Paladins and Good Aligned Folk In War - Are Orc Children Slain?

[Sundragon2012]

Paladins and Good Aligned Folk In War - Are Orc Children Slain?

That would seem to be a yes and no answer. Any good aligned company with a Paladian as a commander wouldn not. Maybe with a Chaotic good commander, but that's like flipping a coin.

I'd see a good aligned crew that's not severely bent on revenge for slain loved ones take the orc childrean and perhaps educate and civilize them for the greater good of their people and somehow influence the orcish race...but boy, I'd hate to be the teacher.

Neutral good might make a pragmatic choice and kill them if there wasn't enough resources at home to house feed and train the younglings.

I largely agree.

In regards to paladins or knightly types I believe it would be their code that prevents them from killing non-combatants and not merely the concerns of alignment.

I think that personal codes of conduct are a believable rationale as to why a paladin would not killing bawling orc babes....it is beneath the dignity of his station to do so. The soft sensibilites of our era IMO would have nothing to do with it. However, regular soldiers of whatever alignment, would not be so bound save by personal conviction or the commands of their superiors.


Chris

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Now I don't think all Paladins are bound by the same restrictions as the Paladin in my game. A Paladin of Pholtus would put Kobald children to the sword in quantity without qualms. Kobalds are so far from the One True Way that they are beneith consideration. Hell they persecute LG followers of other gods up in the Pale...what reason would they have to extend mercy to LE kobalds?

 

[Falkus]

I wonder how Heironeous feels about it when those kobolds survive, grow to adulthood, and go on to kill good and decent human worshippers of Heironeous.

Who said it was easy being good? You can't kill someone because of something he MIGHT do in the future. Should we put the entire human race to the sword? After all, a human baby has an equal chance of being good or evil when he or she grows up. Can we take that chance?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Who said it was easy being good? You can't kill someone because of something he MIGHT do in the future. Should we put the entire human race to the sword? After all, a human baby has an equal chance of being good or evil when he or she grows up. Can we take that chance?

Yep. That is pretty much the gist of it.

P.S. If one dared insinuate that the Paladin of H was in danger from a Kobald child...well it would be dueling time. Long daggers and silk shirts maybe?

 

[Sundragon2012]

Who said it was easy being good? You can't kill someone because of something he MIGHT do in the future. Should we put the entire human race to the sword? After all, a human baby has an equal chance of being good or evil when he or she grows up. Can we take that chance?

Frequently good = stupid, and completely out of touch with the reality of the brutally violent world they live in. Its as if the gods of good want their believers to be destroyed or at best rely on waek plot contrivances that allow the good aligned soul to skirt any of the real consequences of war and the very violence that is rampant in fantasy gaming.

Good may not be easy, but good folk are willing to commit violence for all kings of "good" reasons in the game.

Human babies, unless raised in a malevolent and violent culture, very rarely grow up to be evil. Most emotionally healthy adults are good to neutral in alignment. Really evil, the kind of evil demonstrated in orcs and other humanoids, exists among humans but is an aberration.


Chris

 

[frankthedm]

Paladins have detect evil at will, they should be using it. If a child has commited so many foul deeds it's soul will be dragged to hell, then hasten its decent.

IMHO Knowlege: Religeon should be the very skilled USED for answering Moral/Ethical Questions.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Frequently good = stupid, and completely out of touch with the reality of the brutally violent world they live in. Its as if the gods of good want their believers to be destroyed or at best rely on waek plot contrivances that allow the good aligned soul to skirt any of the real consequences of war and the very violence that is rampant in fantasy gaming.

Good may not be easy, but good folk are willing to commit violence for all kings of "good" reasons in the game.

Some will, but not a Paladin or Cleric of Hieroneous whom is not just a god of Good but of Honor and Chivalry. So instead of changing and disregarding his honor for convienence he will attempt to remake the world to conform to his views through words and deeds. The character will most likely die in the attempt, but it's not finishing the task that is the important, its trying to finish it and devoting ones total self to that goal. If you come up short but do so with Honor then there is no shame and eternal glory and honor await at the side of the Shining One. If thats just more weak plot contrivances then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Paladins have detect evil at will, they should be using it.

IMHO Knowlege: Religeon should be the very skilled USED for answering Moral/Ethical Questions.

I agree that detections can be valuable but this issue goes deeper because some of us run campaigns that don't go for the "I detect it as evil so I have the right to kill it." I think that this kind of thinking seeps into the game from the bygone era when it was important to give a paladin some kind of thin motivation to kill whoever they need to kill to get the gold.

But does that mean that the DM is supposed to allow for the general slaughter of anything detected as evil. When exactly is that inappropriate? Where is it appropriate? Plus, I think that these detection spells can make things easy at the expense of campaign depth, complexity and mystery.

Maybe you are right that Knowledge:Religion can be used to answer these questions, but only if the DM has answered these questions for himself and his setting.


Chris

 

[Sundragon2012]

Some will, but not a Paladin or Cleric of Hieroneous whom is not just a god of Good but of Honor and Chivalry. So instead of changing and disregarding his honor for convienence he will attempt to remake the world to conform to his views through words and deeds. The character will most likely die in the attempt, but it's not finishing the task that is the important, its trying to finish it and devoting ones total self to that goal. If you come up short but do so with Honor then there is no shame and eternal glory and honor await at the side of the Shining One. If thats just more weak plot contrivances then we will have to agree to disagree.

Allow me to quote myself to clarify my position:

"In regards to paladins or knightly types I believe it would be their code that prevents them from killing non-combatants and not merely the concerns of alignment.

I think that personal codes of conduct are a believable rationale as to why a paladin would not killing bawling orc babes....it is beneath the dignity of his station to do so. The soft sensibilites of our era IMO would have nothing to do with it. However, regular soldiers of whatever alignment, would not be so bound save by personal conviction or the commands of their superiors."

I am agreeing with you.

And to clarify I don't believe personally that good = stupid, I just feel that it is often portrayed that way. Remove those with their personal chivalric codes from the discussion for a moment, we are still left with regular Joe soldiers and warriors who would be considered to be acting in an evil fashion by actively preventing a renewal of an orc threat by cutting off its head.

For non-paladins and non-knights, the greater evil is allowing your own innocent to die at the hands of creatures you know will return as soon as their numbers recover from the most recent conflict. Burn the villages and you save your children and wives and your neighbors children and wives from having to go to war in another 10-15yrs against another threat built upon the foundation of your sentimentalism.

That isn't good, its dumb. That is my point.


Chris

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Ok then we agree! *cheers and applause*

And I think you have a good point about too much of a modern sensibility dictating the beliefs of a medieval man.