The "orc baby" paladin problem

[Hypersmurf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.