The "orc baby" paladin problem

[Delta]

As an old-schooler, I figure it's fair game here in the General forum to look at other edition alignment text (since that's how I understand it and really play it). Here's 1E DMG p. 23:

LAWFUL GOOD: Creatures of lawful good alignment view the cosmos
with varying degrees of lawfulness or desire for good. They are convinced
that order and law are absolutely necessary to assure good, and that good
is best defined as whatever brings the most benefit to the greater number
of decent, thinking creatures and the least woe to the rest.

So in this conception it's even less reasonable to take the monster-nursery approach. As long as the evil whelps are "probably" going to harm innocents when they grow up, then the paladin's cause is best served by terminating the critters early on.

 

[Slife]

This type of issue makes me want to houserule the paladin's "detect evil" to "detect divine enemy" (IE: someone their god wants them to get rid of). Same deal with "smite evil"

Seems like it would clear up a lot of issues.

 

[Endur]

"Evil babies" don't exist. They are either evil or they are babies.

Depending on which it is, the answer is clear.

Instead of calling them "evil babies", we could call them "goblins." A goblin might have the same hit points and combat ability as an evil scrag tadpole.

How should higher level characters treat goblins? As an evil creature to be taken prisoner, redeamed, and delivered unto the authorities? Or as creatures to be smited?

 

[Torm]

Or as creatures to be smited?

Not to pick on you, specifically, but I see this a LOT. And, being God of Paladins, I really feel it is my DUTY to point out that this should be "smote".

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, pawsplay, if you can respect life and still kill evil things, how is killing these tadpoles not a justified action?

My "as objects" line was probably too exaggerated to be useful, but evil things should be destroyed, and these tadpoles, like an evil tome or evil rod, have no choice but to be evil. Maybe, like an evil tome, they can be "redeemed," but the paladin is under no obligation to do so. Ending their vile little existence is a positive action -- removing evil from the world.

The law of the Tarsisian Empire recognizes three different classes of beings: Citizens (almost entirely humans and dwarves, with a smattering of other PC races and a few others), non-citizens and monstrous races.

The penalty for killing a non-citizen is less than for a citizen and there's no penalty for killing a monstrous race that hasn't somehow risen to become a citizen (a near-impossible task, and typically only happening in Ptolus, where there's that group GQ mentioned that magically brainwashes monsters).

Tarsisian law does not pretend to be good, but it certainly is orderly.

So it's completely Lawful to kill these things. They're monstrous races. Vigilante destruction of them is entirely within the bounds of law and order.

I disagree - I think he's evil and spineless.

Let's take two men who have perfectly normal fantasies every day about doing horrible horrible things to the people they despise. Put each of them in a room with one of those people tied to a chair, and let them know that there will be no adverse consequences to them, whatever happens. Both of them believe you.

The man who walks away is not evil. The man who acts out his fantasy is. And those things were true before you put them in that room.

I somewhat disagree. You can still be evil and not act out your fantasy in that scenario, thinking of thousands of different justifications for why you're showing mercy. And the man who acts out his fantasy, while definitely evil, also doesn't need to have prey dangled in front of him like that, either. He would be out there acting out his fantasies on a daily basis.

Yup. And even before doing something evil, I would argue that the person who will do something evil tomorrow is, in most cases, an evil person today.

The big issue I have with this is when the tables are turned and someone *wants* to do Good, but keeps thinking of reasons not to. "I'd have saved that burning orphanage, but I'm afraid of the governor's men." "I'd stand up to the wicked overlord, but I'm scared of getting caught." "I'd save the drowning sack of puppies, but its really cold and I might get pneumonia and die and then my children wouldn't have a father."

Such a person is neutral in my eyes, because they never *do* anything good. It seems that in your view, such a person would still be good, because they'll do something good tomorrow. You know, when it's convenient for them to do good.

I apply this to evil, too. Someone who *wants* to do evil, but keeps thinking of excuses not to, who never *does* anything evil, is not evil. They're neutral. They don't just do evil things when it's convenient for them to do evil, they do evil even when it's not convenient because they sincerely hold evil values and evil world views.

Where I would argue that he didn't have the drive and dedication to commit evil, despite being an evil man.

Without the drive and dedication to do good, you cannot be good in my eyes, despite having good intentions. Without the drive and dedication to commit evil, you cannot be evil in my eyes, despite having evil intentions. In both cases, you're neutral until you prove yourself otherwise.

"Evil babies" don't exist. They are either evil or they are babies.

Obviously, the OP's post shows that this, at least as far as he is concerned, isn't true. Evil babies do exist. They're right there, being babies, and being evil. As far as the OP's scenario is concerned, you're just...wrong.

 

[Korgoth]

I think part of the problem in this thread is that some of the people trying to define Lawful Goodness and Paladinhood actually subscribe to morally evil philosophies.

You might as well ask a fox what constitutes a properly-guarded henhouse.

 

[pawsplay]

So, pawsplay, if you can respect life and still kill evil things, how is killing these tadpoles not a justified action?

Because it makes the paladin less good. Regardless of the consequences of someone who may or may not be eaten by a troll, the act of killing those creatures leaves a stain on the paladin's soul. It may be a justified action for a LG character under some circumstances. As presented, I would not buy it.... they have no urgency whatsoever to deal with the things, and they present no immenent harm whatsoever. The paladin says, "Would I want the offspring of my race destroyed at birth whenever possible, because they were inimical to the lives of some other people?" For instance, what if nature-loving centaurs started killing human babies, which were likely to grow up to be neutral, fertile, and destructive to nature?

Further, paladins specifically must contend with their code. Even if killing those things represents, on the balance, a good act, paladins have to consider the means by which they accomplish that. Being lawful, those means must be consistently applied. "Kill someone because they represent a probable threat" is not a Good act, not a Lawful act for a good character who embodies righteousness, and is not in keeping with their honor.

Killing babies who might one day threaten your life and the lives of those around you is the act of an Evil tyrant, not a LG paladin.

Good is not simply a substance which can be manufactured. Killing a young troll might result in less suffering for some others, but definitely results in a paladin not being a paladin. You really can't know the ultimate ends... what if you kill a troll that would otherwise have one day slain a bandit, who become a tyrant, who hired a wizard, who cursed the land, that fell under the sway of an archdevil?

 

[pawsplay]

I think part of the problem in this thread is that some of the people trying to define Lawful Goodness and Paladinhood actually subscribe to morally evil philosophies.

You might as well ask a fox what constitutes a properly-guarded henhouse.

An apt point, if a bit exaggerated. I'd say I'm CN myself.

 

[Raloc]

I think part of the problem in this thread is that some of the people trying to define Lawful Goodness and Paladinhood actually subscribe to morally evil philosophies.

You might as well ask a fox what constitutes a properly-guarded henhouse.

Care to support this?

 

[Raloc]

Because it makes the paladin less good. Regardless of the consequences of someone who may or may not be eaten by a troll, the act of killing those creatures leaves a stain on the paladin's soul. It may be a justified action for a LG character under some circumstances. As presented, I would not buy it.... they have no urgency whatsoever to deal with the things, and they present no immenent harm whatsoever. The paladin says, "Would I want the offspring of my race destroyed at birth whenever possible, because they were inimical to the lives of some other people?" For instance, what if nature-loving centaurs started killing human babies, which were likely to grow up to be neutral, fertile, and destructive to nature?

Further, paladins specifically must contend with their code. Even if killing those things represents, on the balance, a good act, paladins have to consider the means by which they accomplish that. Being lawful, those means must be consistently applied. "Kill someone because they represent a probable threat" is not a Good act, not a Lawful act for a good character who embodies righteousness, and is not in keeping with their honor.

Killing babies who might one day threaten your life and the lives of those around you is the act of an Evil tyrant, not a LG paladin.

Good is not simply a substance which can be manufactured. Killing a young troll might result in less suffering for some others, but definitely results in a paladin not being a paladin. You really can't know the ultimate ends... what if you kill a troll that would otherwise have one day slain a bandit, who become a tyrant, who hired a wizard, who cursed the land, that fell under the sway of an archdevil?

See, a lot of people here are ignoring the fact that the paladin's code also includes honor. And there is absolutely none in killing babies, whether evil or not. If the "babies" are capable of honorable combat on the field of battle, then killing them to rid the world of their evil is indeed honorable. I hardly think that tadpoles or orc babies qualify as being able to sustain honorable combat with a paladin of any level. I agree with pawsplay though, killing defenseless babies is not honorable or good, and a true paladin would be able to realize this. I don't usually DM for all Good/Lawful parties, mostly Neutral to more closely model actual humans. So when someone DOES play a LAWFUL GOOD paladin, I expect them to be pretty good at not going on baby-murdering rampages.