The "orc baby" paladin problem

[Vanuslux]

While I might have no problem with it otherwise, I note that the Paladin's Code requires they do not behave dishonorably. It would be dishonorable to slay a helpless creature that has not put up a fight, even moreso an infant (even if it were a half-fiend) as such could not have actually committed evil yet (though likely evil anyway by its very nature). Therefore, I would rule that the paladin cannot slay the scrag tadpoles, despite their evil nature, as he would be breaking the honor requirement of his Code.

Personally, my view is that a paladin has every reason to view anything that shows up red under Detect Evil as a threat, and therefore their duty to neutralize. Paladin's can't go around smiting evil humans in the city just because they radiate evil because that would go against Lawful, not against Good. Evil monsters in the forest get no such protection from law, so killing any creature that radiates evil is not just acceptable...for a paladin in my world, it's their friggin' duty.

Of course, in my world sentient creatures are not normally born evil. They have to commit evil before they radiate it. Hence in my world, the scrag tadpoles wouldn't have radiated evil unless there was a good enough explanation to justify their smiting, mature or not.

 

[Aus_Snow]

nature/nurture. DM's call there.

 

[Slife]

Kill them before they start an Edition War!

 

[takyris]

Arr same here. I know a lot of people just play with black and white alignments and the RAW, but I find them lacking in the extreme.

In a House Rules discussion, that's fine. In this discussion, the DM took creatures listed as "Usually Evil" in the SRD and actually made them MORE evil by having them radiate evil even as babies.

It isn't honourable in the slightest to go killing people you don't know (or know the exploits of, evil or good), simply because some magic claims they're evil. And even so, the paladin would technically need to give the target a fair fight, which by definition babies are not capable of.

1) Yes, it is. That's what the paladin's god wants the paladin to do. I mean, yeah, if you pass an evil guy on the street, you don't automatically go all smite-y, but you might want to follow that person (although you better have some Shadowbane Stalker levels to be any good at it) and figure out what they're up to.

2) We do, in fact, know them. We know that they eat people (the parents kidnapped some kids, and that there are a bunch of dead people in the area, half-eaten). We know that the parents were evil, and we know that the kids, even this young, already clearly radiate evil. We know about all we need to know to make an informed judgment in the matter.

3) "Some magic" in this case is the divine word of the paladin's god. That source of "some magic" is also the source of "all the paladin's powers", so it's a pretty good measure of whether the paladin would be in the wrong to kill those people who radiate evil.

4) Paladins only need to give creatures a "fair fight" in declared duels. Paladins are allowed to win initiative. They are allowed to attack by surprise if they catch evil monsters unawares. They are allowed to flank, disarm, power attack, and cleave. Lawful and Honorable means that the paladin does not deviate from the rules of honorable combat when an honorable combat has been declared. It does not mean that the paladin disavows tactics, and it does not mean that the paladin puts away his holy avenger just because he's fighting a lemure and not a balor.

Even if you do think "evil" alignment gives the paladin the RIGHT to go killing anyone they want, they could easily be murdering someone that was "evil" through most of their lives and is slowly shifting away from that path, or any number of similar scenarios.

In which case they'd show up as Neutral.

It could also be the case that an evil warlock placed a false aura on the baby trolls, making them APPEAR to radiate evil when in fact they don't, and hey, they could also be pretty human babies polymorphed or glamored into looking like trolls. This could be an enormous setup to get the paladin to kill babies.

Or the paladin could go with what's actually the case 99% of the time... that radiating evil makes you, well, evil. And not "cheat on income taxes" evil. "Kill innocent people in service of my dark master or in service of my own depraved desires" evil. That's the only thing that actually merits "Evil" in D&D's rules as written.

Could just be that I dislike paladins and the way they are commonly played.

Sounds like you want a game without alignments. I like d20 Modern and Grim Tales specifically because it has Allegiances instead of Alignments. The evil warlock has an actual allegiance to Evil, but his guards just have an allegiance to the warlock -- so if I have Smite Evil, it works on the warlock, but not the guards.

I really enjoy playing that type of game, but I also know that D&D, out of the book, ain't that game.

 

[Rothe]

.... Each contains a scrag tadpole. The paladin sees them registering as evil, but he also doesn't believe they will be a threat for quite some time.

....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?

It depends on what "registering evil" means in your campaign. Does it mean they have a predisposition to evil, have committed evil acts, are there degrees of evil such that at some point one is beyond redemption? As another said, the Paladin's religion should have figured this out long ago, and I'm sure it was in his ethics 101 reading.

IMC I don't use hard wired alignments (or really D&D alignments in general) so anything that registers as evil has knowingly committed evil acts and probably enjoyed it. The only creatures that are inherently evil are of a non-natural extra-planar nature and they don't have children or offspring as we know them, so the dilema doesn't arise.

The dilema that could arise, is in the killing of the parents of the children or those that are on the edge.
Do you spare the orc women who defintively register as evil because they care for the innocent children?
What of the adolescent orc who has been raised to believe in torture and rapine, is he beyond redemption?
Do you have a duty to aid the orc women & children once you've slain all the defenders and hunters of the tribe?
What do you do when the local villagers, otherwise good folks, want to kill all the orcs in revenge? Do you use lethal force or any force to protect the orc children?
What if not slaying the orc women could seriously compromise your mission that serves a "greater" good?

 

[Rothe]

I agree with the next to rattlesnakes analogy.

Unless the Paladin has a reason to doubt his Detection (such as some sort of history with it being inaccurate due to outside influences), you as the DM mandated the slaughter of those tadpoles once they registered as evil. Trolls aren't people. They're vicious ravenous monsters... thier young are just as blinded by hunger and bloodlust.

A very convenient analogy...and the one used throughout history to justify genocide. X aren't people they are [insert your favorite reason why they are inferior creatures needing destruction]. Or if we don't kill the children of X they will just grow up to kill us.

Unless a sapient creature has no free will, and hence will invariably without fail grow up to follow the alignment listed in the monster manual, such analogies to animals are false ones. Although, that certainly has never stopped people in the real world from making them, believing them and acting on them.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, the distinction is inherently evil, not just evil at the time. Humans, for example, are clearly NOT inherently evil. They can exercise free will and choose their path; they can also choose to change. That's why a paladin can't just go around smiting commoners he detects as evil.

One of my favourite paladin concepts revolves around the mythology of the Great Final Battle between the forces of Good and Evil at the End of Time. All evil creatures who die in this lifetime will join the Army of Evil in the Final Battle, while all good creatures will make up the forces of Good.

So the paladin's job is not to Smite Evil. That would be foolish - it will just swell the numbers the other side has at the End of Time. No, the paladin's job is to Redeem Evil. And once they've been converted to goodness? Then Smite them.

-Hyp.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

A very convenient analogy...and the one used throughout history to justify genocide. X aren't people they are [insert your favorite reason why they are inferior creatures needing destruction]. Or if we don't kill the children of X they will just grow up to kill us.

Unless a sapient creature has no free will, and hence will invariably without fail grow up to follow the alignment listed in the monster manual, such analogies to animals are false ones. Although, that certainly has never stopped people in the real world from making them, believing them and acting on them.

Hitler Card! Except that we're not talking about people. We're talking about monsters. Monsters in a fantasy world that can, at the DM's discretion, be hard-wired to be evil. Murderously evil, without fail. This is also assuming that every monster is "born" rather than spawned in some arcane fashion, or falsely "created" by an evil god.

 

[takyris]

A very convenient analogy...and the one used throughout history to justify genocide. X aren't people they are [insert your favorite reason why they are inferior creatures needing destruction]. Or if we don't kill the children of X they will just grow up to kill us.

Yep.

So don't make baby trolls detect as evil in your world. If trolls in your world are a metaphor for people of a different race or ethnicity, then yeah, having them ping evil is, uh, bad.

But if trolls are meant to be sinister inhuman forces of non-metaphorical destruction, then flip the "Evil" switch and assume that people are gonna smite away.

In my campaign, I make demihumans the metaphors for people of a different race or ethnicity. I make trolls and ogres metaphors for big monolithic monsters that need to be destroyed without hesitation. Well, trolls, anyway. Ogres are too stupid to be quite that threatening.

 

[Trickstergod]

I'd argue that the tadpoles shouldn't be evil, anyway. The same with any creature that's still effectively a baby - they'd have a neutral alignment, same as an animal, because they're incapable of making moral decisions and lack the sentience to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Evil is, as far as I'm concerned, a choice. As is good. Upbringing helps, of course, and there are certain natural predilictions, but it's still something that only forms upon gaining a certain degree of sentience and free will.

The only exception to this, in my opinion, is with outsiders, who are fundamentally made up of their alignment given flesh and form. Occasionally redeemable or corruptible, but more or less without choice in their alignment, anymore than we have the decision about being made of meat.

But, that's how I'd run things, with no scrag-poles showing up as evil.

As they did, however? My inclination is to kill them, in the same way I think a paladin can freely butcher evil outsiders wantonly. As apparently evil isn't a choice in the game, it's innate nature.