Limits of morality in the game?

[Raven Crowking]

As would I.

What if this was a DM that you knew and trusted? What if, in fact, the paladin was supposed to discover that his deity had been usurped, and an evil creature was now granting spells in her place?

 

[mmadsen]

True but there's no "if" in a generally "good" outlook about valuing life. It is valued. Thats not to say there might not be reasons to end it.

Let me restate my question: In the case of a baby demon, do we value its life at all? A newly spawn vampire? Any creature which preys primarily on people?

In a world where the gods of all that is good and lawful expect paladins to smite evil, is a demon life held sacred? A vampire life? A man-eating wyvern life?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let me restate my question: In the case of a baby demon, do we value its life at all? A newly spawn vampire?

A newly spawned vampire isn't "alive". One could argue (as I would), that Outsiders aren't "alive" in the conventional sense, either. If you accept that a baby demon is "alive" then the answer is Yes. As someone once said, See Hellboy.

Any creature which preys primarily on people?

Of course. But it is equally true that we do not value its life more than that of the people that it would eat. We commit a small evil to prevent a greater evil from occurring.

In a world where the gods of all that is good and lawful expect paladins to smite evil, is a demon life held sacred? A vampire life? A man-eating wyvern life?

See above.


RC

 

[delericho]

What if this was a DM that you knew and trusted?

If (and only if) it was a DM I had played with for a long time, and trusted, then I would give him a chance to explain before I walked. But stripping the powers of the paladin for arbitrary reasons is a massive violation of trust itself, so he does have to explain, and quickly.

What if, in fact, the paladin was supposed to discover that his deity had been usurped, and an evil creature was now granting spells in her place?

This is just one reason why I'm not fond of the 'Paladins get their status from a god' paradigm, and vastly prefer instead the model where paladins get their status from Good. However, if we're working under that model, then I'd agree that that is indeed a valid explanation for what happened.

Unfortunately, it's a valid plot that the DM could never meaningfully run, because as I said above, if the DM didn't explain what was going on (ruining his plot) I would be out the door.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Unfortunately, it's a valid plot that the DM could never meaningfully run, because as I said above, if the DM didn't explain what was going on (ruining his plot) I would be out the door.

Well, I'm a firm believer in walking from any game where you aren't having fun (as a DM or player).

Though, in a world where the players knew upfront that (1) dragons represent evil, being manifestations of the worst in mankind, and (2) demons take on the guise of gods and spirits, trying to trick mortals into worshipping them, I did have a player decide that he wanted to play a Paladin of a heretofore unheard-of God of Dragons, without realizing the obvious consequences.

Of course, I don't care if someone walks....There's a line up for their spot.

RC

 

[delericho]

Though, in a world where the players knew upfront that (1) dragons represent evil, being manifestations of the worst in mankind, and (2) demons take on the guise of gods and spirits, trying to trick mortals into worshipping them, I did have a player decide that he wanted to play a Paladin of a heretofore unheard-of God of Dragons, without realizing the obvious consequences.

Well, hey, if it's up-front I'm not bothered. It's only when things start to look and feel like a hose-job (whether they actually are or not) that I get jittery.

 

[mmadsen]

You can't kill people for crimes they haven't committed yet.

No, but you can kill a spider before it bites you. And you can kill a fox or a weasel before it successfully kills your hens and starves your family.

If you want to persuade me otherwise, provide a reasonable argument that killing the child is okay... if the child is Human.

This is the crux of the issue: a baby monster isn't a baby human. A human grows up to be (on net) good for society the vast majority of the time and bad only a tiny fraction of the time. A monster generally grows up to kill people or harm their livelihood.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Let me restate my question: In the case of a baby demon, do we value its life at all? A newly spawn vampire? Any creature which preys primarily on people?

A baby demon? A vampire life?

Methinks one is going a bit too far with examples here...

 

[frankthedm]

A human grows up to be (on net) good for society the vast majority of the time and bad only a tiny fraction of the time.

That is an error. Humans are mostly neutral. As many rise above neutral as those that fall below it. Many go along to get along, sometimes finding purpose in supporting Order, others reject patterned behavior for flights of fancy, but on the most part they fulfill their need to feed and breed. Usually in a way that does not greatly help or hurt others. They protect their children as any neutral creature does. They band together to form groups, helping one another to be helped in return. These groups destroy other groups to further their own and sometimes join together to form huge groups.

 

[mmadsen]

That is an error. Humans are mostly neutral.

I did not mean to suggest that most humans are of good alignment, simply that humans benefit from other humans -- more so in a developed economy than in a primitive one trapped in a Malthusian trap, but killing people doesn't generally make the world a better place.