The "orc baby" paladin problem

[Falkus]

Big difference evil does not have any respect for life. They will take it without remorse and to suit their needs. By the paladin respecting an evil creatures right to life he is allowing this creature the ability to kill other innocent creatures.

We're not talking about a creature that's currently in the process of burning down a town here.

Who has more right to live the evil creature or the innocent who has never done any wrong?

You're talking about hypothetical future situations. That's not a Paladin's responsibility. He can't kill somebody because of something they might do.

The paladin has a chance to think this over because they are not a threat yet. But they will be if he does nothing.

Any creature has the potential to be a threat.

I see nothing wrong with the paladin slaying these creatures for the greater good.

You really should pick a better term than greater good, since it's a term almost exclusively used by evil aligned people.

There are times that a paladin has to do the quick and the dirty and there are times when he has more choice.

If you wanted an easy choice, you shouldn't have played a paladin.

Whose conscience is it on when the troll grows up big and strong and rapes, then eats someones wife? Someones mother? Butchers an entire town?

Well, by that logic, a paladin could kill just about any baby free of remorse, since they all have the potential to be evil murderers when they grow up.

 

[Lockridge]

This argument over whether or not something is inherently evil or just learns to be evil could go on forever.

To be honest, I don't play D&D to decide whether or not to kill babies. As DMs, can't we think of better ways to create drama and moral dilemma than to have a paladin encounter baby orcs, trolls or whatever? I think it would be much more interesting to have the paladin encounter the infant son of an enemy - oh I'm sure he wouldn't kill the baby but there are all sorts of story ideas there. Maybe the party's rogue wants to hold it hostage - what's the paladin do then? Maybe the party's mage or cleric wants to cast spells to extract information from it - how does the paladin react? Maybe an NPC wants to kill it - how does the paladin react when the NPC is his liege?

There is a reason that dungeons aren't typically designed with humanoid nurseries - its a distastful subject.

 

[prosfilaes]

I agree strongly with the argument that this is something the church would have answered, in a world with adventuring paladins fighting orcs and trolls as a common basis. I don't think those who know every word of scripture backwards and forwards are going to miss a chance to explain the right action to the paladins who get all the fame.

How many monasteries are out there that are capable of raising orc or troll children? And of these monasteries, how many have the capacity to take on more?

In a world where the church requires that be done, than most monasteries of that church can probably raise orc or troll children.

 

[Sir Elton]

It's finally come up in my Midwood campaign (OK, I finally made it come up ):

So, what would your paladins do in this situation? As a DM, what's your read on the spiritual burden on a paladin, depending on his actions?

I'd quit the party.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Depends, depends, depends. This is one of those questions that should be worked out in advance by the DM and the players, specifically as follows:

1) Are "evil" humanoids like orcs and goblins (a) genetically *EEEEVIL* (like demons, or like JRRT's orcs), (b) generally predisposed to evil behavior, or (c) the product of evil cultures? IF the latter, or even the second, orc babies probably wouldn't register as evil to the smackdown radar.

2) Does Lawful Good and/or the paladin's CoC require him to preserve the life of all beings, even those who *might* be dangerous, if they pose no immediate danger to anyone?

3) If 1(b) or (c) above is true, then is refusing to save the babies a non-Good act?

I think one can answer all of those questions in advance. IMC, for instance (although I don't use the D&D alignment system, orcs, goblins, etc. are *not* necessarily evil by nature. Infants of those races certainly aren't. Orc babies could be brought back to civilization and raised in an orphanage or the like. But such is not true of all campaigns.

I agree with these. You can't argue alignment unless this stuff is well defined, which is all campaign specific. And if it IS well defined, then there normally wouldn't be any arguement because it would be pretty black and white.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That's a big assumption. Maybe the evil creature just wants to sell them bad real estate in a swampland for big bucks or prefers to turf orphans out of their institutions to sell for money. Not all evil creatures are murderous. Not all evil acts should be punishable by death.

In this case, the Heroes of Midwood had just rescued two small children from a cell that was quite clearly the trolls' larder, containing bits of fishermen and half of a kobold adventurer. It was a far cry from being called in by the Better Business Bureau (although that'd be a heck of a hook in an urban adventure!).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

When you find a nest of rattlesnakes in your house, you kill them all, including the babies.

Exactly.

It's no different than putting down a rabid dog. You don't have to enjoy it, but it's the right thing to do, and it has to be done.

 

[Elf Witch]

I can see why so many paladin threads go so many pages and that is that no one can agree on what is an evil act.

It may be fun to debate things like this on a board but I can tell you it is not fun in a game.

DnD is a game and to put paladins in the postion where if they sneeze wrong they lose their paladin powers is just ridiculous.

Games are supposed to be fun. Isn't that why we play?

Any other class could kill these scags with no penalty. And move on to the next adventure but not the paladin no he who has detect evil at will and smite evil X times a day must walk a tightrope to figure out how to please a DM or lose his class abilities.

Because that what this comes down to pleasing the DM on the DMs opinion of what is evil. No other class goes through this.

I think it is bad DMing to say a creature is evil if you are going to handicap the paladin and not allow him to use his class ability to smite. If you want to add moral dilemma into the game then don't have the babies detect as evil.


I DM a paladin right now and while I would not allow him in most cities to just detect evil and then walk up and smite because of it. I allow him a lot more leeway when he is out in the wildnerness there he has the right to make a judgement on the level of threat and if he feels it is warranted he can be J/J/E.

In the one Duchy which is a theoracy all paladins and clerics are considered to have the ability to be J/J/E of lawbreakers.

Now in my game thieves, adulters, crooked merchants do not detect of evil unless they are also doing evil acts. What is an evil act in my game killing an innocent, causing great harm like a crooked merchant selling food that he knows is tainted. Choosing to serve an evil diety as a cleric.

I use the Kingdom of Kalamar rules on clerics all clerics must be the same alignment as their diety.

A noble who allows his surfs to starve because of his greed will detect of evil.

I also do not use the RAW rules on detect evil. I use my DM opinion on how evil something is so I have degrees of faint, moderate, strong and overwhelming.

The merchant who has only sold bad food once may detect as faint and evil cleric who has killed innocents in the service of his God will detect as strong or depending on how many evil acts they have done as overwhelming.

We also use the BoXD rules on redeeming an evil creature if that is what the paladin wants to do.

In my game any sentient creature can choose to be good or evil and my players know this.

I have found that allowing my paaldins to have more freedom in what they can do has not made them turn into murdering thugs with a sword killing everything that pings as evil. I have seen paladins show mercy to an evil creature and try to redeem it as often as they have smited it.

I don't have inter party conflicts because of having a paaldin in the group because the other players know that the paladins is not going to be putting them into unnecessary danger trying to live up to an impossible to follow code that says all evil doers has to do is surrender and then escape later to try and kill the party as they sleep.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I agree strongly with the argument that this is something the church would have answered, in a world with adventuring paladins fighting orcs and trolls as a common basis. I don't think those who know every word of scripture backwards and forwards are going to miss a chance to explain the right action to the paladins who get all the fame.

Sure, I'd expect that they have already an answer to such questions.

But, and this is important, this might not be the only correct answer. Let each paladin PC struggle with such questions on his own - this is the stuff good role-playing is made from.

 

[billd91]

In this case, the Heroes of Midwood had just rescued two small children from a cell that was quite clearly the trolls' larder, containing bits of fishermen and half of a kobold adventurer. It was a far cry from being called in by the Better Business Bureau (although that'd be a heck of a hook in an urban adventure!).

Sure, but I presume it wasn't the tadpoles that brought the people in there. I don't think anyone should blame my toddler because he ate the bologna sandwich I made him. I did the shopping. I provided the provender. He did what his daddy told him to do because he doesn't really know any better.

The point I was making is that just because someone pings as evil that they are or will be some kind of murdering maniac. Death is not always the correct response to evil.