The "orc baby" paladin problem

[Raloc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.