Is killing a Goblin who begs for mercy evil?

[Donp]

My friend and I are wondering about alignment for our upcoming Pathfinder game. We want to use the alignment system correctly but we differ a bit on the interpretation of the rules. We would like some input from more seasoned players.

My friend says that if he were playing a Paladin, and he were to attack a Goblin village (race with evil alignment) he would probably spare those who surrendered, or those who were weak or children etc. He would feel that if he were to kill those Goblins who begged for mercy that would be an evil act, disastrous for the Paladin (also he doesn't want to do any evil).

I would say (I'm the DM), that based on the rules, I cannot see that killing an evil Goblin would be an evil act under most circumstances. (BTW these are not my personal feelings on the matter, just my interpretation of the rules...let's just leave RL morality discussion out of it). If he were to torture a Goblin, or something, that would be Evil, as it is obviously a sentient being. However, I see nothing in the rules that would make killing a begging-for-mercy Goblin an evil act, as the Goblin is an evil creature, and in the very objective morality system presented in the D&D/Pathfinder world, destroying evil is not evil.

My friend then came up with another example, Paladin detects evil on a shopkeeper, who to his knowledge has not harmed anyone (perhaps he's really selfish and dreams of killing others but is too cowardly to do it). Could he slay the man there and then, without committing and Evil act? There I was not sure.

I sort of see the fact that Goblins are, as a race, Evil, as meaning that they are like intelligent wolves, or like Nazis who were evil from birth. They are Evil, just like a Devil or Demon, or a Necromancer. And that destroying evil is inherently good (again, based on the objective morality in the 3.5/Pathfinder Rules, NOT based on my own RL morality), as Evil creatures have an evil nature, and if you allow them to live, they will go on doing evil things, as they desire to hurt, opress and kill others.

So therefore it should be OK to kill them indiscriminately.

However my friend disagrees, and I would like very much to come to a conclusion. I know that we could just house-rule Alignment away if it is a problem, but we have nothing against it, we just want to run it the right way.

So, long-time players. What is your interpretation of this issue? Please try to limit yourselves to the RAW, and the correct interpretation of them. I'm not looking for your personal philosophies on morality and all that, that is besides the point.

 

[Twichyboy]

Actually the races alignment usually just means that's what they're norm is, dwarves are considered a lawful good race and elves chaotic good, but those deviate a lot so as goblin are considered evil I would say that there is nothing that makes them evil forever from birth,

So by killing a surrendering one would be considered an evil act as it's denying that one who fought for his under attack village, the right to repent which is considered the "goodest" thing a paladin could do

So in my opinion yes it's an evil act, especially since the goblin was fighting to defend its village rather then attacking another

 

[cattoy]

The first time we encountered this situation, the goblin ran away and gathered allies and set up an ambush.

The second time we encountered this situation, we slaughtered all of the goblins, including the ones that tried to surrender.

 

[Angrydad]

Killing a creature that has surrendered and is begging for mercy would always, in my DMing opinion, ruin a paladin's status, even if it is a demon/devil. It may not be an evil act in the case of a demon, but it is definitely not a Lawful Good thing to do and would cause the paladin to lose power for a while. I like my Good guys to actually be Good (with the capital G for emphasis), so showing mercy to surrendering foes to allow them to be dealt with justly or be given a chance to repent is the best way to go.

 

[Donp]

The first time we encountered this situation, the goblin ran away and gathered allies and set up an ambush.

The second time we encountered this situation, we slaughtered all of the goblins, including the ones that tried to surrender.

This is basically what I'm talking about.

 

[Nightson]

So addressing the goblin surrender. It's fairly likely that the goblin has committed crimes worthy of execution (in medieval society). Generally, long term imprisonment isn't a feasible option, and neither is turning the goblin away from evil, which usually leaves the player short of options except killing them or letting them go.

But I think this can be resolved pretty easily. A player who kills the goblins is not committing an evil act, but a player who goes to the effort of trying to redeem the goblins is doing a good act.

 

[af_sky]

I believe if a Paladin or any good PC attack goblins who are apparently doing nothing, that would be an evil act. Like attacking a goblin village for no reason at all.

I also believe that's the same for goblins begging for mercy.
The right thing for a LG PC to do is retrieving them for local authorities, if possible.
If not possible, that would rely on the paladin's judgement of what would or not be a good thing to do. But that's part of the roleplay.

Although I don't think you could apply that for demons.

 

[Donp]

I believe if a Paladin or any good PC attack goblins who are apparently doing nothing, that would be an evil act. Like attacking a goblin village for no reason at all.

I also believe that's the same for goblins begging for mercy.
The right thing for a LG PC to do is retrieving them for local authorities, if possible.
If not possible, that would rely on the paladin's judgement of what would or not be a good thing to do. But that's part of the roleplay.

Although I don't think you could apply that for demons.

Well, I would certainly agree with you if the Goblins were just normal people. But according to RAW, those with an Evil alignment seek to actively hurt, opress, and kill other sentients. So even if they aren't doing anything, they are probably cooking up an evil scheme, or preparing an assault or something. So wouldn't it be like attacking a band of wolves who hadn't done anything, just because you know that they pose a threat to you and would kill you at a moment's notice if given the chance?

 

[Urlithani]

Killing a creature that has surrendered and is begging for mercy would always, in my DMing opinion, ruin a paladin's status, even if it is a demon/devil.

I would respectfully disagree. I would never make a paladin lose their status for killing an evil outsider. Evil outsiders have no interest in redemption*.

*In the rare case an outsider does want to be redeemed, there should only be punishment for a paladin if he has no reason to attack that outsider but does so anyway.

One of the Paizo people has stated it on these very forums a while ago, I think it was Erik Mona(but not sure): If you make a villain that forces a Paladin and his friends to go through many trials, pain, and loss, and then have the villain at the very end beg for mercy and the paladin will lose his powers if he does not forgive is a pretty jerk move.

The "I'm sorry because I got caught so please let me have a chance to redeem myself(but I really just want to get away to get my revenge)" doesn't fly with me personally. It's one thing if the evil wizard appears outside his tower and wants to talk about changing his ways; it's another thing if he waits at the very top and only surrenders because he has no other options left; he's exhausted every trap, monster, and spell.

It may not be an evil act in the case of a demon, but it is definitely not a Lawful Good thing to do and would cause the paladin to lose power for a while.

It is not definitely Lawful Good, but neither is it evil. A Paladin loses their abilities if they willingly commit an evil act.

I like my Good guys to actually be Good (with the capital G for emphasis), so showing mercy to surrendering foes to allow them to be dealt with justly or be given a chance to repent is the best way to go.

I agree, and I think some people take the Good alignment for granted, but even Sarenrae believes a swift death is better for those that have no interest in redemption.

 

[N'raac]

Well, let's make the Paladin the king's executioner. He is to execute a convicted crimnal. The criminal begs for mercy. If the paladin executes the criminal, we remove his paladinhood for his Evil act, and if he fails to obey his liege, he loses his Lawful alignment. Any more beatings we can inflict for having the audacity to choose to play a Paladin?

I'd say taking a life is never a good act ("respect for life" is listed under Good RAW, and "killing others" under Evil). I'd also say that a plea for mercy needs to be considerd in context. A GM who has the villains beg for mercy, then turn on the characters, is training his players not to honour those pleas, and should not be surprised at the result.

Is the Goblin planning on tricking the Paladin long enough to stab him in the back? Then he has evil intent. Creatures with actively evil intent detect as Evil, per the spell. So the Paladin should be able to pause, Detect Evil on the begging goblin, and assess his sincerity. If his intentions are to turn on the Paladin if spared (whether immediately or by gathering allies), he detects as Evil. It is acceptable to kill him. IOW, I would not consider it an evil act to kill a foe who remains intent on evil. If his intentions are not evil (he truly intends to repent, or at least truly intends to behave to avoid the sword), then killing him is an evil act.

But the Paladin's Detect Evil is accurate. If the creature merits mercy, he will not detect as evil. If his evil intent remains, then he detects as such and can be slain as a non-evil, albeit non-good, act.