The "orc baby" paladin problem

[phindar]

I ran an experiment in game form one time, I had the players make all good characters from an all good world, who were then transported to a mirror universe that was all evil. It was the same place, with pretty much the same people, except Paladins were Lawful Evil and Assassins were Any Good. It ran 8 sessions of expedited play, 5th-9th level. (I wasn't really worried about quick advancement or character wealth, since it was just a mini-series.)

The experimental part was that whatever the Good characters did in the Evil world, the Evil characters were doing in the Good world. I wanted to see if there was a point where something the Good characters did couldn't be justified from the Evil perspective. And it never came up. While the Good characters were running around attacking Evil things on sight, the mirror universe versions were doing the same thing against Good things.

What I took away from it was that opposition is a pretty poor way to define moral conflicts. That is to say, Characters aren't Good because they fight Evil, they fight Evil because they are Good. Otherwise, you're just on the pale side of Neutral.

Killing troll babies or any defenseless thing (and I'm not sure scrag tadpoles qualify, but I'm speaking to the larger debate here) is a classic example of "If we do this, we are no better than they." I think if you're using the term "Good" in any sense other than defining what Cosmic Bowling Team you play for, you have to strive for a higher ideal.

 

[pawsplay]

Nope no difference to the paladin. It's just the god wants that thing dead.

Where does it say in any D&D book anywhere that detecting evil means a god wants something dead? AFAIK, gods do not have the power to decree something evil. A god can, if it chooses, tell the paladin to kill anyone or anything, but it cannot make good evil or evil, good.

Or the god just hates trolls. Or the god is near omnipotent and can see the future. Who is the paladin to judge?

Correct, but who are you to judge the gods?

It is not necessary for the paladin to judge the gods, only himself.

You are invoking the Divine Command theory of good and evil. Without going into the whole thing, suffice it to say that centuries of Western theology have deemed it invalid.

The theory runs into many philosophical problems. One objection is that it implies that morality is arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, morality is based merely upon god's whim. Thus, if god had willed cruelty and dishonesty to be virtues, and mercy and charity to be vices, then they would have been. The natural reply to this objection is that god would not have commanded such things because he would not command evil, but this response implies a circular definition as it is only god's command that makes them evil (see: see).

It implies that calling god good makes no sense — or, at best, that one is simply saying that god is consistent: "God does whatever he commands".

It commits the naturalistic fallacy. If I ask why I shouldn't commit murder, the divine command answer is: "because god commands you not to", but I can then ask why I should do what god commands. If the answer is that god created me, I can ask why I should obey my creator, and so on. This is not a matter of motivation, but of the explanation of the normativity of morality.

It seems to lead to the conclusion that all moral values are at the same level, because what is wrong is simply to disobey god; that is, committing murder is no worse than telling a lie, because in the two cases I have equally disobeyed god.

Finally, there is the question of how one comes to know the will of god. Most religions point to their scriptures for answers, but it is still possible to question whether these really state the will of god. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_ethics

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have a problem with that because it's a circular argument. Good is that which kills evil, evil is that which kills good....

The question, to me, is "What makes Good different than evil?"

Good kills evil, protects neutral from evil, and aids even different kinds of good against evil.

Evil kills evil, kills neutral, and kills good.

This is an extrapolation of the good guys/bad guys idea I posted above. Good characters protect innocents. Evil characters corrupt, murder, and use them as tools.

If detect evil requires you to smite something because it's Evil, then the question of good and evil has resolved to purely one of prudence. That is, you kill something because it does evil, and you don't want it to. But you don't want it do, because it's evil. If evil is "what sets off detect evil," what causes something to set off detect evil?

A: Detect evil doesn't ALWAYS require you to smite it to be good. In this situation, it seems what is demanded: it is evil, and to do anything other than smite it would be irresponsible at best.

B: What makes it evil in the first place is committing evil acts, including murdering innocents. If they don't commit these acts, IMO, they don't get to be evil, because evil requires a commitment.

Trolls are not composed of evil. They are living creatures with their own desires and interests. They are evil, descriptively; they are not evil, in the sense that being a troll is the same thing as being evil.

That is largely a campaign consideration. It is, perhaps, true in the core. It is even more debatable in the OP's case. I mean, either the scragpoles are composed of evil, or they've used their short lives to commit it after being spawned. Otherwise, they wouldn't be evil.

There are neutral characters who commit crimes and must be punished, and there are those who do not. Clearly, the non-criminals do not face a paladin's wrath, while the criminals do. Is there not the same difference, then, between something that is evil, and something that is evil and does evil?

There is no difference between being evil and doing evil. Additionally, some non-criminals can face a paladin's wrath, and some criminals can face their unending mercy and compassion.

A troll DOES have a choice, although trolls tend to make it in a certain way. You could argue that humans have a "choice" to act in the manner of a celestial or an angel, but in fact, humans does not have the capability to do so. You cannot judge a creature morally, simply for the fact of being a mortal creature with weaknesses.

If these scragpoles have a choice, they have already made their choice: evil. They have already done it. They are guilty of it. They will do it again. How do you stop evil when the creature does not repent? You destroy it.

Children are naturally selfish; that does not mean they should have be whipped on the pillory for stealing sweets, nor should be smote by a divine servant because they have the nature that would cause them to do so.

All of these are debatable points; they're not nearly as salient as you seem to be implying.

Punishing someone who is not guilty of something, purely because they might if they had the opportunity, is not just. Simply because humans might wipe out an ancient forest in a few generations is not a justification to begin exterminating their children now.

But, again, these scragpoles *are* guilty of something. They wouldn't be evil if they weren't.

Even if there is a strong possibility that an infant creature will one day grow up to be Evil, it is still an infant that may be raised to be Good, and preventative execution is anathema to the concept of Good.

But this situation isn't "strong possibility that an infant creature will one day grow up to be evil." It is "an evil creature." It just happens to be a very *young*, very *weak* evil creature. But so are Larvae, and killing them in droves doesn't provoke these debates.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But, again, these scragpoles *are* guilty of something. They wouldn't be evil if they weren't.

That assumes the "record" rather than the "inclination" interpretation to be correct, of course.

I'd be perfectly content to have evil scragpoles who haven't done anything yet in my game, just as I'd be happy for the cowardly commoner discussed earlier to be evil before he begins killing people and robbing banks.

-Hyp.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That assumes the "record" rather than the "inclination" interpretation to be correct, of course.

Very true. But I don't yet see how the "inclination" interpretation can rectify itself with a Good-aligned character who would let evil happen just because it wasn't convenient, unless it applies different standards for good and evil...

 

[Warren Okuma]

See, no, right there is the whole basis of what the problem is here.
Good and Evil are not just opposing teams. I hate it when people assume that's all the alignments are, and I see it all too often..

That's because the nine alignments are written funny.

Good people have to actually be Good and do Good works and think Good thoughts. Just going out and killing Evil creatures is not Good. It can possibly accomplish Good by preventing those Evil creatures from going out and committing Evil, but in and of itself, killing is a Neutral act in D&D because it does not end a creatures existence, it merely changes it's state of being (As the Aiel say, killing is the same as dieing, any fool can do either.)
But killing without justification or remorse, or the intentional killing of innocents is an Evil act.

Page 105 Players handbook: Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good. What page are you quoting from?

Even if there is a strong possibility that an infant creature will one day grow up to be Evil, it is still an infant that may be raised to be Good, and preventative execution is anathema to the concept of Good.

Page 105 Players handbook: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good." What page are you quoting from?
Innocent is from the perspective of the church, if they are churchgoers or if it's a community protected by the paladins they are innocent. If the infants radiate evil. Smack. It's the without mercy part.

Evil beings kill other Evil beings all the time, that does not cause them to gradually shift into a Good alignment.

Yeah it does. Lawful good is called the crusader alignment, they crusade against evil often without mercy. What rules are you reading?

Orcs kill elven babies because orcs are Evil. However, it does not follow that elves kill orc babies because elves are Good, because that is a travesty of what Good means.

If they detect as evil. Yes. If not show me the rules that says otherwise.

I'll use this example from an episode of The Real Ghostbusters cartoon (one of the best cartoons ever made, and one of the best episodes of the show) to illustrate. Good and Evil are battling over the fate of a human soul. (They're playing baseball in proxy of an actual battle, but that's beside the point.) The Evil side is cheating left and right to win. The Ghostbusters complain to the Umpire, and he says, (I'm paraphrasing here), "Of course Evil is cheating. It is the nature of Evil to cheat. But if Good cheats, Evil automatically wins because Good has then become Evil by using Evil methods, and there is no longer a Good side, merely Evil battling Evil."

Ghostbusters is another game. Why don't you quote from DnD?

Goddang, that show was good.

Yeah, not bad.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

The current paladin that I play wouldn't kill orc babies, children, women, elderly, non-combatants or those who yield. It's not all benevolence, there is a bit of arrogance & laziness that comes into play.

But I think his general viewpoint would be that that is overindulging in bloodshed and upping the ante in the racial conflict.

 

[Kwitchit]

If they detect as evil, kill them. After all, would a paladin let a dretch live just because it's relatively helpless?
If they detect as neutral, give them to a good-aligned temple which is likely to raise them. For instance, if I played a paladin I'd give orc babies to the temple of Kord, or kobold ones to the temple of Bahamut...

 

[pawsplay]

There is no difference between being evil and doing evil.

In that case, there is no neutral alignment, is there?

 

[I'm A Banana]

There is no difference between being evil and doing evil.

In that case, there is no neutral alignment, is there?

How d'you figure? Neutral characters don't do evil. They don't do good, either. They just do what is in their best self-interest for survival and easy living.

Perhaps my statement was a bit too categorical, because obviously one aligned action doesn't change the alignment. There is no difference between being evil and habitually doing evil would be the more accurate way to phrase it.