The "orc baby" paladin problem

[takyris]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.