'll*_ be solved right quick.

......except it hasn't.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

I choose to honor the human women and children(and men) who I will save by killing these "tadpoles" that look like crocodiles, and kill and eat humans, and regenerate, and only die by fire and acid.

I honor them. I honor the fishermen who have been eaten already. I honor their wives. I honor all of those people by ensuring they dont GET EATEN.

There is your honor.


----------



## Trench (Feb 7, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Superman doesn't kill anyone, ever, no matter how evil they are.
> 
> So the analogy immediately fails.




Fair enough. I still think the analogy holds if one remembers the restrictions and neccessities of the game and setting.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

Superman is indestructible, and Super fast, with heightened senses, and x-ray vision, so he can afford to let the "Tadpoles" lie, and know instantly when they "reoffend" and stop them before harm comes to anyone, without any fear for his safety.

I think you'll agree Paladins dont have this same ability.


----------



## Harm (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Superman is indestructible, and Super fast, with heightened senses, and x-ray vision, so he can afford to let the "Tadpoles" lie, and know instantly when they "reoffend" and stop them before harm comes to anyone, without any fear for his safety.




  Superman doesn't have tadpoles as archvillians, and when his enemies reoffend he can't instantly stop them before harm comes to anyone.  Whole planets get wiped out before he can stop them in some cases.  Batman's villians regularly escape Arkham and commit murder.  But DnD isn't a 4-colour comic.  Paladins aren't superheros.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Superman doesn't kill anyone, ever, no matter how evil they are.
> 
> So the analogy immediately fails.



You haven't read comics for a while. Superman not only killed in his earliest appearances, but has done so periodically over the last decade.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Tadpoles != eggs
> 
> A lot of folks on this thread seem to be confusing the two. There's a whole range of being a tadpole, up until the moment that limbs are grown, but at no point are they equivalent to innocent eggs or immobile babies. The scragpoles are sentient free-willed beings who have had the opportunity to act.
> 
> They're evil because they _have and intend to again_.



er, Whizbang, maybe folks are "confusing" the matter because you titled this thread "the orc baby paladin problem" not "the orc adolescent who has already killed multiple sentient beings but is not quite full grown paladin problem." 

You framed the situation in a way that naturally evoked assumptions of the tadpoles as helpless and currently blameless. Turning around and criticising people who respond to a thread with the word "baby" in the title as if you are talking about babies.... I'm going to assume it indicates a poor choice of thread title rather than any intent to cause confusion, but I'd tone down your responses.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Feb 7, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I can see why so many paladin threads go so many pages and that is that no one can agree on what is an evil act.
> 
> It may be fun to debate things like this on a board but I can tell you it is not fun in a game.
> 
> ...



I'd question whether this is actually a real problem in most actual games to begin with. It's never been in mine. (Also, IMC, a non-paladin would not be able to commit an evil act "without penalty." Evil deeds have real consequences in my game world.)


----------



## ruleslawyer (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> You haven't read comics for a while. Superman not only killed in his earliest appearances, but has done so periodically over the last decade.



Really? I'd love to see an example or two. Seriously, I thought refusing to kill was at the core of the character at least since Byrne.


----------



## tzor (Feb 7, 2007)

Griffith Dragonlake said:
			
		

> Oh and if a creatures detects as Evil, it is the paladin's god-given duty (literally) to smite them. Otherwise, what's the point?




No!  No! And Thrice no even!

The first no:  "Detect Evil" isn't binary.  There are different levels of evil detected by the spell and these in turn are based on different siutations.  You don't even have to have an evil alignment to show up as evil, a Neutral cleric of an evil deity glows as brightly as any undead or oursider.  Detect Evil is basically a threat level detection system.

The second no:  Paladin's don't have "god-given duties."  Paladins have a code.

The third no:  Smiting evil is not in and of itself an end.  It is a means, to an end of keeping evil from harming innocents.  It is not the only means to that end, but it is often the most necessary one.  (Honestly, I'm really thinking of adding a question, "can you explain the 'just war theory?'" to anyone who wants to play a paladin.)


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

Harm said:
			
		

> Superman doesn't have tadpoles as archvillians, and when his enemies reoffend he can't instantly stop them before harm comes to anyone.  Whole planets get wiped out before he can stop them in some cases.  Batman's villians regularly escape Arkham and commit murder.  But DnD isn't a 4-colour comic.  Paladins aren't superheros.




He also doesnt leave the truly dangerous ones alive.

For Example: See Doomsday. Too dangerous to leave alive, and "killed" by Superman.


----------



## Trench (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Superman is indestructible, and Super fast, with heightened senses, and x-ray vision, so he can afford to let the "Tadpoles" lie, and know instantly when they "reoffend" and stop them before harm comes to anyone, without any fear for his safety.
> 
> I think you'll agree Paladins dont have this same ability.




I do agree. But plenty of other heroes are indestrcutible, are super fast, etc. And they aren't Superman either.

What makes Superman Superman is his moral compass and his constant quest to be a standard for others to look up to. It's the same thing as saying Batman is just a guy with pointy ears and cool gadgets. It's the obsessive drive and self-made need for justice that makes Batman Batman. It's the character, not the trappings.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> er, Whizbang, maybe folks are "confusing" the matter because you titled this thread "the orc baby paladin problem" not "the orc adolescent who has already killed multiple sentient beings but is not quite full grown paladin problem."
> 
> You framed the situation in a way that naturally evoked assumptions of the tadpoles as helpless and currently blameless. Turning around and criticising people who respond to a thread with the word "baby" in the title as if you are talking about babies.... I'm going to assume it indicates a poor choice of thread title rather than any intent to cause confusion, but I'd tone down your responses.



Wow, what's with all the accusations of intentionally trolling? I've had more than 4,000 posts here. Even without search capability, it's not hard to see what my normal posts are like.

And yes, I shouldn't have thought people would go off the posts more than the thread title, even though I know that's what people usually respond to on the Internet.

And "tone down my responses?" Re-read the post you're quoting -- I don't say anything inflammatory or insulting, I merely politely disagree.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

The expectation that all Paladins behave like Superman is why, in some games, Paladins suck to play. Superman is one character, with 1, and only 1 personality. Limiting your players to "Being Superman" is a poor take on gaming, imo.

Not to mention the other issues. Name the other characters that have their own comic, who are as powerful as Superman, please, by the way?

I can think of Spectre, and Lucifer. Got any others? Both of those guys kill with impunity, so lets compare like to like.


----------



## Vanuslux (Feb 7, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Really? I'd love to see an example or two. Seriously, I thought refusing to kill was at the core of the character at least since Byrne.




Well, he not only killed but summarily *executed *General Zod and his band in the early days.  That's all I know about for sure, beyond Elseworlds type stories, as I haven't read much modern Superman.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Really? I'd love to see an example or two. Seriously, I thought refusing to kill was at the core of the character at least since Byrne.




He intentionally killed Doomsday, with no idea that Doomsday could "self-res" or whatever he does.

The quote was, I believe, "This monster ... must be ... stopped...permanently"


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> The expectation that all Paladins behave like Superman is why, in some games, Paladins suck to play. Superman is one character, with 1, and only 1 personality. Limiting your players to "Being Superman" is a poor take on gaming, imo.
> 
> Not to mention the other issues. Name the other characters that have their own comic, who are as powerful as Superman, please, by the way?
> 
> I can think of Spectre, and Lucifer. Got any others? Both of those guys kill with impunity, so lets compare like to like.



Green Lanterns have been as tough as Superman under various writers, and Wonder Woman has been close. And, as you suggest, most of them kill at least once in a while.


----------



## Trench (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> The expectation that all Paladins behave like Superman is why, in some games, Paladins suck to play. Superman is one character, with 1, and only 1 personality. Limiting your players to "Being Superman" is a poor take on gaming, imo.
> 
> Not to mention the other issues. Name the other characters that have their own comic, who are as powerful as Superman, please, by the way?
> 
> I can think of Spectre, and Lucifer. Got any others? Both of those guys kill with impunity, so lets compare like to like.




I wouldn't call it an expectation at all. more like a guideline. Plenty of personality left to fill in.

As for like to like. The Sentry. And Apollo from the Authrority. Both characters were basically created as Superman analogues, but are very different. There's also Hyperion, from Squadron Supreme. Ah, and as stated above, GL and Wonder Woman are often pretty tough on Supes as well.

Oh crap! How could I have forgotten Captain Marvel! The Big Red Cheese is a perfect example...


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

Wonder Woman gets shot with a high powered Rifle and spends a week in hospital. That hardly qualifies as "Almost as tough as Superman" who has withstood a nuclear bomb exploded 5 feet from his head.

Green Lanterns have huge power holes, and if you want to see how well they do against Doomsday, feel free to check into it.

basically, the fact is, Superman as written is so powerful that very few things are credible threats, so he gets the luxury of pulling his punches, and taking it easy, because he can. He's that much tougher than everyone else.

Give me a level 30 Paladin in a group of level 6's, and I'll get all morally superior also, especially if I have dr 50/- and a Holy Avenger that does 20d6 a swing.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Wonder Woman gets shot with a high powered Rifle and spends a week in hospital. That hardly qualifies as "Almost as tough as Superman" who has withstood a nuclear bomb exploded 5 feet from his head.
> 
> Green Lanterns have huge power holes, and if you want to see how well they do against Doomsday, feel free to check into it.



Easy there. That's why I specified that it depends on the writer. Green Lanterns in particular have been all over the map in power level over the decades, and Wonder Woman has been able to survive bullets to her flesh multiple times over the decades. The trend has been to depower her over the last decade or two to make the differences between her and Supes more striking.

For that matter, Superman himself has been all over the map in terms of power: He originally literally leaped around over tall buildings (shades of City of Heroes!), then could fly so fast he could rip holes in time to travel to the future. He's had laser beams come out of his eyes and at other times simply been a pyrokinetic (Byrne's Man of Steel miniseries went this direction). Sometimes he can toss mountains around, other times he's a lot weaker. Even his costume is sometimes invulnerable, sometimes not.



> basically, the fact is, Superman as written is so powerful that very few things are credible threats, so he gets the luxury of pulling his punches, and taking it easy, because he can. He's that much tougher than everyone else.
> 
> Give me a level 30 Paladin in a group of level 6's, and I'll get all morally superior also, especially if I have dr 50/- and a Holy Avenger that does 20d6 a swing.



No argument. And yet, once in a while, even he finds it necessary to kill.


----------



## Meeki (Feb 7, 2007)

Did anyone take into consideration that not dispatching of them and leaving them there might also be deemed "evil"?  The tadpoles will no inevitably die if they aren't fed, and if the party knows that leaving them there to starve would also be evil "GASP".  Anyways if they register as evil and they are trolls that are always evil that means that they have an evil disposition and should be dealt with according; however tadpoles that register as evil means they are able to indeed register between good and evil and act accordingly. They aren't evil outsiders or created or generic evil undead so I don't know why they are registering as evil at all.

  Depending on the campaign Paladins can be various things; such as champions of Good (who happen to be lawful because of the rules) or Champions of Good and Law.  In the most generic case paladins have good intentions and attempt to follow and create order.  In my games I wouldn't penalize a paladin, none of my gods would keep those tadpoles alive if they were in the paladin's shoes so I dont see why a paladin would have to.  Appreciation of life I have never seen as a paladin trait (unless the paladin worhips an appropriate god), sounds more of a cleric worshiper a god/goddess of "life" or a druid that has some sort of fetish with keeping things alive at all times.  In my view point I don't see a generic paladin of heironious as seeing the life of evil things as sacred, even if they are helpless.  In this case i dont see a tadpole registering as evil as innocent since it is obviously having evil thoughts or maybe eats its siblings in order to grow up and do more evil deeds.  Personally I wouldn't have had the tadpole register as evil until it could comprehend and act upon the difference.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 7, 2007)

Or, leaving them there might have them jump out of the barrels, and wander into the human town nearby because they are starving, and eating all the local humans?

Mightn't that be evil?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Meeki said:
			
		

> They aren't evil outsiders or created or generic evil undead so I don't know why they are registering as evil at all.



It's explained later in the two threads about this. These aren't fresh from the egg scragpoles. These guys are as big as a dog, sentient and about to sprout arms and legs. If they started off as humanoids (apparently, only I enjoy the idea of scrags being amphibians in more than just a games stats way), they'd be considered juveniles, not babies.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's explained later in the two threads about this. These aren't fresh from the egg scragpoles. These guys are as big as a dog, sentient and about to sprout arms and legs. If they started off as humanoids (apparently, only I enjoy the idea of scrags being amphibians in more than just a games stats way), they'd be considered juveniles, not babies.




Actually, I think that's pretty cool.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Wow, what's with all the accusations of intentionally trolling?



hrm, not the best reader yourself, are you? "I'm going to assume it indicates a poor choice of thread title rather than any intent to cause confusion..."


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 7, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I'd question whether this is actually a real problem in most actual games to begin with. It's never been in mine. (Also, IMC, a non-paladin would not be able to commit an evil act "without penalty." Evil deeds have real consequences in my game world.)




IMC characters also suffer consquences for evil deeds. For example a person who does evil acts will not be able to be healed by a cleric of a good god.

The point though is that a group pf adventurers without a paladin in the group could kill these troll young and move on. But according to some of the people here if a paladin in their game did he would lose his class abilities.

See I have a big problem with that. Losing your class abillities for something that other lawful good non paladins could do just does not seem to be very fair  to the player of the paladin.

Its situation like this that puts the paladin in conflict with the party and leads to either the paladin forcing his will on everyone else or the paladin having to leave the party.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> hrm, not the best reader yourself, are you?



As I said, it's happened multiple times.


----------



## Trench (Feb 7, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I
> The point though is that a group pf adventurers without a paladin in the group could kill these troll young and move on. But according to some of the people here if a paladin in their game did he would lose his class abilities.
> 
> See I have a big problem with that. Losing your class abillities for something that other lawful good non paladins could do just does not seem to be very fair  to the player of the paladin.
> ...




See, I agree with the first two paragraphs, but I don't think the third automatically follows.

Alignments are guidelines. It's a spectrum. In the campaign in question, the two characters who argued the most about the issue was the LG paladin and the other LG figher. Both firmly within their alignment, but just different takes on the situation.

I don't see how a party split automatically happens with this. Morality isn't black and white, and I think the best paladins are those that recognize that fact and try to strive for good anyway. It often result sin conflict, but it doesn't automatically have to be earth shattering... But then again, I like my campaigns with some murk and grey in them.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Feb 7, 2007)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> Well, he not only killed but summarily *executed *General Zod and his band in the early days.  That's all I know about for sure, beyond Elseworlds type stories, as I haven't read much modern Superman.



I knew about General Zod, but I've always seen the Zod thing as an exception rather than a rule. As for Doomsday: I was thinking about that, but isn't Doomsday more a construct than a living being, or am I wrong?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I knew about General Zod, but I've always seen the Zod thing as an exception rather than a rule. As for Doomsday: I was thinking about that, but isn't Doomsday more a construct than a living being, or am I wrong?



Wasn't that information only available to the readers? And it's certainly a blurry line in Doomsday's case, in any event.


----------



## Shayuri (Feb 7, 2007)

Getting back on-topic for a second...

My answer to most paladin dilemmas is to ask: "What would God do?"

The paladin's god, specifically. There are "flavors" of Law and Good, and the balance between them. Is the paladin's god a temperate god of love and mercy? Is the paladin's god a righteous avenger, sworn to protect the land against the ravages of evil?

While myth is full of gods punishing mortals for acts no worse (or better) than the god's own actions, I tend to think fantasy gods shouldn't, in general, be hypocritical. If the god would kill the tadpoles (to protect others from the evil they'd do eventually, or just to exterminate the vermin), the paladin sure can. 

On the other hand, philosophical questions like that can be great for roleplaying! Leaving some grey area like that to stimulate discussion IC and motivate a paladin to act (seeking counsel or advice perhaps) can be, if used properly, ways to develop a character and/or a whole party.


----------



## Mort (Feb 7, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> IMC characters also suffer consquences for evil deeds. For example a person who does evil acts will not be able to be healed by a cleric of a good god.
> 
> The point though is that a group pf adventurers without a paladin in the group could kill these troll young and move on. But according to some of the people here if a paladin in their game did he would lose his class abilities.
> 
> ...




This is why, if I want to play a paladin , I make sure I know what the DM expects. If he's the type that only the lawfulest "goodiest" most pristine make it (and he doesn’t define it, he expects you to guess), or the type that imposes a moral quagmire every time the paladin draws his sword, I don't even bother. 
In most of my games, the decision to fall has to be a conscious one. The player knows what he’s doing is wrong per the code (and has other options), but does it anyway. 

As for the OP situation, under most D&D deities paladin ≠ pacifist. Most paladins, as I see them, would see the situation as ridding the world of an evil threat and act accordingly.


----------



## ehren37 (Feb 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Except those degrees of evil _are_ defined.
> 
> They aren't "Incredibly Faint", "Very Faint", "Pretty Faint", "Kinda Faint", "A Little Bit Faint", and "Faint".  There's one degree, "Faint", which covers the 1HD orc, the 6HD scrag, and the
> 10HD Ogre Bbn-6.  If all three of them were in a room, and I used Detect Evil through the closed door, the information I would receive is "Three faint evil auras"; they would be otherwise indistinguishable.
> ...





Thats a power level indicator, not a rating of their sins. Or do you honestly believe a child murdering sadist with 1 hit dice is less "evil" that a 7th level lout who's a bit selfish but wouldnt do the things the other guy does. There are degrees of evil, hwoever the faint, moderate, etc is to give an indication of the creature's power (a metagame mechanic).


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 7, 2007)

Here are two big questions... How big are troll tadpoles when they are "hatched?"  How many troll "eggs"  are usually produced at a time?

I ask these because if they are like frogs then there would be hundreds of eggs produced at once, but since there were only a handful left then that saids that these trolls must had feed on each other inorder to become the size they were (since there was nothing to prey upon them while in the barrel except for each other).  Thus, one can expect that these trolls HAVE been needlessly killing and feeding on each other to insure that the next generation would be evil aligned (since most creatures do not feed off thier own species except in certain situations).  Thus, they would register as evil because they committed an act against nature (the balance).  

In other words, hand over the mallet, its troll busting time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

IMC, I figure they start off with a large cluster of hen-sized eggs, probably 100 or more. And yes, they're down to six dog-sized ones. Something happened to the others, and it's likely the kind of thing that keeps my wife from watching Animal Planet with me.


----------



## Harmon (Feb 7, 2007)

Pray, seek guildance in the form of role playing, consult the character's god's description, then tell the GM- "I think that (insert god's name) would have a belief system that would say I need to-" should the GM agree then then the character follows through.

If, however the GM gives some "its up to you," then punishes the character for his actions (letting the taddies live or die), well then the character needs to return to the church for more training on his eithical beliefs and for an atonement.  This might short curcuit the campaign, or kick the character out comepletely, but the player would have role played his/her character to the hilt and that is what is important in my mind regarding the situation.

Other then that it is a tough call.  I am one that believes evil must be stomped out, but I do not believe that you can be born evil.  Predisposed to evil tendencies yes, but not born to it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Thats a power level indicator, not a rating of their sins. Or do you honestly believe a child murdering sadist with 1 hit dice is less "evil" that a 7th level lout who's a bit selfish but wouldnt do the things the other guy does. There are degrees of evil, hwoever the faint, moderate, etc is to give an indication of the creature's power (a metagame mechanic).




But it's the only degree the paladin can discern.

The 5th level evil cleric has a stronger aura than the 25HD Old Black Dragon.

It's not purely a power level indicator; nor is it a rating of sins.  It's merely an indicator of the strength of the evil aura.

And the strength of the evil auras for the 1HD orc, the 6HD scrag, and the 10HD ogre Bbn-6 are identical.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

Mighty Veil said:
			
		

> Why can't an orc just be some evil guy humanoid. Born from mud. When times get bad, more emerge from the filth of the ground. When times are good, they go back into the ground.




Now half-orcs are even ickier!

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

ivocaliban said:
			
		

> This was the first thing that came to my mind, as well. Personally, I don't think babies of any naturally-occurring, humanoid race are evil. In other words, it's nurture, not nature, that puts the evil into the troll. Being born with a pre-disposition towards evil is fine, but being born evil is for fiends and such.




Isn't being born with a predisposition towards evil an argument for nature over nurture?

I'd again point to MMp305, which implies that the elven 'Usually CG' alignment is 'genetic', not cultural.

-Hyp.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 7, 2007)

Trench said:
			
		

> See, I agree with the first two paragraphs, but I don't think the third automatically follows.
> 
> Alignments are guidelines. It's a spectrum. In the campaign in question, the two characters who argued the most about the issue was the LG paladin and the other LG figher. Both firmly within their alignment, but just different takes on the situation.
> 
> I don't see how a party split automatically happens with this. Morality isn't black and white, and I think the best paladins are those that recognize that fact and try to strive for good anyway. It often result sin conflict, but it doesn't automatically have to be earth shattering... But then again, I like my campaigns with some murk and grey in them.




You have never had the pleasure then of playing a paldin in a game where the DM has really strong opinions on what is evil. 

I know DMs who would penalize a paladin who did not use force to stop his party from carring out their plans to kill the evil troll babies. 

I have seen arguments go on where the party feels that beause the paladin would not let them deal with an evil creature by killing it instead they have to take it back to town for judgemment as an excuse that that the paladin gets everything his way and that he by being a paladin has now put the rest of the parry in danger.


----------



## Trench (Feb 7, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> You have never had the plasure then of playing a paldin in a game where the DM has really strong opinions on what is evil.




Well, I can't argue that. Given some of the discussion, I don't think I'd want to.


----------



## PallidPatience (Feb 7, 2007)

First, my vote. I'd say to kill the scragpoles, since they're old enough to know what they're doing. Then, this quote:



			
				Trench said:
			
		

> The best description I've seen tossed out is that Paladins are like Superman, moral-wise. WWSD?




I direct you to this web-site:

What would Superman do, indeed...

Which of those comic covers exemplifies a paladin to you? 

Or were you speaking about his exploits from a different era?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Isn't being born with a predisposition towards evil an argument for nature over nurture?
> 
> I'd again point to MMp305, which implies that the elven 'Usually CG' alignment is 'genetic', not cultural.
> 
> -Hyp.




See, I like those entries, but I always read them just the opposite way.

The entries that say, "ALWAYS evil" indicate a hard-wired nature; the ones that say "Usually" indicate a creature capable of alignment change.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

PallidPatience said:
			
		

> I direct you to this web-site:
> 
> What would Superman do, indeed...
> 
> ...



You do know those covers are intentionally playing against expectations to get people to wonder "why would Superman do something like that?" They weren't great writing by any means, but they invariably come back to "oh, it makes sense now."

Frankly, I think D&D could use a bit more of paladins behaving like that.


----------



## PallidPatience (Feb 7, 2007)

Oh, I know. I just love those covers, and the clash against the normal Superman view. And it's hilarious to point out even these snapshots of insanity to people who throw out Superman as the perfect Paladin (which I disagree with for entirely different reasons).


----------



## phindar (Feb 7, 2007)

I never liked the Superman/Paladin comparison because Superman gets to factor being invulnerable into his decision making process, and that's something Paladins don't get until they're well into the double-digit character levels.  

Since D&D has always kept a modern viewpoint in regards to moral guidelines, I've found a better guide to paladinal behavior to be the cops of Law and Order, particularly SVU.   CI too, but Goren is on thin ice with me.  (The more I watch that show, the more I think, "That'll never hold up in court."  But D'Ofonario and Erbe are fun to watch, as are the B-team.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 7, 2007)

Doesn't whatshisname on SVU regularly assault suspects? Not terribly lawful behavior. Goren -- realism aside -- comes at his job with both a lawful and good perspective.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 7, 2007)

I'd say the Law and Order people are probably Neutral Evil at best, considering they regularly try to incarcerate innocent people or those that are actually victims.  Their primary concerns are getting props for "getting the conviction" and really have nothing to do with upholding law or promoting good.  Certainly not Lawful OR Good, IMO.  The CSI people are borderline no better, depending on which series.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 7, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The entries that say, "ALWAYS evil" indicate a hard-wired nature; the ones that say "Usually" indicate a creature capable of alignment change.




They're capable of change, sure.  But the majority of them are Alignment X for a reason, and that reason is either: 

a/ The result of cultural influences.  Perhaps most gnomes are Neutral Good because they grew up around a bunch of Neutral Good gnomes, and all their role models were Neutral Good.

b/ Inherent as a result of their origin.  Most elves are Chaotic Good because Corellon Larethian made them that way - no perhaps about it, the MM says so.

Sure, individual elves are capable of change.  But most of them are CG - not because they learned it that way, but because a god stuck CG in their DNA.

-Hyp.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 7, 2007)

Alignment isn't a reason to kill anything.  You kill it if and only if it is threatening you or someone else with violence.

What happens when a basically good kingdom makes war on another basically good kingdom?  Lots of Lawful Good people will end up killing each other... maybe even Paladins killing Paladins.  Are these guys all becoming evil for killing someone who is good?  Ridiculous.

Likewise, a merchant who sits around looking at Ye Olde Girlie Magazines all day is evil (lustful and lazy).  Should somebody kill him?  No, not unless he's about to stab somebody with a dagger.  Then you kill him no matter what alignment he is.

Same goes for orcs, trolls, etc.  If they're not attacking anybody there's no reason to kill them.  And I can't believe that people trot out that "well if nobody does anything they'll grow up to be evil" argument... basically a justification for genocide.  I can see Serbs and Bosnians saying this about each other: if you let those kids grow up, they'll grow up to be dangerous to us.  That's the same as the old saw about the evil mastermind who takes you prisoner and will detonate a nuclear device unless you strangle (or rape, or whatever) this baby.  As if it could possibly be my fault if _he_ decides to set off a nuke - you're not the one responsible because you're not the one pressing the button.  He's responsible if he presses it, and you're responsible for what you do to the baby.  Nobody is responsible for what somebody else does, simple as that.


----------



## Griffith Dragonlake (Feb 7, 2007)

Harm said:
			
		

> Under your idea of a paladin it is their duty to go around and butcher a fair percentage of the population of every town and city... which would get the paladin executed pretty fast as a mass murderer and lose them their paladinhood.



I think that whether or not a paladin gets executed is highly campaign dependent. It really depends on the religion that the paladin belongs to. For example, if the paladin belongs to the state religion then it is most certainly his duty to act as judge, jury, and if necessary executioner. If the society tolerates Evil they will probably not tolerate a paladin nor the paladin's deity.

As to losing their paladinhood, I cannot agree with this. A paladin's abilities have been granted to be used and to demonstate the power of the deity.


----------



## Griffith Dragonlake (Feb 8, 2007)

tzor said:
			
		

> The first no:  "Detect Evil" isn't binary.  There are different levels of evil detected by the spell and these in turn are based on different siutations.  You don't even have to have an evil alignment to show up as evil, a Neutral cleric of an evil deity glows as brightly as any undead or oursider.  Detect Evil is basically a threat level detection system.



I agree that in 3e Detect Evil isn't binary. The DM should explicitly state what strength of aura requires a paladin to 'terminate with extreme prejudice.' Is it 'moderate,' 'strong,' or just 'overwhelming'? And are you suggesting that Smite Evil doesn't work on Neutral clerics who are devoted to Evil deities?  I would rule that it does.



			
				tzor said:
			
		

> The second no:  Paladin's don't have "god-given duties."  Paladins have a code.



Can't agree you here. I don't buy the idea that a code grants supernatural and spell-like abilities, let alone divine spells at higher levels. However, if in your campaign you state that is the case more power to you.



			
				tzor said:
			
		

> The third no:  Smiting evil is not in and of itself an end.  It is a means, to an end of keeping evil from harming innocents.  It is not the only means to that end, but it is often the most necessary one.  (Honestly, I'm really thinking of adding a question, "can you explain the 'just war theory?'" to anyone who wants to play a paladin.)



If a paladin is driven to 'keep evil from harming innocents' rather than to eliminate evil then why do paladins have holy swords instead of holy rope of entaglement?  Why aren't paladins the masters of disarming and sundering? Instead paladins do extra damage to Evil creatures through smite and holy swords (weapons).

Personally I'd rather see paladins designed like Captain America and capture their opponents rather than killing them.  But that's not how the paladin is designed and frankly D&D is pretty clunky when it comes to non-killing options. As such I stand by my original position that the D&D paladin has a duty to destroy Evil.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

Griffith Dragonlake said:
			
		

> And are you suggesting that Smite Evil doesn't work on Neutral clerics who are devoted to Evil deities?  I would rule that it does.




I would certainly rule that it doesn't.  They possess an evil aura, but they are not evil creatures; Smite Evil works on evil creatures.  The cleric can wield a Holy sword without incurring a negative level, and he will not take extra damage if struck by such a sword.  He is subject to the effects of a Blasphemy spell.  Having an evil aura is not sufficient to make him an evil creature.

Similarly, in the odd case of an undead creature with no evil alignment; he will show up on a Detect Evil, but he will be unaffected by Smite Evil.

There's a difference between a non-evil creature with an evil aura (who will not be affected by Smite Evil), and a non-evil creature with the [Evil] subtype (who will be affected by Smite Evil).

-Hyp.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Alignment isn't a reason to kill anything.  You kill it if and only if it is threatening you or someone else with violence.



There are certainly Lawful Good gods that would disagree with that. Is Pholtus LG or LN currently? If not He of the Blinding Light, it's not hard to imagine other "fundementalist" LG gods commanding their followers to smite early and smite often.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 8, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> There are certainly Lawful Good gods that would disagree with that. Is Pholtus LG or LN currently? If not He of the Blinding Light, it's not hard to imagine other "fundementalist" LG gods commanding their followers to smite early and smite often.




What I'm saying is that you smite things that are in the commission of an evil or aggressive act.  Think of a police officer: he doesn't go around shooting people who are scofflaws, even if he _knows_ they're scofflaws.  The policeman takes down those who are currently committing an unlawful act.  If they're doing violent crime, he takes them down hard.  But he doesn't shoot everybody who'd simply like to knock over a bank... he shoots those who are currently knocking over a bank.

I like Paladins.  But I don't see why everyone makes them into jihadists.  Paladins don't go around slitting the throat of everybody who is selfish or who cheats on his taxes or who has a secret stash of magazines.  Paladins aren't bloodletters.  Paladins kill things... those things that are currently doing something evil, like attacking a village or torturing a captured peasant.

Do people really think that if a Paladin runs into some hobgoblin mercenaries guarding a caravan that he's supposed to butcher them?  Even if they say "Hey, we don't want no trouble, buddy, we're just tryin' to put together a couple silvers for the rent."?  That makes the Paladin sound like some sort of mass murdering maniac.  Why should he kill anyone or anything that is not currently doing an evil deed?


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Alignment isn't a reason to kill anything.  You kill it if and only if it is threatening you or someone else with violence.
> 
> What happens when a basically good kingdom makes war on another basically good kingdom?  Lots of Lawful Good people will end up killing each other... maybe even Paladins killing Paladins.  Are these guys all becoming evil for killing someone who is good?  Ridiculous.
> 
> ...





Here is a problem I see with evil, A lazy merchant who likes girlie magazines is harming no one so why would he be evil he may not be good (I might even argue that) because being lazy and lustful are not evil.

In my book there is only a couple of roads to evil. One is murder if you kill because you enjoy it or kill innocenta for personal gain evil. If you deliberately cause harm to an innocent and by that I mean something like a noble's greed causing his serfs to go without enough food. Serving an evil diety as a cleric. Sorry I know the RAW allows this but not in my game.

The reason why you actively furthering an evil diety's cause when you serve them as a cleric. Therefore evil in my game.

So believe me in my game evil does not sit around minding their own business. 

BTW since you think lazy lustful merchants are evil do you also think a rogue who belongs to a thieves guild is evil?


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 8, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Here is a problem I see with evil, A lazy merchant who likes girlie magazines is harming no one so why would he be evil he may not be good (I might even argue that) because being lazy and lustful are not evil.
> 
> In my book there is only a couple of roads to evil. One is murder if you kill because you enjoy it or kill innocenta for personal gain evil. If you deliberately cause harm to an innocent and by that I mean something like a noble's greed causing his serfs to go without enough food. Serving an evil diety as a cleric. Sorry I know the RAW allows this but not in my game.
> 
> ...




I'm just going off the 7 Deadly Sins.  So sloth and lust are definitely evil.  As far as the Thief in the Thieves' Guild... if he really does steal from people for a living (instead of getting a real job maybe?), yes I'd definitely say that's evil.  If you'd ever been ripped off you'd probably agree.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 8, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I'm just going off the 7 Deadly Sins.  So sloth and lust are definitely evil.  As far as the Thief in the Thieves' Guild... if he really does steal from people for a living (instead of getting a real job maybe?), yes I'd definitely say that's evil.  If you'd ever been ripped off you'd probably agree.




In real life I have been mugged and yes it sucks.

But in a fantasy setting I don't see all thieves as evil. I don;t think the 7 deadly sins should be used to decide what is evil in a DnD world.


----------



## gribble (Feb 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Smite Evil works on evil creatures




Of course (unless it's in the PHB, but not the SRD, which would be unusual for pure rules), the Paladins class ability doesn't define what an "evil creature" is. It's certainly valid to interpret this as "has an evil alignment" (which also includes creatures with the [Evil] descriptor), but I'd say it's just as valid to interpret it as "has an evil aura". After all, if the paladins god tells the paladin that something is evil, why would he then turn around and stop him from smiting it?

Just doesn't make sense.


----------



## phindar (Feb 8, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Doesn't whatshisname on SVU regularly assault suspects?





			
				Raloc said:
			
		

> I'd say the Law and Order people are probably Neutral Evil at best, considering they regularly try to incarcerate innocent people or those that are actually victims. Their primary concerns are getting props for "getting the conviction" and really have nothing to do with upholding law or promoting good.




Elliot Stabler, played by Christopher Meloni.  He doesn't "regularly assault", but yeah, he's got a temper.  As for NE L&O, I watch a lot of L&O at work (mainly SVU and CI, because that's what's on when I'm at work), and they are pretty much the definition of straight-arrow cops.  You very rarely see them do anything but play by the rules, though they'll do about anything they can within those limits, and do occasionally cross a line here and there at major story arcs.  (Now, the cops of The Shield have a lot less to do with upholding the law or promoting good, but that's a different show.)

But that's why the L&O cops are good examples of paladins to me, not because they're perfect, but because they try, and get frustrated, and are tempted to circumvent the law, but are usually reigned in by their conscience.  And when they're not (which happens from time to time), the fact that they win a case dirty weighs on them as heavily as losing.  Early on in SVU, Stabler gets in trouble for telling a psychiatrist that sometimes, when he's alone with a perp, he wishes he could just shoot them.  (There's a funny exchange later between his captain who says, "You told the police psychiatrist you wished you could shoot suspects!" and Stabler yells back, "I didn't say suspects, I said perps!")  Keeping in mind that SVU deals with the molestation, rape and severe child abuse cases; wishing that the perpertrators of said crimes didn't have the protection of the law is fairly understandable.  And even then, they almost always play by the rules.   

There was a good line on the Closer the other day (as you can tell, I do love a good police procedural, though not the CSI family of shows), where after they couldn't make the case against someone they knew to be guilty, Kyra Sedgewick said to another detective, "We don't prosecute, we don't judge.  We just find out the truth."  In that respect, I think paladins have slightly less restrictions than tv cops, because once they find out the truth, they do get to judge and prosecute a little.  But the truth is important, because paladins shouldn't be attacking people on a guess.  

I have, perhaps, put more thought into cop shows and D&D than is really necessary, but its because I have always wanted to run a paladin and cleric -centric game that focused on the law enforcement in a large fantasy city.  Law & Order: D&D.  I would even love it if we incorporated the dirtier cops of The Shield, and those of the Canadian Coroner's office on Da Vinci's Inquest.  But every time I mention it to players I'm met with blank stares, so I guess I'm waiting on a group who loves cop shows as much as I do.  (Or they're just afraid they'll have to turn all the loot they find over into evidence.  Its probably 50-50.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 8, 2007)

Nah, that sounds like a great idea. Grab Atlas Games' Crime & Punishment and an appropriate city book (Ptolus would work great for this, as would Five Fingers or Sharn) and have at it.


----------



## Trench (Feb 8, 2007)

I'd rather make my cop campaign a bit more Homicide and less Law and Order, but yeah, it's a good idea. I may even steal it...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

gribble said:
			
		

> It's certainly valid to interpret this as "has an evil alignment" (which also includes creatures with the [Evil] descriptor), but I'd say it's just as valid to interpret it as "has an evil aura".




Now you're stuck with a circular logic problem, though.

If evil creatures are creatures with an evil aura, then what does that include?

1. Undead.
2. Evil Outsiders.
3. Clerics of evil deities.
4. Evil creatures.

1 is unambiguous.  2 and 3 have issues, but we'll ignore them for now.  Let's look at 4.

Evil creatures are creatures with evil auras.  One category of creatures-with-evil-auras is... evil creatures.  So to determine which creatures have evil auras, we need to know which are the evil creatures.

Well, that's easy... it's the creatures with evil auras.

... hmm.  Not so easy after all.

If Detect Evil detects creatures with evil auras, and creatures with evil auras are defined as creatures with evil auras... how do we know which creatures Detect Evil detects?

-Hyp.


----------



## gribble (Feb 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If Detect Evil detects creatures with evil auras, and creatures with evil auras are defined as creatures with evil auras... how do we know which creatures Detect Evil detects?




Very true. Still doesn't solve the problem that the term "evil creatures" isn't defined anywhere that I've found. In fact, it seems pretty clear from the description of the holy weapon special property (where it specifically calls out different effects for "all of evil alignment" and "evil creatures") that it isn't just "creatures with an evil alignment".

Of course, one could assume "evil creatures" is used as a seperate term to include "all of evil alignment" and "creatures with the [Evil] descriptor", but that seems redundant as the only effect of the [Evil] descriptor is to treat the creature as if they had an evil alignment...

The only solution that makes any sense to me is to assume the detect evil spell is incorrect, and rather than "evil creatures" it should read "creatures with an evil alignment", and that "evil creatures" refers to anything that detects as evil.
Or perhaps "evil creatures" refers to only creatures with the [Evil] subtype (assuming there are/can be some which are not evil outsiders)? But then merely evil aligned creatures wouldn't detect as evil at all, unless they were also clerics/undead/outsiders/creatures with the [Evil] subtype...

Outside of the rules, it just doesn't make logical sense that creatures detected by Detect *Evil* != creatures affected by Smite *Evil*. I mean, if something detects as evil, that means it is evil, right (even if not of the evil alignment... the spell isn't called "Detect Evil Alignment", it's called "Detect *Evil*")?

Unless you can think of another way of explaning it?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

gribble said:
			
		

> In fact, it seems pretty clear from the description of the holy weapon special property (where it specifically calls out different effects for "all of evil alignment" and "evil creatures") that it isn't just "creatures with an evil alignment".




I don't agree - I think the Holy property is using two synonymous phrases.

If it dealt 1d6 extra damage to evil creatures, and 2d6 to all of evil alignment, I'd agree that the two were obviously different.  But the 'all of evil alignment' is referring to the effects of being hit by it, and the 'evil creatures' is referring to the effects of wielding it; if the two phrases mean the same, it doesn't lead to a contradiction.

For example, the Arrow Catching shield ability:
_A shield with this ability attracts ranged weapons to it. It has a deflection bonus of +1 against ranged weapons because projectiles and thrown weapons veer toward it. Additionally, any projectile or thrown weapon aimed at a target within 5 feet of the shield’s wearer diverts from its original target and targets the shield’s bearer instead._

The shield has a +1 bonus against ranged weapons.  Projectile or thrown weapons divert from the original target.  Do the two phrases "ranged weapons" and "projectile or thrown weapons" mean different things because they are both used in the same description?



> Or perhaps "evil creatures" refers to only creatures with the [Evil] subtype (assuming there are/can be some which are not evil outsiders)?




Would that mean that "nonevil creatures" are creatures without the [Evil] subtype?  That would make it very dangerous to use the Holy Word spell - unless you have the [Good] subtype, you're likely to deafen yourself... blind as well if you have the Good domain.

-Hyp.


----------



## PallidPatience (Feb 8, 2007)

Could you walk me through the logic that leads you to believe that "evil creatures" and "creatures of evil alignment" are two different things, please? I don't think I quite followed.


----------



## Torm (Feb 8, 2007)

*Important Question*

Hey Whizbang -

Can a player in your campaign world PLAY as an Orc? Savage Species, and all that?

If not, then you are safe in ruling them as always being evil beings. But if so, then unless you also limit that player to Evil alignments, that means that Orcs in your world CAN be Good. Which should inform a Paladin's choice somewhat, I would think.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 8, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Elliot Stabler, played by Christopher Meloni.  He doesn't "regularly assault", but yeah, he's got a temper.  As for NE L&O, I watch a lot of L&O at work (mainly SVU and CI, because that's what's on when I'm at work), and they are pretty much the definition of straight-arrow cops.  You very rarely see them do anything but play by the rules, though they'll do about anything they can within those limits, and do occasionally cross a line here and there at major story arcs.  (Now, the cops of The Shield have a lot less to do with upholding the law or promoting good, but that's a different show.)
> 
> But that's why the L&O cops are good examples of paladins to me, not because they're perfect, but because they try, and get frustrated, and are tempted to circumvent the law, but are usually reigned in by their conscience.  And when they're not (which happens from time to time), the fact that they win a case dirty weighs on them as heavily as losing.  Early on in SVU, Stabler gets in trouble for telling a psychiatrist that sometimes, when he's alone with a perp, he wishes he could just shoot them.  (There's a funny exchange later between his captain who says, "You told the police psychiatrist you wished you could shoot suspects!" and Stabler yells back, "I didn't say suspects, I said perps!")  Keeping in mind that SVU deals with the molestation, rape and severe child abuse cases; wishing that the perpertrators of said crimes didn't have the protection of the law is fairly understandable.  And even then, they almost always play by the rules.
> 
> ...



See, you're still going by the assumption that "straight-arrow cops" are Lawful Good.  That's absurd.  Humans are mostly neutral I'd say and neutral good at BEST.  I've watched all of the original L&O and some of the others, and a significant portion of it has to do with them incarcerating innocents and victims of crimes without proper evidence.  They tend to drive for whatever will get someone convicted, regardless of what the actual situation was, all for props from their buddies or the like.  Robbing people of their liberty is hardly a lawful good act.  Neither is killing innocents.


----------



## PallidPatience (Feb 8, 2007)

Man, I wish I was seeing those episodes you were, Raloc. In nearly every one I've seen, all the evidence has pointed firmly at the guy they've rounded up to be indicted at the end.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 8, 2007)

Well, admittedly, they weren't in the majority of episodes.  But there were enough that they would have been Neutral Evil in my book, so that's why I concluded that(because the "bad" guys are held to the standard such that if they had incarcerated multiple innocent people, they'd be evil, period, so the L&O people should be held to the same).


----------



## Zoatebix (Feb 8, 2007)

I would SO play in your Law and Order: D&D game.


----------



## gribble (Feb 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't agree - I think the Holy property is using two synonymous phrases.





			
				PallidPatience said:
			
		

> Could you walk me through the logic that leads you to believe that "evil creatures" and "creatures of evil alignment" are two different things, please? I don't think I quite followed.




Essentially, I'm invoking Occam's Razor here. Why, in a rules document (not flavour/descriptive text) would you use two different phrases to refer to the same thing?

Surely, the simplest and clearest thing to do is to use one phrase - either "evil creatures"/"ranged weapons" or "creatures with an evil alignment"/"projectile or thrown weapons" to refer to something. What possible reason could you have to use two different phrases, other than to indicate two different types of thing?

Anyway, we're getting way off track from the original post here. I suggest we continue this is a separate thread (probably in the rules forum) if anyones interested.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 8, 2007)

It works pretty good in my 2 year running Realms campaign.  There's two TN characters (fighters, one started NG), and two LE characters (both started LN).  They don't often kill good characters, but the wizards (well, one Red Wizard (just!) and one custom alt. necromancer) are definitely evil.  The one fighter is sliding towards NG though.  Depends on if he stops his cousin from using the artifact they're after for himself among other things (the cousin being the Red Wizard).


----------



## phindar (Feb 8, 2007)

I liked the characters in the newer series better, but one thing I did like about the original Law and Order (OL&O) was that you never really knew who who was going to be convicted, and even if the cops had gotten it right.  And even when you were pretty sure they had, sometimes the defendant walked.  (Someone mentioned Homicide above, and I regret never catching that while it was on, because I've heard good things.  Also, wasn't Richard Beltzer's character Munch originally from Homicide... with notable guest appearances on the X-Files and Arrested Development.) 

The newer shows, SVU and CI, they pretty much get the bad guy in the end.  Sometimes he walks, and sometimes its ambiguous, but most of the time you know whats going on.  I still stick by the notion that straight-arrow cops are Lawful Good, or at least, a very good representation of it.  Because while they are driven to catch the bad guys, they are restrained by the law; that is, they follow procedure, they get warrants, they don't do illegal wiretapping, and they very rarely try to subvert the process (by say, back dating warrants or lying about probably cause).  There is the occasional episode where they argue about civil liberties or cut corners, but most of the time its by-the-book.  They complain about the book from time to time, but they very rarely break the law (and when they do, it is treated with all the severity of a paladin commiting a Chaotic Act and having to atone).   And "by-the-book" means Lawful.  

And that, to me, is what paladins should try to do.  An important part of that is the cops from these shows are not perfect, nor should they be.  Humans aren't perfect, and perfection is rarely that interesting to watch (except in the case of Maria Sharapova).  It's the fact that they struggle with how to do their jobs that makes them good examples of paladins; because being a paladin should be hard.  If it were easy, it wouldn't be any fun.


----------



## Griffith Dragonlake (Feb 8, 2007)

gribble said:
			
		

> Of course (unless it's in the PHB, but not the SRD, which would be unusual for pure rules), the Paladins class ability doesn't define what an "evil creature" is. It's certainly valid to interpret this as "has an evil alignment" (which also includes creatures with the [Evil] descriptor), but I'd say it's just as valid to interpret it as "has an evil aura". After all, if the paladins god tells the paladin that something is evil, why would he then turn around and stop him from smiting it?
> 
> Just doesn't make sense.



QFT


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The creatures are not innocent.
> 
> They register as evil.
> 
> Which means that their personalities carry the taint of cruelty, torment, and suffering inflicted upon others. Those aren't just troll babies, those are every piece the wicked beings they will be when they grow up, filled with the delight in the suffering of others just as their parents were.




But they are not _guilty_ of anything.


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 8, 2007)

In a world where elf babies, which, as Hypersmurf has said, are pretty much genetically programed by their god to be Chaotic Good but yet can still grow up to be Lawful Evil, killing troll babies, which are just as likely to grow up to be Lawful Good as an elf is to grow up to be Lawful Evil (which is to say not-unheard-of), is definitely not a Good act.  


Preemptive execution is never a Good thing.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 8, 2007)

Unless the babies are as big as dogs, and have already killed people, and detect as evil, in which case, its a-ok, and fine and dandy.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 8, 2007)

All of you people who are for sparing these babies lives please tell me how the party is supposed to accomplish this?

I hear take them to the local church and let them do it. Okay what are the levels of the clerics in this church are they able to handle these trolls if they turn to their nature which is evil. 

If these trolls get lose and kill a bunch of good people is the paladin responsible does he need to make restitution to the families of the victims. Does he ned to bring the party back and deal with this problem or has he done his good deed and washed his hands of the problem?

Now if the church has a way of dealing with monster babies safely and the paladin has a way of safely getting these babies there that's one thing.

But realistically what are the odds that the paladin is going to find a way to get these tadpoles to a church safely and what are the odds that the church has the ability to care for the babies?

Are you saying the paladin should let them go and walk away and hope for the best?


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 8, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But they are not _guilty_ of anything.





Guilt or innocent  is not what DND is about, it is about good VS evil. Paladins don't get detect guilt they get detect evil. Why are some of you making it so much more complicated then that.

I am all for compelling role playing I loved the story hour where the paladin redeemed the succubus. 

But at the end of the day it is a game not a moral exercise. This not real life with due process and rights, It is a game with monsters and treasure.

I say in game play let the players have some fun and if you have a player who likes to play paladins who smite evil and make the world safe then stop making it so complicated and making the paladins play lawful stupid.

Paladins are holy warriors they are often considered the martial arm of the church. They tend to have pretty good wisdoms let them use it.


----------



## phindar (Feb 8, 2007)

Well, I'm going to apply my own little litmus test and see where I come out on this one.  (Honestly, I could go either way on this question, which is why I find this example helpful to go back to.) _What would the cops of Law & Order do?_

Well, baby-killing is illegal, at least in New York where the series takes place.  But we're being a little disingenuous to call them "babies".  Babies wear diapers, suck their thumbs, and occasionally leak onto your nice black shirt, the one that's casual, but you can wear it in nice restaurants.  Carnivorous tadpoles who live in barrels and devour human flesh aren't really "babies" in the conventional sense.  There are some species that just don't go through a harmless phase (like baby vipers, who are unable to regulate how much poison they put into a bite and so are actually more poisonous than adult vipers).  

Ballparking it, these things come off sounding more like rabid dogs than babies, which means they should be put down in the interest of public safety.  You could make the argument that they are intelligent, but that won't work for me since I'm a dog person and I already think dogs are smarter than people.  Plus, if they are like rabid dogs, why is the fact they are intelligent make it _better_.  Which would you rather have running around town, rabid dogs, or rabid dogs who can use doorknobs?  

As a GM, here's what I'd do.  I wouldn't tell the paladin's player anything definitive, and no matter how many times he cast Augury or rolled Know: Religion, he'd get the vaguest of platitudes.  And then, if the player really thought about it, weighed the options, and picked the course of action _he felt was the most appropriate according to the paladin's code_, then that would be the right thing to do.  If the player was roleplaying, I'd leave it up to him.  If he wasn't, the gods would frown upon his efforts.  ("He chose... poorly.")  

I think how the players make their decisions are more important than what they ultimately decide.  (Even if I disagree with it.  Running the game doesn't make me the final arbiter of morality.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 8, 2007)

Torm said:
			
		

> Hey Whizbang -
> 
> Can a player in your campaign world PLAY as an Orc? Savage Species, and all that?
> 
> If not, then you are safe in ruling them as always being evil beings. But if so, then unless you also limit that player to Evil alignments, that means that Orcs in your world CAN be Good. Which should inform a Paladin's choice somewhat, I would think.



I used "orc baby" in quotes, simply because it's the most familiar variant of this common scenario. In point of fact, the juvenile monsters in this situation were three-foot long scragpoles (scrag tadpoles) and were sentient and dangerous creatures.

I would theoretically allow orcs as player characters if there were orcs in the region of Praemal the campaign were set in. I would not allow scrag player characters.

But these are not evil-by-birth creatures. They've been carefully nurtured to be so.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 8, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But they are not _guilty_ of anything.



I still don't buy that all LG deities would care about modern American legal sensibilities. Evil would be sufficient cause for a god like Pholtus (and arguably St. Cuthbert).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 8, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I hear take them to the local church and let them do it. Okay what are the levels of the clerics in this church are they able to handle these trolls if they turn to their nature which is evil.



The highest level cleric in the barony, the Bishop of Midwood, is level 9. The majority of the clergy are experts, not clerics. The paladin 1/cleric 1 in question is actually the highest-ranking cleric in Maidensbridge.


----------



## ivocaliban (Feb 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Isn't being born with a predisposition towards evil an argument for nature over nurture?
> 
> I'd again point to MMp305, which implies that the elven 'Usually CG' alignment is 'genetic', not cultural.
> 
> -Hyp.




I suppose what I meant to say was that trolls are highly likely to eventually become evil based on the fact that...most of them are (according to the MM). Still, I don't believe they're necessarily _born_ evil. I don't think that newborns and toddlers have the psychological development to make the choice between good and evil. While I'm sure that some races might be inherently evil, I don't think it's safe to assume that every sentient evil humanoid or giant in the monster manual carries the "evil gene."

As for the elven example, that may very well be implied, but that doesn't mean one should assume all races are born with whatever alignment they're given in the MM. In my opinion that makes many ethical decisions far too simple, which is rarely the case. 

If you think trollpoles (*heh*) are born with their alignment and cannot change...by all means, slaughter the little buggers where they swim. I prefer to think that most very young children are Neutral. Other than outsiders and other specific instances, whose very bodies and souls are infused with good or evil as the case may be, I think intelligent beings must have some understanding of good and evil before they can be considered one or the other.


----------



## Gnome Quixote (Feb 8, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> All of you people who are for sparing these babies lives please tell me how the party is supposed to accomplish this?
> 
> I hear take them to the local church and let them do it. Okay what are the levels of the clerics in this church are they able to handle these trolls if they turn to their nature which is evil.
> 
> ...




To be fair to the paladin in question, the world in which this campaign is set--Praemal, the world of Ptolus--features a holy order that's dedicated to the redemption of evil creatures, aptly named _The Brotherhood of Redemption_, which exists in ooc terms purely to resolve the question of what to do with evil prisoners in situations like these. Leaving it in the hands of experts who are dedicated to the cause and trained for the task is a little different than dropping a barrel of skagpoles on a chapel doorstep with a note pinned to it reading _'Good luck!'_


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2007)

> But they are not guilty of anything.




I'd argue that they are. Alignment is determined on action, right? These tadpoles (or the souls inhabiting them) are guilty of performing acts that make them evil, or they wouldn't be detecting as such. Maybe they like to eat human babies, or maybe they take a special delight in seeing their prey thrash about in suffering before dying.

You have to *do* something in order to become evil. In the case of things that are born evil (outsiders, for instance), they did evil things in past lives, or the stuff they are made of did evil things. 

They're guilty, all right. They know full well what they did and how it affected their soul. They couldn't be evil, otherwise. 

Now, it's true that this really isn't *typical* human toddler status, but this is fantasy. It's entirely possible for them to be guilty of horrible evil before they're even a twinkle in daddy scrag's eye.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Alignment is determined on action, right?




That's hotly debated.

I summarised the common positions earlier in the thread.

My personal take is that no, alignment doesn't record past actions, it indicates current inclination and outlook.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

ivocaliban said:
			
		

> As for the elven example, that may very well be implied, but that doesn't mean one should assume all races are born with whatever alignment they're given in the MM.




Oh, no, not at all (except for the 'Always' alignments, which specifically are).  In the case of 'Usually', it indicates that it could be predisposition, or it could be cultural influence.  It's just because the elves are used as the example that we know which it is in their case.

-Hyp.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2007)

> My personal take is that no, alignment doesn't record past actions, it indicates current inclination and outlook.




You've kind of got a chicken-and-egg thing going on, here. Your current inclination and outlook derive from your past actions, on your past experiences. They don't just arrive spontaneous and unbidden. If you slowly killed a screaming creature and liked it, then you are inclined to repeat it and look forward to it. If you've never slowly killed a screaming creature, you can only theorize about whether or not you'd like it, and maybe you try it out of curiosity but don't like it, are you then good because your current inclination is not to slowly kill a screaming creature?

It is possible that tadpole alignments come unbidden from spontaneous nothingness, but at the very least, they have to be capable of moral or ethical action in order to acquire any alignment other than "neutral" per the RAW. The fact that they are evil shows that they are capable of this moral action, and thus can be justly judged guilty of being evil. 

However, if alignment is only a temporary personal outlook, I can't imagine it ever being good to kill something evil, knowing that they can be redeemed...it gets sticky if alignment is just your current predeliction rather than something you've *earned*.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You've kind of got a chicken-and-egg thing going on, here. Your current inclination and outlook derive from your past actions, on your past experiences. They don't just arrive spontaneous and unbidden.




Let's say we have a man living in a town.  He has never done anything sincerely bad.  But every day, he dreams about all the horrible things he wants to do to all the people he despises.  The only thing that stops him is the fear of getting caught.

One day, he happens upon a Hat of Disguise.  His inhibition is removed; in disguise he kills his neighbour and rapes the wife; he robs the local merchants; he slaughters the children whose singing annoys him every day.

Yesterday, was he evil?  I say yes, deeply.  Despite never having acted on his inclinations and outlook - despite no record of evil deeds or actions - he was an evil man.  The Hat of Disguise merely allowed him to demonstrate this via deed.

-Hyp.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2007)

> Let's say we have a man living in a town. He has never done anything sincerely bad. But every day, he dreams about all the horrible things he wants to do to all the people he despises. The only thing that stops him is the fear of getting caught.




Fear of getting caught is an illusion, though. If he truly wants to do it, he will find a way. He doesn't need to wait for the gods of chance to favor his dark predilections. If he truly wants to do those things, he will do them. He will go to a secluded alleyway. He will wear a disguise. He will work where the long arm of the law cannot reach. He will find an outlet for these desires.

Otherwise, he's not really evil, just neutral and spineless. If he's not really *doing* anything, it's all his personal fantasy. And average human beings in the Real World (and, I'd argue, In D&D) have perfectly normal fantasies every day about doing horrible horrible things to the people they despise. It doesn't often get very creative, but the expression "they should be shot," or "They deserve to die," or "Why don't you just drive off a bridge!" are all horrible things that people wish to happen to those that oppose them without being evil.



> One day, he happens upon a Hat of Disguise. His inhibition is removed; in disguise he kills his neighbour and rapes the wife; he robs the local merchants; he slaughters the children whose singing annoys him every day.
> 
> Yesterday, was he evil? I say yes, deeply. Despite never having acted on his inclinations and outlook - despite no record of evil deeds or actions - he was an evil man. The Hat of Disguise merely allowed him to demonstrate this via deed.




People commit mundane crimes without the intervention of fate every day, simply because they *want* to. A serial killer stalks his prey. A wife-beater comes home at night. A stalker lurks in the bushes. If he's waiting for a Hat of Disguise to fall into his lap, he's just fantasizing. I don't think having that fall into his hands would erase the fear of getting caught enough for your Average Joe (there are ways to see through a disguise) if more mundane ways didn't erase that fear already.

In other words, I don't think your scenario is believable. A person who truly had those deep desires would have no choice but to act on them, in petty and building ways that came about every day. There's never just "one thing" keeping someone from doing something. People are more complex and innovative than that. They can always work around one little problem. Average criminals do every day, both in real life and in D&D. So if he didn't bother to find a way to work around his little fear, he didn't have the drive and dedication enough to become evil, and I find it hard to believe he would suddenly find it with just one element (which has all sorts of problems by itself...a hat of disguise is hardly a writ of carte blanch). 

If the tadpoles are evil, they will do things to display that evil, with whatever tools they have available, even if it's only their teeth. Even if the only way they can display their evil is to feed the younger ones to the birds instead of themselves, they will act on it...or they aren't really very evil, if they don't.


----------



## ivocaliban (Feb 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> My personal take is that no, alignment doesn't record past actions, it indicates current inclination and outlook.




Exactly why I think you can't assume infants of evil humanoids or giants are evil. They might have inclination, but they haven't had an opportunity yet to develop an outlook. 

Let's say you have an ogre mage who keeps goblins as slaves. In order to keep a steady flow of workers, he initiates a breeding program among the goblins (usually neutral evil). The PCs then arrive and defeat the ogre mage and slaughter the goblins defending their master. Then they find their way into a room filled with a dozen unarmed pregnant goblins (all of which are neutral evil), all of which are about to give birth. 

Now, do the unborn goblins count as evil before they're born? Still being part of the mother do they share their alignment? Are the goblin newborns only evil once they're out of the womb? What's the paladin to do? I think a variety of paths can be justified, there isn't a simple, one-size-fits-all solution. 

And the point made earlier by *Aaron L* is an important one:



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> In a world where elf babies, which, as Hypersmurf has said, are pretty much genetically programed by their god to be Chaotic Good but yet can still grow up to be Lawful Evil, killing troll babies, which are just as likely to grow up to be Lawful Good as an elf is to grow up to be Lawful Evil (which is to say not-unheard-of), is definitely not a Good act.
> 
> 
> Preemptive execution is never a Good thing.





The door should swing both ways.


----------



## phindar (Feb 8, 2007)

Anyone ever seen the movie Regading Henry?  Me either, but I'm familiar with the plot.  It's about a man who gets amnesia, has to learn everything all over again, and turns out to be a different person.

In D&D terms it would be neat to make a npc (let's say), who is a thoroughly evil SOB.  Nature/Nurture, what have you, he's evil and he's been evil his whole life.  And let's say that he's evil enough that the pcs (including a paladin) are hunting him down.

When they find him, he's living with some farmers helping them tend their fields.  It seems in one of his near misses with the king's men, he took a nasty bump on the head and woke up some days later with no memory of who he was.  The farmers took him in, showed him some kindness, and now he's just a simple fieldhand with nothing more on his mind than whether or not he should asks his host's daughter to the harvest dance.  He doesn't detect as evil, and he'd be horrified to learn what he was, but he's still guilty of many, many crimes. 

This is similar to the plot of Total Recall, oddly.  While I am more on the side of Hyp that alignment is based on current outlook, I think that past experiences play a pretty big part of that (otherwise, alignment would change more).  It would be interesting to see how characters dealt with a villain who wasn't the person he used to be, who's past experiences had all been wiped clean.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 8, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Guilt or innocent  is not what DND is about, it is about good VS evil. Paladins don't get detect guilt they get detect evil. Why are some of you making it so much more complicated then that.




We are not talking about whether they are evil, which is a given for this scenario. We are talking about whether you can smite them simply because they are evil. 

I don't think such a smiting disqualifies you from Good, but the act itself is Neutral. I do not believe it is a good act. I believe it is likely a Chaotic act, as Lawfulness dictates you must have a justification for doing something, not just a desire to. If we don't want trolls killing our children, for instance, we should not go killing theirs. 

It is definitely a Code violation for a paladin. Killing a helpless target, who is not actually guilty of anything and presents no immenent threat, is bad. Further, most targets of a paladin's wrath are entitled to repent or at least surrender... not so in the case of helpless young creatures. Paladins are obligated to defend the weak; while that concept applies more or less to various paladins, there is definitely a point where the responsibility becomes most salient. 

Simply smiting evil because it is Evil is not Good. As noted above, I would consider a pre-emptive smite to be Neutral if it is based on prudence rather than malice. Random smiting is chaotic, but a reasonable application of who should be smitten or not could shift someone into neutral territory.

Alll Smiting, All the Time is not a LG paladin; it's a Neutral character whose personal cause is smiting all evil, all the time.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2007)

> I believe it is likely a Chaotic act, as Lawfulness dictates you must have a justification for doing something,




Does the law of the land apply to tadpoles, though?

Law dictates order, not obedience. You just have to be organized and systematic about it. If evil tadpoles have no legal recourse, the legal and ordered way to deal with it is to destroy them.



> It is definitely a Code violation for a paladin. Killing a helpless target, who is not actually guilty of anything and presents no immenent threat, is bad. Further, most targets of a paladin's wrath are entitled to repent or at least surrender... not so in the case of helpless young creatures. Paladins are obligated to defend the weak; while that concept applies more or less to various paladins, there is definitely a point where the responsibility becomes most salient.




I agree that the defenseless angle is a bit iffy, since killing them is hardly honorable. But they are guilty of things, and they do represent some threat to something (just maybe not the paladin). They're evil for a reason, after all. The most honorable and compassionate thing to do may be to end their short, wicked lives. 

As I said above, compare it to a paladin finding an evil tome of dark and wicked magic. The tome can't defend itself. Is it wrong for the paladin to destroy the tome?

For all intents and purposes, these tadpoles are not evil _creatures_, they are evil _objects_, and should be dealt with as a paladin would deal with an evil magic item.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For all intents and purposes, these tadpoles are not evil _creatures_, they are evil _objects_, and should be dealt with as a paladin would deal with an evil magic item.




Since Good creatures respect the lives of other living creatures, they are completely forbidden by their alignment from taking this position.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 8, 2007)

> Since Good creatures respect the lives of other living creatures, they are completely forbidden by their alignment from taking this position.




Is a Good creature required to respect the life of a lemure? Of an imp? Of an Ultroloth? Are they forbidden from killing a Phantom Fungus because the thing may someday choose to save an orphan?


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Is a Good creature required to respect the life of a lemure? Of an imp? Of an Ultroloth?




Yes.



> Are they forbidden from killing a Phantom Fungus because the thing may someday choose to save an orphan?




No. Respecting life does not mean never killing. But it does mean you cannot treat living creatures as mere objects. Even cows raised for meat should not be needlessly abused.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 8, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> All of you people who are for sparing these babies lives please tell me how the party is supposed to accomplish this?



If I were crazy enough to allow people to play LG paladins in my game (I prefer neutral good or neutral/lawful evil parties to DM for, or just chars on the neutral axes much more, or chaotic for that matter) and put forth this situation, the only "right" thing to do after detecting the orc babies and them showing as neutral (assuming they hadn't already been taught evil ways) would be to take them with and personally teach them what is right and wrong.  Yeah, I'd make them protect the baby orcs and teach them what is good.  They might not *succeed* but that would probably be the only "good" course of action IMO in this case.  Regular places would probably kill them (talking about so called good churches and the like) out of prejudice, and leaving them would probably make them starve, so the paladin, IMO, would be rather required to help ensure they turned out alright and were well (especially if the paladin and co. were the ones that killed the parents in the first place).  I'd also say a player doing this would inch slowly closer to neutral on the law/chaos scale and probably eventually to chaotic because IMO "absolute" good is really only possible in CG type societies or individual reasonings (that is, I think that lawful societies will tend to uphold laws, even if that makes their actions evil).  Many more actions like this would shift alignment to neutral, but not for a *long* time, and only if the action was/would be opposed by the church (not necessarily the *god*, though, since I consider them completely separate).


> I hear take them to the local church and let them do it. Okay what are the levels of the clerics in this church are they able to handle these trolls if they turn to their nature which is evil.



IMC, I'd give them a wisdom check to see if the church would be amenable to raising them as good members of society.  If the "good" church would most likely want to injure the orc babies, I'd also convey this, and that it would be an evil act to allow it to happen (again, this is all assuming the orc babies had detected as neutral). 


> If these trolls get lose and kill a bunch of good people is the paladin responsible does he need to make restitution to the families of the victims. Does he ned to bring the party back and deal with this problem or has he done his good deed and washed his hands of the problem?



 Well, I don't think they're inherently evil, so if the PCs could teach them right/wrong, they wouldn't go eating people anyway.



> Now if the church has a way of dealing with monster babies safely and the paladin has a way of safely getting these babies there that's one thing.



IMO it's not a matter of "safety" but of whether or not the church members would wantonly slay the creatures out of fear/hate (an evil act).


> But realistically what are the odds that the paladin is going to find a way to get these tadpoles to a church safely and what are the odds that the church has the ability to care for the babies?



 Refer to above, unless the paladin could be reasonably sure of convincing the church to raise them properly, he'd have to do it himself (and maybe fail, but the trying is what matters).


> Are you saying the paladin should let them go and walk away and hope for the best?



As above I'd consider that an evil act, since they'd most probably just die.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Does the law of the land apply to tadpoles, though?



The law of the Tarsisian Empire recognizes three different classes of beings: Citizens (almost entirely humans and dwarves, with a smattering of other PC races and a few others), non-citizens and monstrous races.

The penalty for killing a non-citizen is less than for a citizen and there's no penalty for killing a monstrous race that hasn't somehow risen to become a citizen (a near-impossible task, and typically only happening in Ptolus, where there's that group GQ mentioned that magically brainwashes  monsters).

Tarsisian law does not pretend to be good, but it certainly is orderly.


----------



## Bardsandsages (Feb 8, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> It's finally come up in my Midwood campaign (OK, I finally made it come up ):
> 
> After dispatching a pair of murderous river trolls (scrags) in their underwater cave, the party discovered a series of water-filled barrels brought to the area by the trolls. Each contains a scrag tadpole. The paladin sees them registering as evil, but he also doesn't believe they will be a threat for quite some time.
> 
> ...




For whatever reason, my players (paladins and other assorted alleged do-gooders) seem inclined to "adopt" such orphans.  Perhaps it is partially my fault, as I don't subscribe to the mandatory alignment nonsense.  Alignment is the result of BOTH nature and nurture, in my never humble opinion.  So the party always gets this idea to adopt the young'uns and get someone to raise them.  

This has led to an assortment of strange situations. Some turned out well (the yuan-ti children that ended up joining one player's new monk order, the baby blue dragon that became a paladin's mount), others not so good (the drow child that became an assassin and tried to hunt down the party for killing his real father).  

A lot also depends on the paladin's patron and how you have defined the society.  A paladin of Ilmater is going to respond differently that a paladin of Torm.  As well as the influence of other religions. For example, if there is a goddess of children and childbirth, she may take offense to destroying the tadpoles, evil or not.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 8, 2007)

BardsandSages, that's pretty cool.  I like situations like that.  IMC (Realms), one of the main recurring villains I pitted against the PCs was a *human male* cleric of Lolth.  They eventually found out that he was taken in a raid as a baby and raised by a drow wizard on a bet that he could turn a human male into a functioning member of drow society.  Some emergent cleric powers later and he's part of Lolth's clergy (for some other campaign specific reasons too).  He eventually got killed by a demon that he helped summon when he tried to defect (and give part of the artifact that everyone is after to the PCs) after learning of the bet (*right* before one of the characters that has been around since the beginning was going to get revenge on him, which has now transferred to the demon that killed the cleric).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Otherwise, he's not really evil, just neutral and spineless.




I disagree - I think he's evil and spineless.

Let's take two men who have perfectly normal fantasies every day about doing horrible horrible things to the people they despise.  Put each of them in a room with one of those people tied to a chair, and let them know that there will be no adverse consequences to them, whatever happens.  Both of them believe you.

The man who walks away is not evil.  The man who acts out his fantasy is.  And those things were true before you put them in that room.



> People commit mundane crimes without the intervention of fate every day, simply because they *want* to.




Yup.  And even before _doing_ something evil, I would argue that the person who will do something evil tomorrow is, in most cases, an evil person today.



> So if he didn't bother to find a way to work around his little fear, he didn't have the drive and dedication enough to become evil...




Where I would argue that he didn't have the drive and dedication to _commit_ evil, despite being an evil man.

-Hyp.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 8, 2007)

I would never play D&D with a DM who felt I should be a babysitter to all the little tykes he put in his game.

Never. Or, I'd take levels in Blackguard and kill every single one. His choice.


----------



## hamishspence (Feb 8, 2007)

*Book Of Exalted Deeds has much to say.*

"Always evil" means that it may not be irredeemable, but there is only a glimmer of hope.
Fiends are "best slain or at least banished"
Usually evil: meaning, "goblins, orcs and even the thoroughly evil drow" should be given consideration. This doesn't mean that your first thought should be "how can I redeem these poor orcs" but chance to surrender should be offered, unconcsious orcs should be healed not coup-de-graced, and most importantly, "Violence against non-combatants cannot be considered good: a exalted wizard cannot throw a fireball that includes orc women and children"
In Forgotten Realms a red/blue dragon hybrid is successfully raised good. Some metallic dragons have shifted down to Neutral alignment from good. Things can change.

Intelligence is a factor: extra consideration to brainy creatures.

Type is partly a factor: aberrations and plants are much less likely to change alignment than giants and humans. Monstrous humanoids are somewhat less likely to change. 

Evil subtype is a stronger control than being orc or troll. VERY few creatures (MUCH less than those "Formerly always evil but now good" make the change. And struggle against the force within them. However I would say that if you can authenticate their good alignment you should forgive their evil subtype.

On the other side of the coin, being Evil requires that you have done something evil according to Tyrants Of the Nine Hells. It need not be much (gratuitous humiliation counts. Evil cultures make their young go though coming of age rituals where they bully others)

In 3.0 Atonement couldn't fix wilful paladins. 3.5 removed this, and Exalted Deeds clarified that yes, a paladin can atone and regain powers and ability to advance.

Culpability: No, you aren't responsible for the deeds of others, but your conscience might still trouble you. You might still wish you had prevented, for example, the villain yanking your son as he falls off building (Last Action Hero)

I've never liked the Born Evil so Must Die view. Brian Jacques of Redwall book fame had the phrase "When mountains have crumbled into dust, vermin will still remain vermin" as an explanation for a villain raised by good guys staying evil (Veil Sixclaw in "Outcast of Redwall". Even he has a few exceptions, and his good guys make it clear they still wouldn't have been able to turn the evil infant away.

I much prefer David Gemmell, who has many examples of evil guys finding some redemption before they die (Goroien in Ghost King, the Moidart in Stormrider, even Anharat the Demon King, in Winter Warriors)


----------



## Seeten (Feb 8, 2007)

People wonder why Lawful Evil is my preferred alignment.


----------



## Delta (Feb 8, 2007)

As an old-schooler, I figure it's fair game here in the General forum to look at other edition alignment text (since that's how I understand it and really play it). Here's 1E DMG p. 23:



> LAWFUL GOOD: Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos
> with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. They are convinced
> that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good
> is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number
> of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.




So in this conception it's even less reasonable to take the monster-nursery approach. As long as the evil whelps are "probably" going to harm innocents when they grow up, then the paladin's cause is best served by terminating the critters early on.


----------



## Slife (Feb 9, 2007)

This type of issue makes me want to houserule the paladin's "detect evil" to "detect divine enemy" (IE: someone their god wants them to get rid of).  Same deal with "smite evil"

Seems like it would clear up a lot of issues.


----------



## Endur (Feb 9, 2007)

"Evil babies" don't exist.  They are either evil or they are babies.

Depending on which it is, the answer is clear.

Instead of calling them "evil babies", we could call them "goblins."  A goblin might have the same hit points and combat ability as an evil scrag tadpole.

How should higher level characters treat goblins?  As an evil creature to be taken prisoner, redeamed, and delivered unto the authorities?  Or as creatures to be smited?


----------



## Torm (Feb 9, 2007)

Endur said:
			
		

> Or as creatures to be smited?



Not to pick on you, specifically, but I see this a LOT. And, being God of Paladins, I really feel it is my DUTY to point out that this should be "smote".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2007)

So, pawsplay, if you can respect life and still kill evil things, how is killing these tadpoles not a justified action?

My "as objects" line was probably too exaggerated to be useful, but evil things should be destroyed, and these tadpoles, like an evil tome or evil rod, have no choice but to be evil. Maybe, like an evil tome, they can be "redeemed," but the paladin is under no obligation to do so. Ending their vile little existence is a positive action -- removing evil from the world.



			
				Whizbang said:
			
		

> The law of the Tarsisian Empire recognizes three different classes of beings: Citizens (almost entirely humans and dwarves, with a smattering of other PC races and a few others), non-citizens and monstrous races.
> 
> The penalty for killing a non-citizen is less than for a citizen and there's no penalty for killing a monstrous race that hasn't somehow risen to become a citizen (a near-impossible task, and typically only happening in Ptolus, where there's that group GQ mentioned that magically brainwashes monsters).
> 
> Tarsisian law does not pretend to be good, but it certainly is orderly.




So it's completely Lawful to kill these things. They're monstrous races. Vigilante destruction of them is entirely within the bounds of law and order.



			
				Hyp said:
			
		

> I disagree - I think he's evil and spineless.
> 
> Let's take two men who have perfectly normal fantasies every day about doing horrible horrible things to the people they despise. Put each of them in a room with one of those people tied to a chair, and let them know that there will be no adverse consequences to them, whatever happens. Both of them believe you.
> 
> The man who walks away is not evil. The man who acts out his fantasy is. And those things were true before you put them in that room.




I somewhat disagree. You can still be evil and not act out your fantasy in that scenario, thinking of thousands of different justifications for why you're showing mercy. And the man who acts out his fantasy, while definitely evil, also doesn't need to have prey dangled in front of him like that, either. He would be out there acting out his fantasies on a daily basis.



> Yup. And even before doing something evil, I would argue that the person who will do something evil tomorrow is, in most cases, an evil person today.




The big issue I have with this is when the tables are turned and someone *wants* to do Good, but keeps thinking of reasons not to. "I'd have saved that burning orphanage, but I'm afraid of the governor's men." "I'd stand up to the wicked overlord, but I'm scared of getting caught." "I'd save the drowning sack of puppies, but its really cold and I might get pneumonia and die and then my children wouldn't have a father."

Such a person is neutral in my eyes, because they never *do* anything good. It seems that in your view, such a person would still be good, because they'll do something good tomorrow. You know, when it's convenient for them to do good.

I apply this to evil, too. Someone who *wants* to do evil, but keeps thinking of excuses not to, who never *does* anything evil, is not evil. They're neutral. They don't just do evil things when it's convenient for them to do evil, they do evil even when it's not convenient because they sincerely hold evil values and evil world views. 



> Where I would argue that he didn't have the drive and dedication to commit evil, despite being an evil man.




Without the drive and dedication to do good, you cannot be good in my eyes, despite having good intentions. Without the drive and dedication to commit evil, you cannot be evil in my eyes, despite having evil intentions. In both cases, you're neutral until you prove yourself otherwise. 



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> "Evil babies" don't exist. They are either evil or they are babies.




Obviously, the OP's post shows that this, at least as far as he is concerned, isn't true. Evil babies do exist. They're right there, being babies, and being evil. As far as the OP's scenario is concerned, you're just...wrong.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 9, 2007)

I think part of the problem in this thread is that some of the people trying to define Lawful Goodness and Paladinhood actually subscribe to morally evil philosophies.

You might as well ask a fox what constitutes a properly-guarded henhouse.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 9, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So, pawsplay, if you can respect life and still kill evil things, how is killing these tadpoles not a justified action?




Because it makes the paladin less good. Regardless of the consequences of someone who may or may not be eaten by a troll, the act of killing those creatures leaves a stain on the paladin's soul. It may be a justified action for a LG character under some circumstances. As presented, I would not buy it.... they have no urgency whatsoever to deal with the things, and they present no immenent harm whatsoever. The paladin says, "Would I want the offspring of my race destroyed at birth whenever possible, because they were inimical to the lives of some other people?" For instance, what if nature-loving centaurs started killing human babies, which were likely to grow up to be neutral, fertile, and destructive to nature? 

Further, paladins specifically must contend with their code. Even if killing those things represents, on the balance, a good act, paladins have to consider the means by which they accomplish that. Being lawful, those means must be consistently applied. "Kill someone because they represent a probable threat" is not a Good act, not a Lawful act for a good character who embodies righteousness, and is not in keeping with their honor. 

Killing babies who might one day threaten your life and the lives of those around you is the act of an Evil tyrant, not a LG paladin. 

Good is not simply a substance which can be manufactured. Killing a young troll might result in less suffering for some others, but definitely results in a paladin not being a paladin. You really can't know the ultimate ends... what if you kill a troll that would otherwise have one day slain a bandit, who become a tyrant, who hired a wizard, who cursed the land, that fell under the sway of an archdevil?


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 9, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem in this thread is that some of the people trying to define Lawful Goodness and Paladinhood actually subscribe to morally evil philosophies.
> 
> You might as well ask a fox what constitutes a properly-guarded henhouse.




An apt point, if a bit exaggerated. I'd say I'm CN myself.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 9, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem in this thread is that some of the people trying to define Lawful Goodness and Paladinhood actually subscribe to morally evil philosophies.
> 
> You might as well ask a fox what constitutes a properly-guarded henhouse.



Care to support this?


----------



## Raloc (Feb 9, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Because it makes the paladin less good. Regardless of the consequences of someone who may or may not be eaten by a troll, the act of killing those creatures leaves a stain on the paladin's soul. It may be a justified action for a LG character under some circumstances. As presented, I would not buy it.... they have no urgency whatsoever to deal with the things, and they present no immenent harm whatsoever. The paladin says, "Would I want the offspring of my race destroyed at birth whenever possible, because they were inimical to the lives of some other people?" For instance, what if nature-loving centaurs started killing human babies, which were likely to grow up to be neutral, fertile, and destructive to nature?
> 
> Further, paladins specifically must contend with their code. Even if killing those things represents, on the balance, a good act, paladins have to consider the means by which they accomplish that. Being lawful, those means must be consistently applied. "Kill someone because they represent a probable threat" is not a Good act, not a Lawful act for a good character who embodies righteousness, and is not in keeping with their honor.
> 
> ...



See, a lot of people here are ignoring the fact that the paladin's code also includes honor.  And there is absolutely none in killing babies, whether evil or not.  If the "babies" are capable of honorable combat on the field of battle, then killing them to rid the world of their evil is indeed honorable.  I hardly think that tadpoles or orc babies qualify as being able to sustain honorable combat with a paladin of any level.  I agree with pawsplay though, killing defenseless babies is not honorable or good, and a true paladin would be able to realize this.  I don't usually DM for all Good/Lawful parties, mostly Neutral to more closely model actual humans.  So when someone DOES play a LAWFUL GOOD paladin, I expect them to be pretty good at not going on baby-murdering rampages.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 9, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Because it makes the paladin less good. Regardless of the consequences of someone who may or may not be eaten by a troll, the act of killing those creatures leaves a stain on the paladin's soul. It may be a justified action for a LG character under some circumstances. As presented, I would not buy it.... they have no urgency whatsoever to deal with the things, and they present no immenent harm whatsoever. The paladin says, "Would I want the offspring of my race destroyed at birth whenever possible, because they were inimical to the lives of some other people?" For instance, what if nature-loving centaurs started killing human babies, which were likely to grow up to be neutral, fertile, and destructive to nature?
> 
> Further, paladins specifically must contend with their code. Even if killing those things represents, on the balance, a good act, paladins have to consider the means by which they accomplish that. Being lawful, those means must be consistently applied. "Kill someone because they represent a probable threat" is not a Good act, not a Lawful act for a good character who embodies righteousness, and is not in keeping with their honor.
> 
> ...





The what if arguement works both ways. My allowing these scargs to live they grow up to be the monsters that the paladin was afraid they would be and the go an kill an innocent young boy who was going to grow up to be a wizard that would save the world one day.

There is no way for the paladin to know either way. He has to deal with the here and now the right this minute and he is faced with scargs who radiate strong evil. Right at this moment in time they are evil. They have killed before.

The paladin has two choiced that are imo keeping with his code he can kill them and rid the world of their evil or he can try and redeem them. Neither in my game would cause a problem.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 9, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The highest level cleric in the barony, the Bishop of Midwood, is level 9. The majority of the clergy are experts, not clerics. The paladin 1/cleric 1 in question is actually the highest-ranking cleric in Maidensbridge.




So then most churches would not have the ability to protect themselves from these scargs if they went with their nature?

I have another question for you would this party be able to transport the barrel over a distence and wou;d these scargs eat deer meat if offered?


----------



## Seeten (Feb 9, 2007)

I admit it. I'm both morally bankrupt, and Lawful-Evil in real life. Doesn't mean I don't know a properly guarded Henhouse when I go to eat some hens.


----------



## Gnome Quixote (Feb 9, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> I have, perhaps, put more thought into cop shows and D&D than is really necessary, but its because I have always wanted to run a paladin and cleric -centric game that focused on the law enforcement in a large fantasy city.  Law & Order: D&D.  I would even love it if we incorporated the dirtier cops of The Shield, and those of the Canadian Coroner's office on Da Vinci's Inquest.  But every time I mention it to players I'm met with blank stares, so I guess I'm waiting on a group who loves cop shows as much as I do.  (Or they're just afraid they'll have to turn all the loot they find over into evidence.  Its probably 50-50.)



I somehow missed this in the course of following this thread. If you ever decided to run this as a pbp here on EN World, I would absolutely sign up for this game!


----------



## Warren Okuma (Feb 9, 2007)

Hold on.  Troll.  3.0 (the first monster manual I found)  Hmmm... page 180... Alignment:  Always chaotic evil.  Smack.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 9, 2007)

Warren Okuma said:
			
		

> Hold on.  Troll.  3.0 (the first monster manual I found)  Hmmm... page 180... Alignment:  Always chaotic evil.  Smack.




In 3.5, they're 'Usually', not 'Always'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Warren Okuma (Feb 9, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In 3.5, they're 'Usually', not 'Always'.
> 
> -Hyp.



Yes.  

And in 3.5 you have to detect evil.  That's why paladin's have them.  If they are evil, smack.  If they are not... well... if you worship St. Cuthbert the god of retribution.  Smack.  If Heironeous god of valor you might let them live to provide another paladin the chance of valor.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 9, 2007)

Warren Okuma said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> And in 3.5 you have to detect evil.  That's why paladin's have them.  If they are evil, smack.  If they are not... well... if you worship St. Cuthbert the god of retribution.  Smack.  If Heironeous god of valor you might let them live to provide another paladin the chance of valor.




I played a cleric of St. Cuthbert in a game recently.  If we had evil prisoners, I'd ask them: "Do you accept the glory of St. Cuthbert and atone for your sins?"

If they said no, I'd say, "Then I condemn you to the Abyss."  Smack!

If they said yes, then I'd say, "May you revel in the presence of St. Cuthbert."  Smack!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2007)

> Because it makes the paladin less good. Regardless of the consequences of someone who may or may not be eaten by a troll, the act of killing those creatures leaves a stain on the paladin's soul. It may be a justified action for a LG character under some circumstances. As presented, I would not buy it.... they have no urgency whatsoever to deal with the things, and they present no immenent harm whatsoever. The paladin says, "Would I want the offspring of my race destroyed at birth whenever possible, because they were inimical to the lives of some other people?" For instance, what if nature-loving centaurs started killing human babies, which were likely to grow up to be neutral, fertile, and destructive to nature?




They do present an imminent threat. Not to the paladin, but to perhaps other innocent creatures. They are evil. They have killed. They will do so again. They are not innocent, defenseless human babies. They are ruthless, vile, killing machines. 

The paladin is not going to be defending himself by killing these things, but he will be protecting those who don't have his power -- the commoners and housecats and other weaklings of the world. He will be defending the weak from the evil contained in these weak beings. That doesn't make him any less good.



> Further, paladins specifically must contend with their code. Even if killing those things represents, on the balance, a good act, paladins have to consider the means by which they accomplish that. Being lawful, those means must be consistently applied. "Kill someone because they represent a probable threat" is not a Good act, not a Lawful act for a good character who embodies righteousness, and is not in keeping with their honor.
> 
> Killing babies who might one day threaten your life and the lives of those around you is the act of an Evil tyrant, not a LG paladin.




The babies do pose a threat, though. They pose a threat to everything they can get their chompy little teeth on. It might not be much, but its enough for them to already have become evil. They have done wicked deeds already, and will continue to do so. The paladin must protect those weaker than himself, and sometimes that means killing those weaker than himself.



> Good is not simply a substance which can be manufactured. Killing a young troll might result in less suffering for some others, but definitely results in a paladin not being a paladin. You really can't know the ultimate ends... what if you kill a troll that would otherwise have one day slain a bandit, who become a tyrant, who hired a wizard, who cursed the land, that fell under the sway of an archdevil?




I disagree. Just as sometimes the paladin must kill level 1 mooks who support the necromancer king (and beat puppies), sometimes a paladin must also kill troll tadpoles who are out for murder (and beat puppies). The power of the creature has little bearing on this: the paladin is *required* to protect those who cannot protect themselves, sometimes by slaying things that are not a threat to him, but who threaten society, safety, and integrity of those weaker than himself. That's protecting the innocent.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 9, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget, your arguments are interesting, but they just don't convince me. What you are saying makes sense for a Vulcan. It does not, however, work for a LG paladin. They must never do evil, they must remain in the main Lawful, and they cannot betray their code. 

Killing evil things on the probability (not the certainty) they will do evil acts is a cynical act, and further, raises the question, "what is the difference between good and evil if both simply kill all who oppose them?" The "greater good" couner-example I gave is straight out of Kant. When asked whether it was permissible to lie to save someone's life, he replied no, if it is wrong to lie, it is always wrong to lie. There is another school of thought, called utilitarianism, which focuses on achieving good for the many, even if it means the suffering of a few. 

Now, a paladin in D&D is bound to neither viewpoint, and most will incorporate elements of both ("extraordinary burdens" arguments, for instance, would argue for utilitarianism, unless it creates an extraordinary burden for the minority chosen to suffer). They are, however, bound in certain ways to advancing either viewpoint. While killing a few evil babies might produce a momentary benefit, ultimately, a policy of doing so creates a hard, terrible world. The greatest good for the greatest number necessitates that those who are punished are actually guilty; a false conviction aimed to "better society" actually steals security from everyone. And the paladin who kills babies extinguishes young, helpless trolls also extinguishes the quality of mercy. These arguments are the basis for things such as civil rights, the concept of a "just war," and the argument of the slippery slope. 

Suppose, for instance, a gnome mathematician proved that human babies raised in a particular bandit tribe were AS LIKELY to become CE as trolls raised among their own kind, and kill as many or more people. The trolls are born evil. The human babies are not. But in searching for the greatest good for the greatest number, killing either is exactly the same. We don't care what's in their heart, only what evil they will do.

I reject that argument. In D&D, at least, a moral viewpoint is meaningful, irrespective of whether it has a material basis. While consequences are important, intentions are important, too.

I certainly would not countenance a LG paladin slaying another LG paladin in cold blood, however many people might benefit. Suppose, for instance, that a LG paladin learned that one of the sisters of his order was destined to give birth to a half fiend who would ascend to deific status and rule the world for a hundred years. Imagine that she is currently 20 years old, a LG paladin of 2nd level, and absolutely believes she can avert that prophecy. 

Is killing her a LG act?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 9, 2007)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> So then most churches would not have the ability to protect themselves from these scargs if they went with their nature?



The clergy are unlikely to be able to protect themselves. What's more, given the fundementalist leanings of the bishop (whom the player characters do not see eye to eye with -- if there weren't imminent threats to the barony they're running around dealing with, I suspect he'd be a Lawful Not-Evil villain they'd be all over, in a non-combat fashion), they'd be very unlikely to if they could.



> I have another question for you would this party be able to transport the barrel over a distence and wou;d these scargs eat deer meat if offered?



They're in an air-filled cave in an underwater lake. Bobbing barrels to the surface without the scragpoles escaping would be a huge trick -- they only stayed in on the way down because they did so voluntarily. The scragpoles have never eaten anything except humanoids, so it'd be a toss-up if they'd take a bite out of anything else.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 9, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So, what would your paladins do in this situation? As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?




The two paladins who were in my games. Hmmm. 

Sir Malachi Templar of St. Cuthbert would say "They are evil, wielding the sword of Truth I know there is no deception about their evilness." And he would slay them all.

I have no idea how the paladin of Athena in my old ravenloft game would deal with it. He had his own ideas about his religious restrictions which I was happy to go with.

As a DM I would not rule it an evil action and would not strip away a paladin's powers for slaying them. I would be fine either way a paladin's PC decided was right for his character.


----------



## Mort (Feb 9, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Now, a paladin in D&D is bound to neither viewpoint, and most will incorporate elements of both ("extraordinary burdens" arguments, for instance, would argue for utilitarianism, unless it creates an extraordinary burden for the minority chosen to suffer). They are, however, bound in certain ways to advancing either viewpoint. While killing a few evil babies might produce a momentary benefit, ultimately, a policy of doing so creates a hard, terrible world. The greatest good for the greatest number necessitates that those who are punished are actually guilty; a false conviction aimed to "better society" actually steals security from everyone. And the paladin who kills babies extinguishes young, helpless trolls also extinguishes the quality of mercy. These arguments are the basis for things such as civil rights, the concept of a "just war," and the argument of the slippery slope.




Interesting that you characterise them as "young, helpless trolls", that's not in the original post. I can just as easily say "irrational, rabid, dangerous, indiscriminate killing machines", does that make the decision easier?

Remember this is not a blank slate for the paladin. His teachings likely tell him "these are irredeamably evil. If they fall into the irredeamably evil slot, they get squished like maggots."  Now if his teachings tell him otherwise (perhaps there are acclimated trolls that live in relative pease with others in this world, they just need the proper upbringing) then it's a completely different story.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Suppose, for instance, a gnome mathematician proved that human babies raised in a particular bandit tribe were AS LIKELY to become CE as trolls raised among their own kind, and kill as many or more people. The trolls are born evil. The human babies are not. But in searching for the greatest good for the greatest number, killing either is exactly the same. We don't care what's in their heart, only what evil they will do.
> 
> I reject that argument. In D&D, at least, a moral viewpoint is meaningful, irrespective of whether it has a material basis. While consequences are important, intentions are important, too.




But if the human babies haven't been "raised" yet, then they do have the capability to change - so your argument is faulty here. Also in D&D, unlike real life there is an ABSOLUTE means to determine good vs. evil - as long as you trust that means the question becomes much easier.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> I certainly would not countenance a LG paladin slaying another LG paladin in cold blood, however many people might benefit. Suppose, for instance, that a LG paladin learned that one of the sisters of his order was destined to give birth to a half fiend who would ascend to deific status and rule the world for a hundred years. Imagine that she is currently 20 years old, a LG paladin of 2nd level, and absolutely believes she can avert that prophecy.
> 
> Is killing her a LG act?




This is actually an issue of wisdom because prophecies are funny things. Killing the paladin is not thinking things through, because what if killing her is what triggers her rise - for a fun example see this story hour. Also, rember D&D Paladins and clerics have means to an answer, if they worship a LG deity and that deity says "sorry she must die," it's hard not to take that at face value - heck if she's truly devout she may do it herself.


----------



## Warren Okuma (Feb 9, 2007)

Paladin's are foremost religious warriors.   What do their god wants.  All else is rubbish.  

Ask what would Saint Cuthbert God of Retribution want?  Retribution.  

Arguing Kant is blasphemy.  Paladin's do not worship Kant.  Paladin's do not worship Superman.  Asking what would superman would do is heresy.  You would lose your paladinhood faster than you can say blasphemy.  You would ask what would Saint Cuthbert God of Retribution would do...  That's the paladin's way.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 9, 2007)

Warren Okuma said:
			
		

> Paladin's are foremost religious warriors.   What do their god wants.  All else is rubbish.
> 
> Ask what would Saint Cuthbert God of Retribution want?  Retribution.
> 
> Arguing Kant is blasphemy.  Paladin's do not worship Kant.  Paladin's do not worship Superman.  Asking what would superman would do is heresy.  You would lose your paladinhood faster than you can say blasphemy.  You would ask what would Saint Cuthbert God of Retribution would do...  That's the paladin's way.



It's a little trickier for a Lothianite paladin, in that case. Lothian's word has been stretched into multiple directions since he lived as a mortal. It's been used to justify the wholesale slaughter of arcane spellcasters and anyone worshipping another god (which the fundementalists say -- with some scriptural back-up -- were all actually demons). And he's also been touted as a god of love. Emmerson's view is more toward the latter than the former, but he's also been raised hearing a less tolerant version of Lothian's word.


----------



## Delta (Feb 9, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Killing evil things on the probability (not the certainty) they will do evil acts is a cynical act...
> 
> Suppose, for instance, a gnome mathematician proved that human babies raised in a particular bandit tribe were AS LIKELY to become CE as trolls raised among their own kind, and kill as many or more people. The trolls are born evil. The human babies are not....
> 
> Suppose, for instance, that a LG paladin learned that one of the sisters of his order was destined to give birth to a half fiend who would ascend to deific status and rule the world for a hundred years. Imagine that she is currently 20 years old, a LG paladin of 2nd level, and absolutely believes she can avert that prophecy. Is killing her a LG act?




And yet the 1E DMG defined "Lawful Good" in precisely the way that you reject. 

I think under D&D principles human babies of a given tribe _would_ have to be born evil to be as "potentially" evil as troll whelps. You can't say that they're "less evil" and yet "more evil" in the same breath.

I also believe that killing the 2nd paladin would in fact be justified, playing by the 1E understanding. Now, you'd better have a rock-solid guaranteed prophecy (which I've _never_ seen in D&D!). If you're wrong and act on it then you just "pulled a Miko". If you're right then your secular life may get overwhelmingly difficult anyway -- paladinhood is tough.


----------



## phindar (Feb 9, 2007)

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I think its possible that Paladin A would kill the scrag whelps in the interest of public safety, and Paladin B would bring try to raise them as civilized beings, and Paladin C would release them in the wild, far away from civilization, _*and all three paladins would be correct.*_

*Alignment is a guideline.*  As long as the paladin's players are guided by their conscience and are trying to do what they believe is right, I think they're within the code.  (Even if I disagree with them.)  



(Also, I never saw the prequels and only have a vague idea of what a "Sith" is, but I read that line in a Twisted Toyfare Theatre and it always cracked me up.)


----------



## mythusmage (Feb 9, 2007)

My problem is...

Just how does a baby orc get to be a paladin?


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 9, 2007)

I never imagined that so many people would think of Paladins as moral relativists or utilitarians.  If I expect anybody to be a moral realist and absolutist, it's a Paladin.

Just look at the way it works in religions that have Commandments.  If blasphemy is absolutely prohibited, that means that you can never do it under any circumstances _ever_.  Look at all the martyrs in history who have been burned, skinned, grilled, raped, devoured, etc. because they wouldn't transgress their religion.  That's a Paladin for you: he will never blaspheme under any circumstances no matter what the consequences.  A moral absolute short-circuits any reasoning based on consequences: if it is absolutely prohibited, then you can never do it regardless of the consequences of doing or not doing it.  Period.

For a Lawful Good Paladin, blasphemy won't be the only absolute prohibition.  At the very least, rape, infanticide, adultery and murder will be in there.  So no Paladin could commit a rape even if he knows for a fact that doing so will stop some terrible evil from happening.  Because that's one of the things you're absolutely not allowed to do.

I understand that we don't discuss real world religions here, but I can think of several rather old (but current) ones that have just these prohibitions as absolutes that can never be transgressed.  Being a Paladin should be at least as hard as adhering to the sort of common modern religious code that defines behavior for hundreds of millions of people in the real world.  Maybe even ever so slightly harder.  But still quite do-able... it just means making some tough choices sometimes.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Feb 9, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
> 
> I think its possible that Paladin A would kill the scrag whelps in the interest of public safety, and Paladin B would bring try to raise them as civilized beings, and Paladin C would release them in the wild, far away from civilization, _*and all three paladins would be correct.*_
> 
> ...




Yes and no.  You may hold that alignment is a guideline; that may be so.  But there are two things to consider: First, alignment is not _wholly_ subjective, since beings do radiate it.  Therefore there is a limit what people may get away with even if they think they're doing the right thing.  Lord Soth, for example, didn't think he had done anything particularly evil when he gave up on his holy quest, at least until he became an undead Death Knight...

Second, a Paladin must not only uphold a LG alignment, but he must also uphold his god's tenets.  In this case, the tenets of the particular branch of Lothianism he professes.  I'm assuming mercy has some bigger part of it than in the branch his bishop professes.

So if I were that paladin, considering that there is no practical way to take them to some sort of remote wilderness monastery where they could be raised as good creatures; and that there probably isn't any such monastery; and that the tadpoles are intelectually developed enough to understand they are being deliberately malicious, I'd smite them.  Then I'd do some penance helping fix up some peasant huts, perhaps, after the adventure is over, or some sort of religious pilgrimage.  At any rate, try to atone a bit.  That would be both interesting and a possible source of plot hooks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 10, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> I think its possible that Paladin A would kill the scrag whelps in the interest of public safety, and Paladin B would bring try to raise them as civilized beings, and Paladin C would release them in the wild, far away from civilization, and all three paladins would be correct.




Let me say first of all, so that I'm clear, that this is the position I would *actually* take in the game. There's a thousand different flavors of "adhering to the paladin's code," and this is a sticky enough situation that I wouldn't penalize the paladin for making a difficult choice.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Kamikaze Midget, your arguments are interesting, but they just don't convince me. What you are saying makes sense for a Vulcan. It does not, however, work for a LG paladin. They must never do evil, they must remain in the main Lawful, and they cannot betray their code.




Well, if they're interesting and valid, that's mostly what I was shooting for. Y'know, so you can see how a rational DM could uphold the killing of these scragpoles without penalizing the paladin. 



> Killing evil things on the probability (not the certainty) they will do evil acts is a cynical act, and further, raises the question, "what is the difference between good and evil if both simply kill all who oppose them?" The "greater good" couner-example I gave is straight out of Kant. When asked whether it was permissible to lie to save someone's life, he replied no, if it is wrong to lie, it is always wrong to lie. There is another school of thought, called utilitarianism, which focuses on achieving good for the many, even if it means the suffering of a few.




Philosophical ethics aside, both sides in D&D *should* kill all who oppose them. Evil characters additionally want to kill those who don't really oppose them and also those who side with them and pretty much everyone else in existence.  Good characters are comfortable with those who don't oppose them, and would aid those who side with them. Now, that's something of an extrapolation from the alignment rules, and is certainly open to debate, but what's clear in the game is that the good guys (PC's) kill the bad guys (monsters) and this is a good act. Good guys don't kill neutrals (NPC's), and, in fact, help them out a lot, and this is a good act. Bad guys kill neutrals and work against them, and this is an evil act. Bad guys also kill good guys and work against them, and this is an evil act. Bad guys also kill bad guys and work against them, and this is an evil act. 

A paladin cannot tolerate the existence of evil. Evil exists in those tadpoles. Those tadpoles are bad guys. That's as certain as killing any fully-grown orc berserker. It's not a mere "maybe they will," it's an issue of "They have and aside from going to extreme and unrealistic lengths to rehabilitate them, they will again."

Think of the paladin faced with a prisoner, a necromancer's apprentice. Say, the paladin is an epic-level hero of renown, and the apprentice is some level 1 adept who wants to raise the dead. Certainly not a threat to the paladin, but possibly a threat to the townsfolk. The paladin knows he's evil. He doesn't seem repentant about that fact. The necromancer's apprentice will continue every day to do evil deeds to further his evil aims. Does the paladin have to leave him alone, simply out of respect for life?



> Now, a paladin in D&D is bound to neither viewpoint, and most will incorporate elements of both ("extraordinary burdens" arguments, for instance, would argue for utilitarianism, unless it creates an extraordinary burden for the minority chosen to suffer). They are, however, bound in certain ways to advancing either viewpoint. While killing a few evil babies might produce a momentary benefit, ultimately, a policy of doing so creates a hard, terrible world.




How ya figure? Killing evil babies makes for a world where there aren't evil adults, and if you abhor the existence of evil in any form, that sounds like a pretty sweet world. Now, human babies aren't evil, so you can't go around killing them. But scragpoles? Absolutely fair game, here.

And if all trolls everywhere are always born virtually irredeemably evil? It's permissible D&D Good-aligned genocide. It doesn't have to be *pretty*, but it is very much *good*. 



> The greatest good for the greatest number necessitates that those who are punished are actually guilty; a false conviction aimed to "better society" actually steals security from everyone. And the paladin who kills babies extinguishes young, helpless trolls also extinguishes the quality of mercy. These arguments are the basis for things such as civil rights, the concept of a "just war," and the argument of the slippery slope.




They are helpless to the paladin, but obviously not entirely helpless, or they would not have been able to commit the evil that enables them to have their alignment. It's not for a better society -- it's a direct divine retribution for their crimes and sins. They are guilty. They are evil monsters . You can't get much more clear than that.

And lest someone tries _reductio ad absurdium_, let me say that the circumstances certainly weigh in on the ideas of honor and lawfulness in killing things "just because they're evil." In this case, killing it just because its evil is pretty much required. If it was a merchant in the square, it'd be different (namely because said merchant would have legal protection, but for other reasons as well). 



> Suppose, for instance, a gnome mathematician proved that human babies raised in a particular bandit tribe were AS LIKELY to become CE as trolls raised among their own kind, and kill as many or more people. The trolls are born evil. The human babies are not. But in searching for the greatest good for the greatest number, killing either is exactly the same. We don't care what's in their heart, only what evil they will do.




No, we do care what's in their heart. That's why we _detect evil_. And if their heart currently contains evil, it is a good act to destroy them. If a gnome found out that humans raised would become CE, the idea would then be to kill them when they become CE, maybe wage a war on their tribe, reform them with missionaries and violence, because they have a choice. 

A barrel full of tadpoles isn't just likely to be CE. They are, at the moment. They've done things to make them so. 



> I reject that argument. In D&D, at least, a moral viewpoint is meaningful, irrespective of whether it has a material basis. While consequences are important, intentions are important, too.




Intentions have a bearing, but actions determine your alignment. Alignment is what you *do*, not what you *think*. If you are good, you do good. If you are evil, you do evil. If you are neutral, really don't do much of either. More to the point here, it is not morally questionable to kill these scragpoles. They are evil. They have been. They will be. They threaten every humanoid they come across. They're the wolf loose in your back yard. Do you wait for them to eat your children before you shoot them?



> I certainly would not countenance a LG paladin slaying another LG paladin in cold blood, however many people might benefit. Suppose, for instance, that a LG paladin learned that one of the sisters of his order was destined to give birth to a half fiend who would ascend to deific status and rule the world for a hundred years. Imagine that she is currently 20 years old, a LG paladin of 2nd level, and absolutely believes she can avert that prophecy.
> 
> Is killing her a LG act?




I'd say sure. It's definitely not an act they'd loose their status for. It's an entirely justifiable LG position. Now, it's risky...making a habit of jumping to conclusions and using violence to accomplish your goals certainly isn't the safest way of guarding your soul. A wise paladin would caution that all other methods of trying to avert the prophecy must be tried first, and would make absolutely sure that killing this paladin would actually avert the prophecy (as in, the half-fiend can't be born to a different paladin). But I could see a LG church slaying a woman pregnant with the foetus of Satan. Heck, I could see her *begging* to be killed. Better that she sacrifice herself for the greater good than to allow such great evil into the world.

In fact, I think I've run campaigns like that before, with the PC's caught int he middle. I am kind of a fan of Good vs. Good plotlines, though.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Feb 10, 2007)

If this thread has inspired me to do anything, it's that I'm going to write a Paladin's Code for my campaign should someone step up to the plate to play a Paladin in the future.  I'm going to pretty clearly define how they should be acting in given situations (Prisoners, no prisoners, etc.)


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The clergy are unlikely to be able to protect themselves. What's more, given the fundementalist leanings of the bishop (whom the player characters do not see eye to eye with -- if there weren't imminent threats to the barony they're running around dealing with, I suspect he'd be a Lawful Not-Evil villain they'd be all over, in a non-combat fashion), they'd be very unlikely to if they could.
> 
> 
> They're in an air-filled cave in an underwater lake. Bobbing barrels to the surface without the scragpoles escaping would be a huge trick -- they only stayed in on the way down because they did so voluntarily. The scragpoles have never eaten anything except humanoids, so it'd be a toss-up if they'd take a bite out of anything else.





Thanks for the description.

This is why I don't favor having a paladin code that is so rigid like don't slay evil prisoners. Its not fair to the paladin to handicap him in such a way. The paladin needs to have some leeway in handling situations like the one above.

The paladin in the above situation may not enjoy doing his duty he may feel the need for prayer afterwards, but choosing not to endanger his party and other innocent lives he should not lose his paladinhood over this.

The water right now us the natural enviorment for these scags and can just see the chaos they could inflict on the party as the party swam out with them.


----------



## Elephant (Feb 10, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Where did you find this rule?




It's in the MM (or the SRD)

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm

Under Alignment, it says "Usually Chaotic Evil"


----------



## Elephant (Feb 10, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Only a Sith deals in absolutes.




Perhaps, but that has no bearing on D&D.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 11, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> I also believe that killing the 2nd paladin would in fact be justified, playing by the 1E understanding. Now, you'd better have a rock-solid guaranteed prophecy (which I've _never_ seen in D&D!). If you're wrong and act on it then you just "pulled a Miko". If you're right then your secular life may get overwhelmingly difficult anyway -- paladinhood is tough.




If it's a rock-solid guaranteed prophecy, then killing her won't stop it; either way, she's still destined to give birth to the half-fiend who'll rule the world, but one path has you killing a paladin and the other doesn't.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nikroecyst (Feb 11, 2007)

Kill them all but one, raise that one to be a good and do good deeds to atone for thier sacrifice!


----------



## Slife (Feb 11, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Only a Sith deals in absolutes.



Hello, Darth Phinidarius.




(That's the Worst... Line... Evar!)


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 12, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem in this thread is that some of the people trying to define Lawful Goodness and Paladinhood actually subscribe to morally evil philosophies.
> 
> You might as well ask a fox what constitutes a properly-guarded henhouse.





Wait a minute... did you _actually_ just say that some of the _people_ posting in this thread are evil?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 12, 2007)

> If it's a rock-solid guaranteed prophecy, then killing her won't stop it; either way, she's still destined to give birth to the half-fiend who'll rule the world, but one path has you killing a paladin and the other doesn't.




Yeah, that's why it's not necessarily the wisest move, this whole "slaying Paladin Preggers" plan. And that's why wise masters would probably caution against it, except as a last resort, if it was assured...they'd be studying that prophecy day and night to come up with an alternate plan, and to be sure that killing Paladin Preggers would actually halt the prophecy.

But it is a valid LG decision to make, and one that additionally is in keeping with the paladin's code. Even if it goes horribly wrong, it's not an evil action, though it certainly sets a dangerous precedent (especially if it goes horribly wrong).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 12, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> If this thread has inspired me to do anything, it's that I'm going to write a Paladin's Code for my campaign should someone step up to the plate to play a Paladin in the future.  I'm going to pretty clearly define how they should be acting in given situations (Prisoners, no prisoners, etc.)



Working on mine now. Started with Boy Scout Law, and adding elements of Superman that are workable for D&D (the no killing this is obviously not going to fly) and then going to compare it to the PHB mini-code.


----------



## Torm (Feb 12, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Wait a minute... did you _actually_ just say that some of the _people_ posting in this thread are evil?



I think Korgoth did, and to be perfectly honest, a version of this same thought has occurred to me before as well - not so much that the other people trying to define a Paladin's Code are EVIL, per se. More that it is difficult for people who lack _utter_ moral clarity (or the other side of that coin, being a zealot) to properly define what it is to be someone who DOES have it. Sort of like a child trying to pretend to be an adult (they lack the information and experience) or an adult trying to pretend to be a child (they lack the uninformed innocence) - they may get close, but their frame of reference won't really allow it to be quite right.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 12, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Wait a minute... did you _actually_ just say that some of the _people_ posting in this thread are evil?




So... some folks are saying that it would be a _good act_ to murder a pregnant woman (a Paladin no less) in order to kill her unborn child based on what it would do in the future... and you have a beef with _me_?

Anyway, I said that some folks subscribe to morally evil philosophies, not that they act on them.  As far as I know I don't know any of the posters, so I don't know how they do or don't behave.  If you find out one of our posters murders some pregnant lady or stangles an alien baby, PM me about it after you call the real life police on them.

Point is, if murdering a pregnant woman _for any reason whatsoever_ sounds to you like it could be reasonable, maybe you're not the guy to explain to the world what a Paladin is supposed to be like.


----------



## Delta (Feb 12, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> So... some folks are saying that it would be a _good act_ to murder a pregnant woman (a Paladin no less) in order to kill her unborn child based on what it would do in the future... and you have a beef with _me_?




I think you're having trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. D&D good is not the same thing as real-world good (for one thing, the former has a canonical definition).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 12, 2007)

> So... some folks are saying that it would be a good act to murder a pregnant woman (a Paladin no less) in order to kill her unborn child based on what it would do in the future... and you have a beef with me?




I sincerely hope you realize I'm talking about a fantasy world where objective good and evil can be determined with 100% certainty. 

Because we are in an RPG discussion forum on a D&D website, and not talking at all about a real-world scenario or morality. 



> Anyway, I said that some folks subscribe to morally evil philosophies, not that they act on them. As far as I know I don't know any of the posters, so I don't know how they do or don't behave. If you find out one of our posters murders some pregnant lady or stangles an alien baby, PM me about it after you call the real life police on them.




 



> Point is, if murdering a pregnant woman for any reason whatsoever sounds to you like it could be reasonable, maybe you're not the guy to explain to the world what a Paladin is supposed to be like.




Why not? Because a fantasy world's moral code doesn't mesh up with what you think is good and evil in the real world? That's like saying that someone who had never tried cast a magic spell couldn't tell you what a wizard's supposed to be like.

Ease up on the personal attacks, there, Porkins.






Stay on target! Stay on target!

In order so that those who will listen will hear, it is entirely consistent in a D&D universe to have killing a pregnant woman be an entirely Good-aligned action. Death is not always an evil thing -- death of an evil being, in fact, is a good thing. And if a powerful evil being can be prevented from even coming to be, by the death of a single good being, it is better to allow that person to die than to allow them to live. If they fight you, they may even be guilty of evil -- they are selfishly considering their own life above the lives of those that will be harmed by what they bring.

Good. Is. Not. Always. Nice.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 12, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> I think you're having trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. D&D good is not the same thing as real-world good (for one thing, the former has a canonical definition).




There wasn't a disclaimer at the beginning of the thread saying we'd be discussing the semantics of Moon-Language rather than English.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Because a fantasy world's moral code doesn't mesh up with what you think is good and evil in the real world?




How about this: I'll start a thread asking whether Paladins should put poison on their blades, and then I'll move the goalposts by stating that in my campaign, "poison" refers to NaCl.  After all it's just a fantasy world, so they could conceivably call NaCl "poison".  Then after I make that move, I'll sling mud at anybody who argued against poison use.  I'll even put in little smileys like I think they're some kind of loon who can't tell fantasy from reality, because they should have assumed that the word "poison" doesn't mean a harmful substance.

But thanks for being irrational and insulting anyway.  It might have been stultifying to read, but it tells me plenty about you.


----------



## dren (Feb 12, 2007)

I don't really care about other people's arguements or even the ofiicial rules on this one, the way I've explained to my players is that every mortal* creature has the possibility of both free choice and redemption and if possible should be saved rather then being killed. Paladins should not massacre evil, except when they have proof that they have either committed evil and a crime (that is punishable by death) or are in the act of doing evil. 

This has never really gotten in the way of the game because 99% of the time, paladins only encounter evil creatures (big, bad, smelly, stinks of evil kind) in a combat situation. Otherwise, a paladin would be breaking the law by slaughtering someone evil that hasn't comitted a crime that can be proven. Of course, the paladin can kill someone but normally they can only get away with it once or twice before a LN officer would arrest them. 

A paladin may not get arrested for slaughtering the innocents of orcs that are hated in a given area, but they certainly wouldn't be liked, respected, and probably seen as a fanatic in most cosmopolitian locations.

*Mortal creatures are anything that has a finite life span, two parents and needs to eat. Thus undead, magical beasts, outsiders & aberrations generally fit outside these parameters and are not believed to be subject to free will. They are what they are, so if something smells of evil, the paladin can go smite-happy on the thing.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Point is, if murdering a pregnant woman _for any reason whatsoever_ sounds to you like it could be reasonable, maybe you're not the guy to explain to the world what a Paladin is supposed to be like.





No, Korgoth.  The point is that you seem to be new here, and you may be unaware that we have some rules of conduct for these boards that you are violating.  Please follow the link and review them.

Please show respect to your fellow board members, and be civil.  Accusations and insults are not welcome here.  Please do not ascribe motives or moralities to other posters - the internet is known to be a really lousy medium for mind-reading.

If any of this is unclear, please feel free to e-mail one of the moderators.  Our addresses are available in a thread stickied to the top of the Meta forum.  Thank you, and welcome to EN World.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 12, 2007)

> How about this: I'll start a thread asking whether Paladins should put poison on their blades




Generally, it is held that poison violates the "honorable combat" part of the oath, but even that is hotly debated. The idea for one side goes that the paladin should be destroying evil with his own hands, rather than with subterfuge, skullduggery, and sneaktheifery. The idea for the other goes that poison is just a tool, like fireballs and the Hide skill, and the paladin should be free to use it as they do any tool.

More to the point of the paragraph, "evil" and "good" have clear definitions and ways to read them in D&D, and these definitions are different (but similar to) what the real world's western Judeo-Christian post-enlightenment milieu considers the concepts to be. In D&D, because you can tell what is evil, destroying evil is good. In the real world, because you can't, destroying what you think might be evil is seriously a stickier issue. Y'know the line "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged?" In D&D, it's turned on its head, because the gods give the mortals the capacity to judge -- and the imperative to do so. No one has been re-defining the D&D terms, just extrapolating from their implications, unlike someone who would claim that salt is poison, because that would be re-defining what D&D means by "poison."


----------



## hong (Feb 12, 2007)

Well, Whizbang Dustyboots, I HOPE YOU'RE SATISFIED.


----------



## Deadguy (Feb 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, Whizbang Dustyboots, I HOPE YOU'RE SATISFIED.



Bravo, hong!


----------



## Trench (Feb 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, Whizbang Dustyboots, I HOPE YOU'RE SATISFIED.




heh.


----------



## phindar (Feb 12, 2007)

A discussion of paladin behavior and alignment has somehow spiraled into personal attacks?  What... are... the... odds?  

I do find one thing strange.  Paladin debates go spiraling out of control all the time, and they aren't the only class that have alignment restrictions, but I have never heard or read anyone complaining a barbarian has been going around being honest and fair and was in danger of becoming Lawful and losing his ability to rage.  That never comes up.  But paladins face a dilemma, and we go all Lord of the Flies on one another.


----------



## Torm (Feb 12, 2007)

I would like to add that _I_ meant no insult or disrespect to anyone with what _I_ said. In the real world, it is extremely difficult for someone to HAVE "utter moral clarity" - myself included - and honestly, I tend to worry a bit about most who seem to.


----------



## bissichan (Feb 12, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> A discussion of paladin behavior and alignment has somehow spiraled into personal attacks?  What... are... the... odds?
> 
> I do find one thing strange.  Paladin debates go spiraling out of control all the time, and they aren't the only class that have alignment restrictions, but I have never heard or read anyone complaining a barbarian has been going around being honest and fair and was in danger of becoming Lawful and losing his ability to rage.  That never comes up.  But paladins face a dilemma, and we go all Lord of the Flies on one another.





Ohhh! Are Clerics modeled after Piggy?


----------



## Trench (Feb 12, 2007)

Yeah, we see how well Piggy turned out.

Who has the conch? That's the only way to solve this.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 12, 2007)

Kamikaze midget said:
			
		

> "No, we do care what's in their heart. That's why we detect evil. And if their heart currently contains evil, it is a good act to destroy them. If a gnome found out that humans raised would become CE, the idea would then be to kill them when they become CE, maybe wage a war on their tribe, reform them with missionaries and violence, because they have a choice."




I have a problem with that because it's a circular argument. Good is that which kills evil, evil is that which kills good....

The question, to me, is "What makes Good different than evil?" 

If _detect evil_ requires you to smite something because it's Evil, then the question of good and evil has resolved to purely one of prudence. That is, you kill something because it does evil, and you don't want it to. But you don't want it do, because it's evil. If evil is "what sets off detect evil," what causes something to set off detect evil?

Trolls are not composed of evil. They are living creatures with their own desires and interests. They are evil, descriptively; they are not evil, in the sense that being a troll is the same thing as being evil. 

There are neutral characters who commit crimes and must be punished, and there are those who do not. Clearly, the non-criminals do not face a paladin's wrath, while the criminals do. Is there not the same difference, then, between something that is evil, and something that is evil and does evil? 

A troll DOES have a choice, although trolls tend to make it in a certain way. You could argue that humans have a "choice" to act in the manner of a celestial or an angel, but in fact, humans does not have the capability to do so. You cannot judge a creature morally, simply for the fact of being a mortal creature with weaknesses. 

Children are naturally selfish; that does not mean they should have be whipped on the pillory for stealing sweets, nor should be smote by a divine servant because they have the nature that would cause them to do so.

Punishing someone who is not guilty of something, purely because they might if they had the opportunity, is not just. Simply because humans might wipe out an ancient forest in a few generations is not a justification to begin exterminating their children now.


----------



## Warren Okuma (Feb 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I have a problem with that because it's a circular argument. Good is that which kills evil, evil is that which kills good....
> 
> The question, to me, is "What makes Good different than evil?"



Different gods.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> If _detect evil_ requires you to smite something because it's Evil, then the question of good and evil has resolved to purely one of prudence.



Not required.  Just a license to kill.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> That is, you kill something because it does evil, and you don't want it to. But you don't want it do, because it's evil. If evil is "what sets off detect evil," what causes something to set off detect evil?



The god the paladin worships decides that it must die.  It's a divine thing.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Trolls are not composed of evil. They are living creatures with their own desires and interests. They are evil, descriptively; they are not evil, in the sense that being a troll is the same thing as being evil.



Yup.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> There are neutral characters who commit crimes and must be punished, and there are those who do not. Clearly, the non-criminals do not face a paladin's wrath, while the criminals do.  Is there not the same difference, then, between something that is evil, and something that is evil and does evil?



Nope no difference to the paladin.  It's just the god wants that thing dead.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> A troll DOES have a choice, although trolls tend to make it in a certain way. You could argue that humans have a "choice" to act in the manner of a celestial or an angel, but in fact, humans does not have the capability to do so. You cannot judge a creature morally, simply for the fact of being a mortal creature with weaknesses.



Or the god just hates trolls.  Or the god is near omnipotent and can see the future.  Who is the paladin to judge?


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Children are naturally selfish; that does not mean they should have be whipped on the pillory for stealing sweets, nor should be smote by a divine servant because they have the nature that would cause them to do so.



If they detect evil.  Gods paladins worship is collectively generally lenient toward children.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> Punishing someone who is not guilty of something, purely because they might if they had the opportunity, is not just.
> Correct, but who are you to judge the gods?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Falkus (Feb 14, 2007)

> Or the god is near omnipotent and can see the future. Who is the paladin to judge?




As I recall, in the default setting of DnD, gods are nowhere near omnipotent, and do not define good and evil anymore than a mortal does.


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 14, 2007)

Warren Okuma said:
			
		

> Different gods.






See, no, right there is the whole basis of what the problem is here.

Good and Evil are not just opposing teams.  I hate it when people assume that's all the alignments are, and I see it all too often.

Good people have to actually be Good and do Good works and think Good thoughts.  Just going out and killing Evil creatures is not Good.  It can possibly accomplish Good by preventing those Evil creatures from going out and committing Evil, but in and of itself, killing is a Neutral act in D&D because it does not end a creatures existence, it merely changes it's state of being (As the Aiel say, killing is the same as dieing, any fool can do either.)  

But killing without justification or remorse, or the intentional killing of innocents is an Evil act.

Even if there is a strong possibility that an infant creature will one day grow up to be Evil, it is still an infant that may be raised to be Good, and preventative execution is anathema to the concept of Good.     

Evil beings kill other Evil beings all the time, that does not cause them to gradually shift into a Good alignment.  

Orcs kill elven babies because orcs are Evil.  However, it does not follow that elves kill orc babies because elves are Good, because that is a travesty of what Good means.


I'll use this example from an episode of The Real Ghostbusters cartoon (one of the best cartoons ever made, and one of the best episodes of the show) to illustrate.  Good and Evil are battling over the fate of a human soul.  (They're playing baseball in proxy of an actual battle, but that's beside the point.)  The Evil side is cheating left and right to win.  The Ghostbusters complain to the Umpire, and he says, (I'm paraphrasing here), "Of course Evil is cheating.  It is the nature of Evil to cheat.  But if Good cheats, Evil automatically wins because Good has then _become_ Evil by using Evil methods, and there is no longer a Good side, merely Evil battling Evil."  


Goddang, that show was good.


----------



## phindar (Feb 14, 2007)

I ran an experiment in game form one time, I had the players make all good characters from an all good world, who were then transported to a mirror universe that was all evil.  It was the same place, with pretty much the same people, except Paladins were Lawful Evil and Assassins were Any Good.  It ran 8 sessions of expedited play, 5th-9th level.  (I wasn't really worried about quick advancement or character wealth, since it was just a mini-series.)

The experimental part was that whatever the Good characters did in the Evil world, the Evil characters were doing in the Good world.  I wanted to see if there was a point where something the Good characters did couldn't be justified from the Evil perspective.  And it never came up.  While the Good characters were running around attacking Evil things on sight, the mirror universe versions were doing the same thing against Good things.  

What I took away from it was that opposition is a pretty poor way to define moral conflicts.  That is to say, Characters aren't Good because they fight Evil, they fight Evil because they are Good.  Otherwise, you're just on the pale side of Neutral.

Killing troll babies or any defenseless thing (and I'm not sure scrag tadpoles qualify, but I'm speaking to the larger debate here) is a classic example of "If we do this, we are no better than they."  I think if you're using the term "Good" in any sense other than defining what Cosmic Bowling Team you play for, you have to strive for a higher ideal.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

Warren Okuma said:
			
		

> Nope no difference to the paladin.  It's just the god wants that thing dead.




Where does it say in any D&D book anywhere that detecting evil means a god wants something dead? AFAIK, gods do not have the power to decree something evil. A god can, if it chooses, tell the paladin to kill anyone or anything, but it cannot make good evil or evil, good.



> Or the god just hates trolls.  Or the god is near omnipotent and can see the future.  Who is the paladin to judge?






> Correct, but who are you to judge the gods?




It is not necessary for the paladin to judge the gods, only himself.

You are invoking the Divine Command theory of good and evil. Without going into the whole thing, suffice it to say that centuries of Western theology have deemed it invalid.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The theory runs into many philosophical problems. One objection is that it implies that morality is arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, morality is based merely upon god's whim. Thus, if god had willed cruelty and dishonesty to be virtues, and mercy and charity to be vices, then they would have been. The natural reply to this objection is that god would not have commanded such things because he would not command evil, but this response implies a circular definition as it is only god's command that makes them evil (see: see).
> 
> It implies that calling god good makes no sense — or, at best, that one is simply saying that god is consistent: "God does whatever he commands".
> 
> ...







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_ethics


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2007)

> I have a problem with that because it's a circular argument. Good is that which kills evil, evil is that which kills good....
> 
> The question, to me, is "What makes Good different than evil?"




*Good* kills evil, protects neutral from evil, and aids even different kinds of good against evil.

*Evil* kills evil, kills neutral, and kills good. 

This is an extrapolation of the good guys/bad guys idea I posted above. Good characters protect innocents. Evil characters corrupt, murder, and use them as tools. 



> If detect evil requires you to smite something because it's Evil, then the question of good and evil has resolved to purely one of prudence. That is, you kill something because it does evil, and you don't want it to. But you don't want it do, because it's evil. If evil is "what sets off detect evil," what causes something to set off detect evil?




A: Detect evil doesn't ALWAYS require you to smite it to be good. In this situation, it seems what is demanded: it is evil, and to do anything other than smite it would be irresponsible at best.

B: What makes it evil in the first place is committing evil acts, including murdering innocents. If they don't commit these acts, IMO, they don't get to be evil, because evil requires a commitment.



> Trolls are not composed of evil. They are living creatures with their own desires and interests. They are evil, descriptively; they are not evil, in the sense that being a troll is the same thing as being evil.




That is largely a campaign consideration. It is, perhaps, true in the core. It is even more debatable in the OP's case. I mean, either the scragpoles are composed of evil, or they've used their short lives to commit it after being spawned. Otherwise, they wouldn't be evil.



> There are neutral characters who commit crimes and must be punished, and there are those who do not. Clearly, the non-criminals do not face a paladin's wrath, while the criminals do. Is there not the same difference, then, between something that is evil, and something that is evil and does evil?




There is no difference between being evil and doing evil. Additionally, some non-criminals can face a paladin's wrath, and some criminals can face their unending mercy and compassion.



> A troll DOES have a choice, although trolls tend to make it in a certain way. You could argue that humans have a "choice" to act in the manner of a celestial or an angel, but in fact, humans does not have the capability to do so. You cannot judge a creature morally, simply for the fact of being a mortal creature with weaknesses.




If these scragpoles have a choice, they have already made their choice: evil. They have already done it. They are guilty of it. They will do it again. How do you stop evil when the creature does not repent? You destroy it. 



> Children are naturally selfish; that does not mean they should have be whipped on the pillory for stealing sweets, nor should be smote by a divine servant because they have the nature that would cause them to do so.




All of these are debatable points; they're not nearly as salient as you seem to be implying.



> Punishing someone who is not guilty of something, purely because they might if they had the opportunity, is not just. Simply because humans might wipe out an ancient forest in a few generations is not a justification to begin exterminating their children now.




But, again, these scragpoles *are* guilty of something. They wouldn't be evil if they weren't.



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Even if there is a strong possibility that an infant creature will one day grow up to be Evil, it is still an infant that may be raised to be Good, and preventative execution is anathema to the concept of Good.




But this situation isn't "strong possibility that an infant creature will one day grow up to be evil." It is "an evil creature." It just happens to be a very *young*, very *weak* evil creature. But so are Larvae, and killing them in droves doesn't provoke these debates.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 14, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But, again, these scragpoles *are* guilty of something. They wouldn't be evil if they weren't.




That assumes the "record" rather than the "inclination" interpretation to be correct, of course.

I'd be perfectly content to have evil scragpoles who haven't done anything yet in my game, just as I'd be happy for the cowardly commoner discussed earlier to be evil before he begins killing people and robbing banks.

-Hyp.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2007)

> That assumes the "record" rather than the "inclination" interpretation to be correct, of course.




Very true. But I don't yet see how the "inclination" interpretation can rectify itself with a Good-aligned character who would let evil happen just because it wasn't convenient, unless it applies different standards for good and evil...


----------



## Warren Okuma (Feb 14, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> See, no, right there is the whole basis of what the problem is here.
> Good and Evil are not just opposing teams.  I hate it when people assume that's all the alignments are, and I see it all too often..



That's because the nine alignments are written funny.


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Good people have to actually be Good and do Good works and think Good thoughts.  Just going out and killing Evil creatures is not Good.  It can possibly accomplish Good by preventing those Evil creatures from going out and committing Evil, but in and of itself, killing is a Neutral act in D&D because it does not end a creatures existence, it merely changes it's state of being (As the Aiel say, killing is the same as dieing, any fool can do either.)
> But killing without justification or remorse, or the intentional killing of innocents is an Evil act.



Page 105 Players handbook:  Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good.  What page are you quoting from?


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Even if there is a strong possibility that an infant creature will one day grow up to be Evil, it is still an infant that may be raised to be Good, and preventative execution is anathema to the concept of Good.



Page 105 Players handbook:  "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good."  What page are you quoting from?
Innocent is from the perspective of the church, if they are churchgoers or if it's a community protected by the paladins they are innocent.  If the infants radiate evil.  Smack.  It's the without mercy part.


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Evil beings kill other Evil beings all the time, that does not cause them to gradually shift into a Good alignment.



Yeah it does.  Lawful good is called the crusader alignment, they crusade against evil often without mercy.  What rules are you reading?


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Orcs kill elven babies because orcs are Evil.  However, it does not follow that elves kill orc babies because elves are Good, because that is a travesty of what Good means.



If they detect as evil.  Yes.  If not show me the rules that says otherwise.


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> I'll use this example from an episode of The Real Ghostbusters cartoon (one of the best cartoons ever made, and one of the best episodes of the show) to illustrate.  Good and Evil are battling over the fate of a human soul.  (They're playing baseball in proxy of an actual battle, but that's beside the point.)  The Evil side is cheating left and right to win.  The Ghostbusters complain to the Umpire, and he says, (I'm paraphrasing here), "Of course Evil is cheating.  It is the nature of Evil to cheat.  But if Good cheats, Evil automatically wins because Good has then _become_ Evil by using Evil methods, and there is no longer a Good side, merely Evil battling Evil."



Ghostbusters is another game.  Why don't you quote from DnD?


			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Goddang, that show was good.



Yeah, not bad.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Feb 14, 2007)

The current paladin that I play wouldn't kill orc babies, children, women, elderly, non-combatants or those who yield. It's not all benevolence, there is a bit of arrogance & laziness that comes into play. 

But I think his general viewpoint would be that that is overindulging in bloodshed and upping the ante in the racial conflict.


----------



## Kwitchit (Feb 14, 2007)

If they detect as evil, kill them. After all, would a paladin let a dretch live just because it's relatively helpless?
If they detect as neutral, give them to a good-aligned temple which is likely to raise them. For instance, if I played a paladin I'd give orc babies to the temple of Kord, or kobold ones to the temple of Bahamut...


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

_There is no difference between being evil and doing evil. _

In that case, there is no neutral alignment, is there?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 14, 2007)

> There is no difference between being evil and doing evil.
> 
> In that case, there is no neutral alignment, is there?




How d'you figure? Neutral characters don't do evil. They don't do good, either. They just do what is in their best self-interest for survival and easy living.

Perhaps my statement was a bit too categorical, because obviously one aligned action doesn't change the alignment. There is no difference between being evil and habitually doing evil would be the more accurate way to phrase it.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> How d'you figure? Neutral characters don't do evil. They don't do good, either. They just do what is in their best self-interest for survival and easy living.




Thus, every time they do a good or evil act, their alignment shifts until the act is then perfectly balanced by an opposite act.



> Perhaps my statement was a bit too categorical, because obviously one aligned action doesn't change the alignment. There is no difference between being evil and habitually doing evil would be the more accurate way to phrase it.




And what evil does a troll infant habitually do? Either the definition you are using is wrong, or it is not consistent with the parameters of the OP, or you have a definition of "doing evil" that is identical to "being evil," or you have conceded the argument.

Who habitually does evil? Someone who is evil. Who is evil? someone who habitually does evil, according to you. How does someone become habituated to evil in the first place?

I think the only answer is that they acquire an inclination toward evil. 

If Evil was based on actions, wouldn't a mass murdering tyrant have a more powerful aura of evil than an annoying imp? Yet auras in D&D are based on personal power (HD) and relationship with supernatural powers (clerics, outsiders, undead). Also, in D&D, you must have at least an Int of 3 to have a non-neutral alignment.

Alignments seem to be a question of moral choice, not guilt.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 14, 2007)

I believe the scragpoles were habitually killing people and eating them. I believe thats in the OP itself. If not, its in one of Whizbang's first clarifying posts.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> I believe the scragpoles were habitually killing people and eating them. I believe thats in the OP itself. If not, its in one of Whizbang's first clarifying posts.




But that is natural to them. Killing and eating humans isn't evil for them any more than killing and eating cows is for a human. You could butcher a human and feed them to a human toddler, it still wouldn't make them evil. Wolves aren't evil.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 14, 2007)

Well, if trolls killing humans isnt evil, I dont see why humans killing trolls is evil. Good day, Sir.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Well, if trolls killing humans isnt evil, I dont see why humans killing trolls is evil. Good day, Sir.




So you believe a paladin slaying a succubus is morally equivalent to a thug killing a ten year old child. I understand you perfectly.


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 14, 2007)

Really, whoever wrote the description of Alhandra "killing Evil without mercy" made an _extremely poor_ choice in wording (I would actually call it "abhorrent"), which I must have blocked out of my memory as some kind of aberration, because the phrase "without mercy" shouldn't be in any description of a Good alignment.  "Without mercy" is pretty much the antithesis of Good, and I'll just have to bow out of this discussion now since I can't agree with the rule's definition of the term Lawful Good anymore.


Really, killing "without mercy" is unacceptable behavior for anyone claiming to be Good; Good without mercy is _NOT_ Good, regardless of what the rules say.


Sorry for my mistake.


----------



## Elrond Half Elven (Feb 14, 2007)

It really depends on your players actions so far, i.e. how they have handled similar situations before (if there has been any). If the player has killed every last goblin (or allowed them to be killed, even after surrendering) the obviously that paladin is a warrior, crusaiding against every form of evil. A few might question wither or not this is appropriate for a paladin, i agree to some extent. I feel that a paladin's ethos should depend on their god's ethos and also being LG doesn't mean not being proactive. I could understand a paladin of the god of war (albeit a war god who doesn't care about honour) slaying the tadpoles, however other gods i'm not sure.
Additionally it also depends if the character is a realist or an idealist. A realist would suggest that the creatures are born evil and have no, or very little chance of redemption of chance and should be slain to prevent them, say, killing an innocent. Additionally a realist might argue that with their parents dead the young have little chance to survive in the wilderness and the best thing to do would be to put them out of their misery. An idealist might suggest that the creatures have a chance to choose a different path than their parents, or even that the creatures are only doing what they do to survive and should be allowed to live.

Just my scribblings 

Hanx
A-semi-coherent Elrond


----------



## Mort (Feb 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> But that is natural to them. Killing and eating humans isn't evil for them any more than killing and eating cows is for a human. You could butcher a human and feed them to a human toddler, it still wouldn't make them evil. Wolves aren't evil.




So you're saying that killing a wolf that's a proven man eater, is an evil act? I don't think that'l hold up very well.
 If somethings very nature is to kill and eat humans the paladin is not going to be in any trouble for eliminating it as a menace (read in D&D: it needs killing).


----------



## Seeten (Feb 15, 2007)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Really, whoever wrote the description of Alhandra "killing Evil without mercy" made an _extremely poor_ choice in wording (I would actually call it "abhorrent"), which I must have blocked out of my memory as some kind of aberration, because the phrase "without mercy" shouldn't be in any description of a Good alignment.  "Without mercy" is pretty much the antithesis of Good, and I'll just have to bow out of this discussion now since I can't agree with the rule's definition of the term Lawful Good anymore.
> 
> 
> Really, killing "without mercy" is unacceptable behavior for anyone claiming to be Good; Good without mercy is _NOT_ Good, regardless of what the rules say.
> ...




Lets just change what Good means in every campaign based on each individual DM's preconceived notions of real world good and evil. That way, we can all wonder together what sort of rules we're playing under daily!

RAW? Who cares! I say killing evil dogs that eat human babies is evil, and so it is! pg 107 phb is stupid anyway!


----------



## Seeten (Feb 15, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> So you believe a paladin slaying a succubus is morally equivalent to a thug killing a ten year old child. I understand you perfectly.




Wait. Is the thug a troll?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 15, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> RAW? Who cares!




I think the phrase you're looking for is "RAW!  (Huh!)  Good god, y'all!"

-Hyp.


----------



## Agamon (Feb 15, 2007)

Threads like these make me think that alignment is the work of the devil....


----------



## Aaron L (Feb 15, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Lets just change what Good means in every campaign based on each individual DM's preconceived notions of real world good and evil. That way, we can all wonder together what sort of rules we're playing under daily!
> 
> RAW? Who cares! I say killing evil dogs that eat human babies is evil, and so it is! pg 107 phb is stupid anyway!





???


I admitted I was wrong about the PHB definition of Good and conceded my argument.  Was there a reason for the snark?


----------



## Seeten (Feb 15, 2007)

Mostly because I'm a bad person?

I already admitted it on page 7. Why dont you just drive the point home further, and make me feel even worse about myself?


----------



## Seeten (Feb 15, 2007)

Also, I kid, I kid! I'm sorry Aaron, I'm snarky by nature. Its a character flaw. No personal insult intended =)


----------



## Torm (Feb 15, 2007)

I get the sincere feeling that, yet again, a Paladin thread has devolved into needless semantics and comments that border on insults and name-calling, and to two or three posters that seem to enjoy beating their heads against metaphorical walls, since their arguments differ from each other on a fundamental level. (And yet, I would wager that the morality they _demonstrate_ a belief in in their daily lives is much more similar - making the assumption that they are _good_ people - but I digress.) This whole argument really boils down to Rule 0 in any given campaign, and no amount of player debate will really change that.

If I'm out of line to do so, I apologize, but the God of Paladins calls upon a mod to kindly drop the curtain on this bad boy. Previous experience indicates that it is right about now in these threads that someone does something that will cause you to do so anyway, best to nip it in the bud.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Feb 15, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> After dispatching a pair of murderous river trolls (scrags) in their underwater cave, the party discovered a series of water-filled barrels brought to the area by the trolls. Each contains a scrag tadpole. The paladin sees them registering as evil, but he also doesn't believe they will be a threat for quite some time.
> 
> The rest of the party wants to dispatch them. The paladin is aghast at killing helpless tadpoles.
> 
> So, what would your paladins do in this situation? As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?



Regardless, this is a nice dilemma. I applaud you for making your players _think _in character. Good job.

\I didn't read the previous eight pages of posts.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 15, 2007)

> Thus, every time they do a good or evil act, their alignment shifts until the act is then perfectly balanced by an opposite act.




No, see the second part of my post: it is habitual action. If they don't habitually perform many good or evil acts, then they are neutral on the whole. I don't remove a Good alignment for one Evil action, either. 



> And what evil does a troll infant habitually do? Either the definition you are using is wrong, or it is not consistent with the parameters of the OP, or you have a definition of "doing evil" that is identical to "being evil," or you have conceded the argument.




At the very least, the scragpoles were eating humanoids. Now, because they are evil, and they must have done something to get that way, "eating humanoids" could be inferred to mean that they were eating people not because they needed to or were desperate to, but because they truly enjoyed the extra pain and suffering they inflicted upon these otherwise innocent humanoids. 

That's just inference from Whizbang's own posts. It's quite possible they've done much more, "offstage," as it were. Rape, pillage, murder, devil-worship, all on a scragpole scale, but done nonetheless, are all entirely possible. Specifically, we don't know, and neither does the paladin, but we don't need to know, and neither does the paladin. Because if they are evil, it is inferred that they performed actions to make them thus. Thus, the paladin is given the moral imperative to destroy them: they have done things that make them evil, things that they deserve justice for. The specifics are between the scragpoles and the moral authority of the multiverse, the paladin is just an agent of justice.



> Who habitually does evil? Someone who is evil. Who is evil? someone who habitually does evil, according to you. How does someone become habituated to evil in the first place?
> 
> I think the only answer is that they acquire an inclination toward evil.




I think knowledge of complex motives is well beyond the capacity of even a trained diviner. The paladin doesn't need to know the whys and the wherefores, just the facts of the scenario: evil is as evil does, and they can discern where evil is, and be assured that evil has been done.



> If Evil was based on actions, wouldn't a mass murdering tyrant have a more powerful aura of evil than an annoying imp? Yet auras in D&D are based on personal power (HD) and relationship with supernatural powers (clerics, outsiders, undead). Also, in D&D, you must have at least an Int of 3 to have a non-neutral alignment.
> 
> Alignments seem to be a question of moral choice, not guilt.




I don't see how this proves your case. Mass murdering tyrants are obviously going to be higher level (more HD) than petty thugs. Imps, according to D&D, are made from the souls of many expired mass murdering tyrants (because these souls compose the stuff of the plane of which they are made). Clerics draw on the powers of generations of mass murdering tyrants. And one can't really comprehend the ramifications of one's actions if they don't have an INT capable of understanding the nature of cosmic forces. 

I don't see how moral choice and guilt are incompatible. 



> But that is natural to them. Killing and eating humans isn't evil for them any more than killing and eating cows is for a human. You could butcher a human and feed them to a human toddler, it still wouldn't make them evil. Wolves aren't evil.




Aaaaah, there's the relativism.

And it's obviously different. Wolves aren't evil because they don't understand the cosmic forces. Killing and eating cows, similarly, isn't inherently evil because the cows aren't capable of being "innocent." However, the scragpoles understand the cosmic forces (or are made from the cosmic forces). They know full well the evil that they are perpetuating. The fact that they have an Evil alignment proves this.

Killing and eating humans isn't "natural" to them. If it was, they wouldn't be evil. If they didn't understand what they were doing, they wouldn't have that alignment. They have that alignment, thus they are fully aware of the moral choices they have made, and the guilt which they bear is because of that awareness.


----------

