Is killing a Goblin who begs for mercy evil?

[Mad Hamish]

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.

I refer people to Death Masks in The Dresden Files and a certain incident with a surrendering ex-demon a couple of knights of the lord and a wizard with a baseball bat...

 

[Mad Hamish]

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?

A Paladin would not be the King's executioner
It might be legal to execute a forger but it's unlikely that a Paladin would agree to do so.
The exact crime the criminal commits would have a fair bit to do with what a Paladin would accept as appropriate punishment.

I'd say taking a life is never a good act ("respect for life" is listed under Good RAW, and "killing others" under Evil).

Depends, killing a Demon or Devil could well qualify as good.
Killing to defend others could well be a good act. (If you kill an evil high priest as he's about to sacrifice a baby for instance)

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.

Based on my reading of Detect Evil the 'evil intent' means that a non-evil creature with evil intent radiates evil as if it was an evil creature rather than 'automatically detects as evil' so a low powered creature doesn't detect as evil irrespective of intent.

 

[Varthol]

re

Another thing to keep in mind is that some part of the paladin's ethics come from his faith. A paladin of a LN god might be more inclined towards a lawful/planned choice than others.

An example if I may, my friend used to play a Paladin of Sune in FR back in 3.X and, NO MATTER WHAT, he would never attack (or insult, or etc) women.

And a different person once played a paladin of Heironous who might as well be a heartless demon hunter.

Paladins unlike traditional viewpoint, are Very Rarely devoted to kings. They are devoted to their faith and obey its verdicts but that's how far it goes. They would typically display respect for a region's laws but if it goes against their religious ethics, they would (half-heartedly) break them.

[Also keep in mind that LG divine characters usually need a mission to drive them forward in a story. It is very rare (almost PC exclusive actually ) that such a person would be an adventurer. Give such characters a means of communication or a connection to their mission or faith (without overshadowing other characters though) as the story progresses.]

As for the goblin choise, be easy on your players. Not even Gary Gygax should be able to roleplay a paladin 100% in the right way from the viewpoint of another DM. Have the player ask himself what would he think would be his faith's verdict on the issue at hand when a morally grey choice is required.

 

[Herobizkit]

Accepting a goblin surrender: honorable and good.

Refusing a surrender from/killing a known evil race: not so honorable (unless we're using Samurai instead of the chivalric code), and possibly bordering on chaotic, but not evil.

If the Paladin accepts the creature's surrender, then turn around and stabs the creature when he's not looking: not honorable, definitely chaotic, and probably evil at that point.

 

[N'raac]

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, aren't we judgemental. Of course, the Goblin is not human, so we can decide they are hardwired for evil. In such case, it hardly seems unreasonable to put them down. But, if they are truly hardwired to that behaviour, it seems they are more neutral than evil, in that they lack the capacity for moral choice. They still need to be put down for the safety of others, though.

I prefer goblins with free will.

p 166 of the basic rules tells us good implies respect for life. Killing is, then, not a choice to be made on a whim, or without making every effort to find other options. Those options may not be convenience, but "Goopd characters make personal sacrifices to help others".

Evil, from the same page, implies killing others. Creatures who "have no compassion" and "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" are explicitly noted as evil. Those who "have compunctions about killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifces to protect or help others" are neutral.

The question asked for RAW. Those are the RAW.


Good isn't stupid. There may well be situations where killing is the only choice, and accepting surrender just to be stabbed in the back on a recurrent basis is not required. But Good is also not about taking the path of least resistance, it's not always easy, and it's not about personal convenience.

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.

That sounds EXACTLY like the citizens of that country we're always in border skirmishes with, so I guess we can put them down with impunity as well, right?

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.

Skunks are not sentient and lack the capacity to make a moral choice. That makes it different.

A society that is Good will "make sacrifices to help others", which means they will tighten their belts and make those resources available, not decide they're "just bad blood" and slaughter them without a second thought. This is, at best Neutral - not willing to make personal sacrifices to help others.

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.

Outsiders follow a whole different set of rules. They are hard coded Evil, so they can reasonably be taken down. If, in your game, Goblins are the same, the same rules should apply. But if Goblins are hard wired Evil, we may as well hard wire the humanoid races Good while we're at it. Why have any deviation? What makes some races hard wired and others not, on this plane?

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.

Lawful and Good are separate. Killing for an evil master is explicitly noted as evil. Paladins don't get to "just follow orders" - they must ensure their orders are consistent with Good.

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

Yup

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.

Again, yup - "hats" - "hardwired alignment".

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.

Revisiting p 266 - 267, while "Creatures with actively evil intent count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell", only creatires with 5+ HD actually have an aura of evil, so my previous comments are not accurate. I am inclined to consider that the "presence or absence of evil" is still detected (otherwise, that poor paladin has no actual ability for several levels, so why should he have it from L1 in the first place), but there will not be "evil auras" for the 2nd and 3rd round effects of the spell.

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

Bingo!

 

[El Mahdi]

@Donp

The RAW of alignment is not black and white, and that's by design. It allows for it to be interpreted based on the group and individual that are playing the game, rather than the rules dictating what "must" and "must not" be done. The "Rule 0" on alignment in the Pathfinder Core Book, is practically word for word from the 3.5E Players Handbook:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook pg. 167

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.​

​

That means that even the DM shouldn't try to "restrict" a player based on alignment. However, a thorough discussion of the alignment of the player's characters before play, is acceptable and recomended. Once a player decides on their interpretation of their character's alignment, then it's okay in "general" terms for a DM to expect the player to follow it - but only in general terms. Even in the real world, people's behavior is far from consistent.

For classes like Paladins, where alignment is an integral part of the archetype, more restriction is acceptable...but, only after discussing what the player's views for their character is before play, and what the requirements of their church or order are (IMO, mostly determined by you but should be somewhat collaborative). If a player is being honest about what they feel is good and evil, you'll know. Just as you'll know when a player isn't being honest about their views, and is just taking actions to gain an "in game" advantage - like playing a Paladin with all of their cool abilities, but not adhering to the balancing alignment requirements.

In your case, it sounds like your players view is even more stringent than your interpretation, so I'd say let them roll with it. Besides, from an in-game perspective, if the Paladin believes that something is wrong, then to the Paladin it "is" wrong.

There's an appropriate quote about "belief" from one of my favorite movies, Bull Durham:

Crash Davis (Kevin Costner): If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you are!

With Paladins and Clerics, alignment is a little more restrictive than other classes, but it's still just a tool to realize a character concept - not an absolutely rigid template of that characters behavior. Even within an organization (like a church or order), there are always conflicting opinions about what's right and wrong, or "Good" and "Evil". In such cases, I see those differences of opinion as fodder for adventure hooks and in-game interaction, rather than an opportunity for me (as DM) to hammer a player. The code of a Paladin is meant to highlight a facet of the class, that with great power comes great responsibility.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Look, if you're the DM, the rule is simple: don't be a jerk. If the player of the Paladin is making an honest effort to do the right thing all the time, and he can make even a halfway decent argument for why what he did was the right thing, he is playing a Paladin properly and in accordance with the rules. Taking away his powers because you don't agree with his interpretation of Lawful Good is being a jerk; don't be a jerk.

Now, if you're a player it's a lot more complicated because then you have to worry about whether or not the DM understands this rule; judging by what happens in any thread on any D&D forum that so much as contains the word "Paladin", the vast majority of DMs do not. In my experience it is simply safer to refuse to play a Paladin under any circumstances, because it is impossible to win an argument over the Paladin's Code of Conduct. Once your Paladin falls, your only options are to replace the PC or replace the DM.

Finally realizing that roleplaying restrictions should only have roleplaying consequences may well be the smartest decision Wizards made in designing 4e.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Look, if you're the DM, the rule is simple: don't be a jerk. If the player of the Paladin is making an honest effort to do the right thing all the time, and he can make even a halfway decent argument for why what he did was the right thing, he is playing a Paladin properly and in accordance with the rules. Taking away his powers because you don't agree with his interpretation of Lawful Good is being a jerk; don't be a jerk.

Now, if you're a player it's a lot more complicated because then you have to worry about whether or not the DM understands this rule; judging by what happens in any thread on any D&D forum that so much as contains the word "Paladin", the vast majority of DMs do not. In my experience it is simply safer to refuse to play a Paladin under any circumstances, because it is impossible to win an argument over the Paladin's Code of Conduct. Once your Paladin falls, your only options are to replace the PC or replace the DM.

Finally realizing that roleplaying restrictions should only have roleplaying consequences may well be the smartest decision Wizards made in designing 4e.

Agreed. I think even if you're really into the deep-immersion style of RP'ing, it's far better to have a character who is conflicted over his moral code because of his own conscience than because of fear of losing his magical powers.

As a DM, I would be fine saying that for clerics and paladins that initiation as a divine character is a kind of indelible empowerment- until you pledge your soul to some other divinity, you keep your paladin/cleric powers. It allows players to think about these 'do baby orcs have souls' issues if they want that kind of a game, and ignore it otherwise.

On the question that prompted this thread, for instance, I think everyone has made it clear that there are completely valid arguments from both sides. A DM picking one and saying 'bad pally, no magic powers' without making it clear to the player in advance what the expectations are in that situation isn't gritty or realistic, it's just kind of obnoxious.

 

[RigaMortus2]

A Paladin would not be the King's executioner
It might be legal to execute a forger but it's unlikely that a Paladin would agree to do so.
The exact crime the criminal commits would have a fair bit to do with what a Paladin would accept as appropriate punishment.

I'm not so sure about that. If the Paladin's king orders him to be the royal executioner, what kind of act would it be for the Paladin to refuse the orders of his king? Hint: Not a Lawful one...

I liken this example to the deserter of The Wall in Game of Thrones.

Lets say that the person being executed was conscripted to be a solider to guard "the wall". He was a petty thief, and his choice was "die or pledge your life guarding the wall." He chose to live and guard the wall.

While at the wall, he comes face to face with horrible monsters. Rather then stand and fight, he cowardly turns tail and run, deserting his post. Deserting your post is an act of treason. Treason is punishable by death according to local laws.

So lets say we have a deserter/traitor about to be executed. Instead of Eddard Stark, we have a LG Paladin that was ordered by Eddard, his king, to do the beheading (all of the "the man that passes the sentence swings the sword" aside).

What does he do?

Also, taken from a Game of Thrones... When King Robert comes to Winterfell and "asks" Eddard Stark to be the new Hand of the King, while it appeared to be Eddard's choice, it really wasn't a choice at all. He was asked, so he kinda had to, duty (and his king) called for it.

 

[Systole]

Oh boy, another alignment thread.

Guess what? This is never going to be resolved. In real life, our society can't decide on what to do with enemy combatants. Moving the discussion to a fantasy world where demons and angels poke their fingers into everyday decisions doesn't make this discussion clearer. This is never going to be resolved -- it's just going to end up as another useless 5 page thread.

As a GM, you've got two choices:
1. Evil creatures are gleefully, maliciously 100% pure evil. They don't ask for mercy, or if they do, it's a trick and they should be slaughtered anyway. The path of LG is always clear, but not necessarily easy.
2. Alignment is fuzzy and dependent on intent. If a LG character thinks he is doing the right thing, then it's the right thing. Period, end of story, move along. (Note: This is different from "knows he's doing the wrong thing, but it rationalizing it away." It's a GM call.)

Otherwise, you end up with every RP session being a philosophical conversation between the paladin and his confessor. Which would be boring as hell.