The "orc baby" paladin problem

[I'm A Banana]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Perhaps, but that has no bearing on D&D.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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]

Kill them all but one, raise that one to be a good and do good deeds to atone for thier sacrifice!

 

[Slife]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Hello, Darth Phinidarius.




(That's the Worst... Line... Evar!)

 

[Aaron L]

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]

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).