Is killing a Goblin who begs for mercy evil?

[ComradeGnull]

Faiths of Purity has some good sample codes for paladins of different faiths. The codes for Sarenrae, Torag, and Iomedae specifically deal with handling evil enemies- trying to redeem them, giving the option (but not requirement) of accepting their surrender, etc. The code for Torag specifically says 'no mercy for the enemies of my people'.

I think this makes the most sense to me- that what is both lawful and good for a follower of a particular deity is determined by the values of that deity. What is the right response to the follower of a god whose portfolio is mercy and healing would be different than for a god of protection and crusading warfare. A Dwarven god might specifically deny any quarter to orcs, goblins, and duerger, for instance. A god of justice and laws might say that an escaped criminal is to be killed rather than captured.

Also worth noting that good characters 'respecting all life' does not require them to be naive. Allowing an evil humanoid to beg for mercy and go free could well place other innocents in danger. While it isn't the only interpretation possible, it is certainly potentially consistent with LG alignment to value the potential harm to innocents higher than the value of offering mercy to someone who has committed evil acts.

 

[Starman]

This sort of thing is why I don't play Paladins any more. Unless the DM and I agree before the game begins on what constitutes an "evil" act, this just cause problems. Alternately, the DM could never have this situation arise, but then the Paladin is overpowered--as his weakness/drawback will never come into play.

Of course, when I'm DM'ing, this is the sort of thing I love to throw at the Paladins. In my opinion, if you are playing a Paladin you are somewhat asking for these sorts of dilemmas to be included in the game.

I think the most important lesson from these sorts of threads is that DMs and players need to discuss this sort of thing ahead of time so both are pretty much on the same page when it comes to alignment, a Paladin's codes, and so on.

 

[Crunchy_Bill]

Here's another twist:
How about carving a few goblin steaks from an already-dead goblin to use to try to tame/win over some wolves that the now-deceased goblins had imprisoned and, according to information obtained via "Talk with Animals", were starving. I figured that since the goblin was already dead, and my lawful neutral (NOT lawful good) Paladin is part of a nature religion ("nature, red in tooth and claw"), it was fair for him to conclude that, well, dead is dead, meat is meat, no sense letting it go to waste when there are four or five very hungry wolves to placate.

My GM and several fellow players feel otherwise and exhibited reactions ranging from apparent horror to conspiratorial chuckles. The word "repercussions" has been muttered . . .

I'm newly-returned to D&D, but enjoyed many surprisingly serious debates about ethics and morality back when I used to game a lot. Nice to know some things haven't changed!

P.S. Of additional potential relevance - my Paladin is half orc and was raised as a member of an orc tribe. I really don't think that from his perspective, in the context of his religion and the ethics of the quasi-Medieval time in which D&D occurs, carving up an already-dead Goblin is not even close to being an evil act. I killed him fair and square in battle, and tried (without success) to prevent another player from slaying his fellows after they surrendered. (I'm strong but kinda slow, and the rogue in the group took out the kneeling goblins before I could stop him.)

 

[S'mon]

Player should listen to GM's decision.
There is no objectively right answer, but your approach seems fine to me.

 

[Ixal]

Nearly 10 years.
Not a bad necro.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

Depends on if your DM believes non-humans have free will.
Can't assume fantasy races are like real world people. That they all have free will and the ability to choose between good and evil.

If goblins, orcs or gnolls were solely created by some evil god then they may not have free will. They might not be able to choose between good and evil and always be evil. In that case, killing one begging for mercy isn't evil. It's good as the goblin WILL go off and do more evil later. It's their nature.
If goblins and the like were created in part with a good god, an evil god that believed in free will or were granted free will then it's uncertain. It depends on the goblin. A selfish and wicked goblin will go off and do more evil and killing them might be like offing the Joker. Saves lives in the long run. Or the goblin might choose to turn its life around. Because it CAN choose to.

 

[Tonguez]

I take my cue from Detect Evil so that only aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, or undead can actually be called Evil.

Sentient mortal races in the world can ‘Do evil’ but they are not always evil and thus a Paladin cant know if any given goblin is evil or not unless they are actively Doing evil things

ergo a surrendering goblin is not evil, whereas a goblin who is torturing babies is

 

[Jaeger]

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.

Nothing wrong with having objectively Evil races to fight in an escapist RPG.

If Goblins are Evil; Then the killing of Goblins = Smiting Evil.

The Paladin is literally destroying an agent of evil that would do someone else future harm if allowed to live.

He is a Hero.

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

Now this is Goblins done right!

#Goblinsareforkilling

 

[CapnZapp]

Nearly 10 years.
Not a bad necro.

golf clap

 

[CapnZapp]

Depends on if your DM believes non-humans have free will.
Can't assume fantasy races are like real world people. That they all have free will and the ability to choose between good and evil.

If goblins, orcs or gnolls were solely created by some evil god then they may not have free will. They might not be able to choose between good and evil and always be evil. In that case, killing one begging for mercy isn't evil. It's good as the goblin WILL go off and do more evil later. It's their nature.
If goblins and the like were created in part with a good god, an evil god that believed in free will or were granted free will then it's uncertain. It depends on the goblin. A selfish and wicked goblin will go off and do more evil and killing them might be like offing the Joker. Saves lives in the long run. Or the goblin might choose to turn its life around. Because it CAN choose to.

No, the mere fact the goblin isn't bound to the evil alignment by the gods does NOT mean the act of killing it becomes evil.

Heroes kill monsters all the time. Trying to distinguish between "righteous" and "wrongful" kills, and trying to shame some adventurers but not others, is the only crime as far as I can tell.

Either you accept that murder is murder (and presumably go play something else), or you accept that at its basic fundamental level, D&D is a murder simulator, realize no actual goblins were harmed during the production of this scenario, lighten up, and gleefully return to the exciting adventure!