Is killing a Goblin who begs for mercy evil?

[Epametheus]

If a goblin knows how to say "I surrender, don't hurt me," in common, it probably learned that from a victim that it then killed and ate (or killed by eating).

My group handles this sort of thing as "a Paladin can refuse to accept a creature's surrender."

While goblins are free-willed, a normal goblin is raised to view nearly anything that isn't a goblin as prey.

In other words, if you facing something that views babies of your species as food, your paladin almost certainly has active authority to put it down. Co-existence is so remote an option that it might as well not exist.

Actually killing helpless goblin babies is more complicated. They can be functional if they're brought up in a sane society that spare the resources to raise a bunch of midget pyromaniacs. But putting them down probably isn't any worse an act then putting down a litter of skunks born under your house. It's a distasteful task, but sometimes that just how it pans out.

Now, actual evil outsiders are, in essence, malicious spirits given flesh and form. Accepting surrender from a demon has about as much meaning as accepting surrender from a rabid dog. The best thing to do is to take them down fast and hard, before they can pull something their innate magical powers. Another way to put it - you really shouldn't accept the surrender of a creature that could mind control all the guards in any prison you kept it in.

 

[ComradeGnull]

The alignment system has a lot of wrinkles around the edges. I wouldn't be too hard on a player for making either choice. A lot depends on the players justification for making the choice; if he is killing the goblin to protect other innocents, great. If he kills it because he is annoyed with goblins, not so great.

It also matters how goblins are depicted in your particular campaign. Pathfinder tends towards depicting goblins as irredeemable sociopaths, whereas Eberron depicts them as more civilized and liable towards reform. In the first case, killing them seems more like killing an evil outsider than like a regular mook.

Lawful characters judge their actions by an external, consistent standard. Depicting what they set of ethics is would help it be clearer if their actions were lawful or good.

 

[af_sky]

Lawful characters judge their actions by an external, consistent standard. Depicting what they set of ethics is would help it be clearer if their actions were lawful or good.

I completely agree with you on that. He must judge by his "church" or god's law. Not by a innate sense of justice.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Welcome to a topic that has been debated for around 40 years in RPGS (and thousands of years in philosophy)

The short answer is really "it depends on the game you're playing" games can vary between
"game of hats" to "extremely complicated shaded morality"

In a game of hats game then unless there's a reason to believe that a particular goblin isn't evil you can probably hack it down with a free concience.

In a lot of other games it would depend on the answers to various questions
a) why was the village attacked?
is it a case of "we ran into some goblins so we attacked" or "these goblins have raided the human village and they killed the women and children"

b) is there anything to suggest that this particular goblin did anything evil?

killing an armed combatant is different from killing an unarmed non-combatant and killing a warrior who you recognise from a raid on a human village where children were killed is different again.

It also depends on how the individual campaign runs the type of monster, killing a standard pathfinder goblin would be less likely to cause problems than a pathfinder kobold for instance.

In a lot of campaigns being evil isn't enough to justify killing somebody. Somebody can be evil but not actually have done anything justifying killing them (a villager who delights in spreading malicious gossip, will cheat or steal if they think they can get away with it etc, would betray people to save themselves or for enough money) but unless they have seriously hurt people killing them wouldn't be justified.

Also note that you only detect as evil if you've got a link to an evil force of the universe or you've got significant personal power (5HD or more) by the rules a goblin could be intending to prepare Human Baby Tartare and still wouldn't detect as evil.

Note that the comments on alignment on page 5 of the bestiary makes it pretty clear that there is a difference between outer planar aligned creatures and standard intelligent creatures with alignments.

For what it's worth I'd recommend that you just discuss it with the players how you see things and try and ensure that you don't screw the PCs over by stuffing them around on alignment. If people want to take more care than you think necessary that's fine, the problem comes when the players think they can get away with more than you think they can.

 

[Mad Hamish]

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.

That makes killing them convenient, it doesn't mean that killing them isn't evil

 

[RigaMortus2]

I think intention is just as important as action. Why is the Paladin attacking this Goblin village to begin with? Just for the hell of it? Does he personally know of these Goblins wronging someone or some society?

I would be more concerned with a Paladin indiscriminetly attacking a Goblin village for no reason other then "well, the Monster Manual says they are evil" then I would for the Goblin begging for mercy.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Notice, this is respect for ALL life, not a respect for "only neutral and good creature's lives"...

So simply ask yourself:
1) Is the Paladin being altruistic to these goblins?
Altrusim: The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.
2) Does he have a respect for their life?
3) Is he concerned with their dignity? Or to but this another way. Is killing a creature that is begging for its life dignified?

As for your shopkeeper example... In a world where magic can detect a person's aligment, I think the Paladin would be well within his rights to arrest the evil shopkeeper. I do not think he can wantonly kill him for the hell of it, for the reasons I gave above for the goblins.

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?

Emphasis on the underlined above... If this is your justification for determining if a sentient creature should live or die, you might as well have the Paladin kill everyone he comes across, because everyone has the possibility of doing something evil at some point in their lives.

The killing of wolves is different because more then likely the wolves are attacking you first, based on instinct and not evil intent, and you are just defending yourself.

 

[Mad Hamish]

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.

I'd say that's going a bit too far.
Demons, Devils, evil high priests who perform sacrifices, necromancers who raise and an unleash armies of undead etc have all done huge amounts of evil and draw power willingly from evil. They're evil and killing them shouldn't
cause any problems

 

[RigaMortus2]

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?

This is a good one, thank you for this scenario...

When we consider the Lawful Good alignment, so much emphasis gets put on the Good part. There are a lot of conflicts the DM can throw at us where doing the Good thing is not the Lawful thing, and vice versa. More often then not, the choice is made on the side of Good.

Your example is a great scenario where I think picking the Lawful option is the right thing to do.

Sparing his life would be Good.
Not sparing his life would not be Good, but it also would not be Evil. His crimes were obviously heinous enough to warrant a death penalty. Unless he is dying for an unjust reason (something silly, like being executed for cheating on his wife). But since you did not go into detail as to what he was convicted of and why he got a death sentence, I will assume it was just.

Not sparing his life and fulfilling your duty would be the Lawful act.
Sparing his life would be Unlawful... Or a Chaotic act from a D&D standpoint.

I think it is more clear cut and precise when you look at the Lawful/Chaotic options and more grey or lenient from the Good/Evil options.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I'd say that's going a bit too far.
Demons, Devils, evil high priests who perform sacrifices, necromancers who raise and an unleash armies of undead etc have all done huge amounts of evil and draw power willingly from evil. They're evil and killing them shouldn't
cause any problems

It really all depends given several factors. Each situation is different. I don't think you can make a blanket statement either way. The Paladin needs to make that decision based on what is happening (and has happened) in the campaign.

You can't just make a blanket statement "killing all evil demons is NOT an evil act, no matter what" just as you can't make a blanket statement "the good thing to do would be to spare a surrendering evil creature".

 

[Mad Hamish]

Well, I would certainly agree with you if the Goblins were just normal people.

What about an evil society?
A country that worships devils or demons?

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.

Or maybe if you deal fairly with them they'll stick to their deal with you if you make it worth their while?
They might be willing to give up their favoured foods if out of it they get relieable food and in return they will let people through to access some resources and alert people of observations.

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?

Sentient creatures are different from unintelligent creatures.
(also note that wolves aren't actually overly likely to attack humans in most circumstances)