The "orc baby" paladin problem

[Elf Witch]

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?

The what if arguement works both ways. My allowing these scargs to live they grow up to be the monsters that the paladin was afraid they would be and the go an kill an innocent young boy who was going to grow up to be a wizard that would save the world one day.

There is no way for the paladin to know either way. He has to deal with the here and now the right this minute and he is faced with scargs who radiate strong evil. Right at this moment in time they are evil. They have killed before.

The paladin has two choiced that are imo keeping with his code he can kill them and rid the world of their evil or he can try and redeem them. Neither in my game would cause a problem.

 

[Elf Witch]

The highest level cleric in the barony, the Bishop of Midwood, is level 9. The majority of the clergy are experts, not clerics. The paladin 1/cleric 1 in question is actually the highest-ranking cleric in Maidensbridge.

So then most churches would not have the ability to protect themselves from these scargs if they went with their nature?

I have another question for you would this party be able to transport the barrel over a distence and wou;d these scargs eat deer meat if offered?

 

[Seeten]

I admit it. I'm both morally bankrupt, and Lawful-Evil in real life. Doesn't mean I don't know a properly guarded Henhouse when I go to eat some hens.

 

[Gnome Quixote]

I have, perhaps, put more thought into cop shows and D&D than is really necessary, but its because I have always wanted to run a paladin and cleric -centric game that focused on the law enforcement in a large fantasy city. Law & Order: D&D. I would even love it if we incorporated the dirtier cops of The Shield, and those of the Canadian Coroner's office on Da Vinci's Inquest. But every time I mention it to players I'm met with blank stares, so I guess I'm waiting on a group who loves cop shows as much as I do. (Or they're just afraid they'll have to turn all the loot they find over into evidence. Its probably 50-50.)

I somehow missed this in the course of following this thread. If you ever decided to run this as a pbp here on EN World, I would absolutely sign up for this game!

 

[Warren Okuma]

Hold on. Troll. 3.0 (the first monster manual I found) Hmmm... page 180... Alignment: Always chaotic evil. Smack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hold on. Troll. 3.0 (the first monster manual I found) Hmmm... page 180... Alignment: Always chaotic evil. Smack.

In 3.5, they're 'Usually', not 'Always'.

-Hyp.

 

[Warren Okuma]

In 3.5, they're 'Usually', not 'Always'.

-Hyp.

Yes.

And in 3.5 you have to detect evil. That's why paladin's have them. If they are evil, smack. If they are not... well... if you worship St. Cuthbert the god of retribution. Smack. If Heironeous god of valor you might let them live to provide another paladin the chance of valor.

 

[LostSoul]

Yes.

And in 3.5 you have to detect evil. That's why paladin's have them. If they are evil, smack. If they are not... well... if you worship St. Cuthbert the god of retribution. Smack. If Heironeous god of valor you might let them live to provide another paladin the chance of valor.

I played a cleric of St. Cuthbert in a game recently. If we had evil prisoners, I'd ask them: "Do you accept the glory of St. Cuthbert and atone for your sins?"

If they said no, I'd say, "Then I condemn you to the Abyss." Smack!

If they said yes, then I'd say, "May you revel in the presence of St. Cuthbert." Smack!

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

They do present an imminent threat. Not to the paladin, but to perhaps other innocent creatures. They are evil. They have killed. They will do so again. They are not innocent, defenseless human babies. They are ruthless, vile, killing machines.

The paladin is not going to be defending himself by killing these things, but he will be protecting those who don't have his power -- the commoners and housecats and other weaklings of the world. He will be defending the weak from the evil contained in these weak beings. That doesn't make him any less good.

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.

The babies do pose a threat, though. They pose a threat to everything they can get their chompy little teeth on. It might not be much, but its enough for them to already have become evil. They have done wicked deeds already, and will continue to do so. The paladin must protect those weaker than himself, and sometimes that means killing those weaker than himself.

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?

I disagree. Just as sometimes the paladin must kill level 1 mooks who support the necromancer king (and beat puppies), sometimes a paladin must also kill troll tadpoles who are out for murder (and beat puppies). The power of the creature has little bearing on this: the paladin is *required* to protect those who cannot protect themselves, sometimes by slaying things that are not a threat to him, but who threaten society, safety, and integrity of those weaker than himself. That's protecting the innocent.

 

[pawsplay]

Kamikaze Midget, your arguments are interesting, but they just don't convince me. What you are saying makes sense for a Vulcan. It does not, however, work for a LG paladin. They must never do evil, they must remain in the main Lawful, and they cannot betray their code.

Killing evil things on the probability (not the certainty) they will do evil acts is a cynical act, and further, raises the question, "what is the difference between good and evil if both simply kill all who oppose them?" The "greater good" couner-example I gave is straight out of Kant. When asked whether it was permissible to lie to save someone's life, he replied no, if it is wrong to lie, it is always wrong to lie. There is another school of thought, called utilitarianism, which focuses on achieving good for the many, even if it means the suffering of a few.

Now, a paladin in D&D is bound to neither viewpoint, and most will incorporate elements of both ("extraordinary burdens" arguments, for instance, would argue for utilitarianism, unless it creates an extraordinary burden for the minority chosen to suffer). They are, however, bound in certain ways to advancing either viewpoint. While killing a few evil babies might produce a momentary benefit, ultimately, a policy of doing so creates a hard, terrible world. The greatest good for the greatest number necessitates that those who are punished are actually guilty; a false conviction aimed to "better society" actually steals security from everyone. And the paladin who kills babies extinguishes young, helpless trolls also extinguishes the quality of mercy. These arguments are the basis for things such as civil rights, the concept of a "just war," and the argument of the slippery slope.

Suppose, for instance, a gnome mathematician proved that human babies raised in a particular bandit tribe were AS LIKELY to become CE as trolls raised among their own kind, and kill as many or more people. The trolls are born evil. The human babies are not. But in searching for the greatest good for the greatest number, killing either is exactly the same. We don't care what's in their heart, only what evil they will do.

I reject that argument. In D&D, at least, a moral viewpoint is meaningful, irrespective of whether it has a material basis. While consequences are important, intentions are important, too.

I certainly would not countenance a LG paladin slaying another LG paladin in cold blood, however many people might benefit. Suppose, for instance, that a LG paladin learned that one of the sisters of his order was destined to give birth to a half fiend who would ascend to deific status and rule the world for a hundred years. Imagine that she is currently 20 years old, a LG paladin of 2nd level, and absolutely believes she can avert that prophecy.

Is killing her a LG act?