Is killing a Goblin who begs for mercy evil?

[Imaculata]

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.

Detect Evil is NOT a lie detector. It only tells you if the creature is evil, not if it plans to betray you.

 

[MaskedGuy]

That this is a question requiring 6 pages of discussion and debate is the surest possible proof that D&D's alignment system is the product of brainworms and should be resigned to the dustbin of history alongside similarly terrible features, such as gendered Strength caps and THAC0

I mean do note, this is ten year old thread that got necromancered after ten year break between posts

 

[Imaculata]

I mean do note, this is ten year old thread that got necromancered after ten year break between posts

Rise! RIIIIIIISE! Muhahahaha!

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

"Please, don't kill Dzat. Dzat good goblin now, Dzat promises!"
Paladin, holding his holy avenger on the foul creature's throat: "Hum, let's wait a decade while I commune with my goddess, Enworld, to know if I should give your mercy".
"But... In 10 years, Dzat will be dead of old age! Commune is supposed to have a casting time of ONE MINUTE" croaks at some point
Paladin, lowering his sword: "Praised be the Goddess, for she works in mysterious ways but somehow neatly resolved my alignment conundrum."

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I mean do note, this is ten year old thread that got necromancered after ten year break between posts

True, but the fact that it's still up for debate despite that decade-long interim seems like further proof that D&D has some concepts that are just stuck in amber. And not in a good way!

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I'm curious if you can come up with an example of a straight-up evil villain who isn't boring or bad. I'd love to hear about those.

I think it depends on the narrative, and specifically how much access you have to that villain's inner life or motivations.

In non-gaming narratives, character's like Randall Flagg (aka The Walkin' Dude) in The Stand (novel) or the way Satan is presented in Constantine (movie) are arguably interesting and compelling. And as much as the movie Seven mines John Doe's supposed righteousness, he is straight-up evil, with nothing redeeming and a perspective that the movie rejects (even if some dummies in the audience don't).

In games, though, because they're so player-facing, I think you often don't get as much of a chance to know what drives a given villain, anyway. Not saying that's a universal rule, but unless the tone allows for villain monologues, some big bads will remain sort of a cipher until the very end. And I think that can still absolutely work, especially if they're unknowable. Like the Mythos in Call of Cthulhu, or any other inherently alien force. As long as there are more relatable villainous types around, those more opaque and just all-out evil ones can be plenty interesting. They become less like some X-men or Buffy quasi-villain, all gorgeous angst and romantic rebellion, and more like a theme or symbol.

And I'd argue that inaccessible evil can work in non-gaming narratives too, like the Zodiac killer in the movie Zodiac, or Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs. That they're impossible to sympathize with is what makes them, and their stories, so compelling--you're staring into the abyss, rather than nodding along because hey, the abyss makes some good points.

 

[DammitVictor]

I feel like it comes from the idea that the only way to get XP is by outright killing the enemy when that was never the case.

It's a natural consequence of official DM advice to lower XP rewards if the players take steps to make the encounter "easier", such as softening them up first or creating environmental disadvatanges for them. After all, what's easier than not fighting at all?

 

[Gradine]

I mean do note, this is ten year old thread that got necromancered after ten year break between posts

...

 

[d24454_modern]

That this is a question requiring 6 pages of discussion and debate is the surest possible proof that D&D's alignment system is the product of brainworms and should be resigned to the dustbin of history alongside similarly terrible features, such as gendered Strength caps and THAC0

Ehh, I feel like that idea is born out of laziness. After all, if killing a surrendering Goblin is considered bad, then it would cheat player out of casting fireball.

Essentially, it's only considered a problem because the player can be punished for doing so.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, point blank, Batman doesn't have the means to fix Arkham Asylum or Gotham City's notoriously corrupt police department. He's not capable of making everyone else involved do the right thing. He does not bear more responsibility for the Joker's third-and-subsequent crime sprees than the Joker himself does, or Gotham PD, or the faculty and staff at Arkham Asylum. He's just the only person who ever has the capacity and the authority to do so at the same time.

He’s a billionaire in a city that is known to be corrupt. He absolutely has the means to fix Arkham Asylum or the police department.

Can the mob really outbid Bruce Wayne on the next election for police commissioner? If they do, is it even worthwhile to do so?