The "orc baby" paladin problem

[RigaMortus2]

Nothing is born innately evil. It grows up and learns to be evil. So those tads should not have registered being evil.

Dragolen

Where did you find this rule?

 

[takyris]

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 with your disagreement. It's evil, and it's gonna try to kill you when it grows up. If it's evil as a baby, it's evil in the blood. Evil by nurture you can cure. Evil by nature has no cure available.

Paladins have d10 hit dice and the nice attack bonus for a reason. And that reason is "killing evil stuff".

If you want moral ambiguity, make things distasteful and unpleasant but not evil. A baby dire wolf, for example, or a troll in a world where trolls aren't evil from the moment they pop out of the womb. Both are likely going to grow up into threats, and both force the paladin to make a difficult choice. But an innately evil creature, defined as evil by its very existence? Not morally ambiguous. If my god's power lets me smite it successfully, my god wants me to smite it.

 

[Asmo]

Where did you find this rule?

In the Trollonomicon.

Asmo

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

An excellent point.

 

[Raloc]

I disagree with the premise you can kill something simply because it's evil. Being good means respecting the lives of even evil things.

Arr same here. I know a lot of people just play with black and white alignments and the RAW, but I find them lacking in the extreme. It isn't honourable in the slightest to go killing people you don't know (or know the exploits of, evil or good), simply because some magic claims they're evil. And even so, the paladin would technically need to give the target a fair fight, which by definition babies are not capable of.

Even if you do think "evil" alignment gives the paladin the RIGHT to go killing anyone they want, they could easily be murdering someone that was "evil" through most of their lives and is slowly shifting away from that path, or any number of similar scenarios. I find this type of justification for committing what are essentially evil acts really hollow and dissatisfying (basically, paladin = good and therefore there are no consequences to murdering anyone paladin wants, as long as he can claim they're "evil" before hand). I mean, it's essentially saying that evil characters are held to a higher standard than paladins (i.e., don't do evil things or you become evil and will be targeted by paladins, but then the paladins themselves are not subject to this). Bleh. Could just be that I dislike paladins and the way they are commonly played.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I disagree with your disagreement. It's evil, and it's gonna try to kill you when it grows up. If it's evil as a baby, it's evil in the blood. Evil by nurture you can cure. Evil by nature has no cure available.

Paladins have d10 hit dice and the nice attack bonus for a reason. And that reason is "killing evil stuff".

If you want moral ambiguity, make things distasteful and unpleasant but not evil. A baby dire wolf, for example, or a troll in a world where trolls aren't evil from the moment they pop out of the womb. Both are likely going to grow up into threats, and both force the paladin to make a difficult choice. But an innately evil creature, defined as evil by its very existence? Not morally ambiguous. If my god's power lets me smite it successfully, my god wants me to smite it.

A-F***in'-men.

I would say that ultimately, Mr. Dustyboots, it's up to you to determine what is the nature of what makes these monsters so evil in your campaign. I dunno, these tadpoles are going to need food from somewhere and if scrags function in your campaign as some sort of caregivers, and are thus dependent on their now-slain parents...wouldn't it be more evil to let them go and die horrible deaths via starvation and cannibalism? Might as well kill them. Adopting a tadpole that grows into a 8'+ tall, 1,400 lb. killing machine is absurd.

 

[Numion]

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?

Kill. As a DM I'd say his god would be all the happier for it.

 

[Drowbane]

Smite makes Right

When you find a nest of rattlesnakes in your house, you kill them all, including the babies.

I agree with the next to rattlesnakes analogy.

Unless the Paladin has a reason to doubt his Detection (such as some sort of history with it being inaccurate due to outside influences), you as the DM mandated the slaughter of those tadpoles once they registered as evil. Trolls aren't people. They're vicious ravenous monsters... thier young are just as blinded by hunger and bloodlust.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Trolls aren't people. They're vicious ravenous monsters... thier young are just as blinded by hunger and bloodlust.

They probably chewed their way through a bunch of helpless broodmates upon hatching. If they're womb-born, hell, they might have killed their wombmate and chewed their way out.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

(basically, paladin = good and therefore there are no consequences to murdering anyone paladin wants, as long as he can claim they're "evil" before hand).

No, the distinction is inherently evil, not just evil at the time. Humans, for example, are clearly NOT inherently evil. They can exercise free will and choose their path; they can also choose to change. That's why a paladin can't just go around smiting commoners he detects as evil.

The question is whether monsters like trolls are inherently evil (such that they can't choose to be good) or not. If they are inherently evil, then it's a good act to kill them, because there's no hope for their redemption.

A question for the DM, really. IMO, I'd make some monsters inherently evil (it's a heroic fantasy game, eh?) Others I'd leave open to question. Perhaps there's some debate with the good churches of the world on which creatures fall into what category.