The "orc baby" paladin problem

[I'm A Banana]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

People wonder why Lawful Evil is my preferred alignment.