The "orc baby" paladin problem

[gribble]

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?

For starters, I'd take a close look at the description of the Detect Evil Spell.
Even when concentrating for 3 rounds, the aura of a *full grown* Scrag (6HD) would be very faint (Faint is defined as up to 10 HD). Your typical orc's evil aura (1HD) would be so faint as to almost be unnoticable. So I'd rule that even if a creature *could* have a genetically evil alignment without commiting any evil acts (such as these tadpoles must have), the aura of these scrag babies would be incredibly faint...
Clearly it isn't a black and white decision... something isn't either evil or not evil, or else the spell wouldn't define degrees of evil in this way.

On top of this, the Scrags alignment is *usually* chaotic evil, so clearly it is possible to redeem a Scrag from it's baser genetic nature.

Hence, all the Paladin could know is that these tadpoles have incredibly weak evil auras, haven't actually comitted evil acts (they're only capable of swimming around a barrel full of water) and are from a race which can be redeemed.

Doesn't sound like an honorable/good act to kill such creatures to me... sure, it might be *expedient*, because the paladin doesn't have to worry about raising them and making sure they're on the right path, but since when has the paladin's code ever been about the easy/expedient path?

 

[WayneLigon]

Nothing is born innately evil. It grows up and learns to be evil. So those tads should not have registered being evil.

Actually many creatures in D&D are inately evil or good from birth; if it has an 'Always [alignment]' then all creatures of that species are born that way and cannot, without extraordinary means such as a Helm of Opposite Alignment, change.

As always it's a GM's call as to whether or not he follows that idea, but if he deviates from what the rules usually say in this matter then he needs to tell the players this before they begin creating characters so that no arguments come up later.

 

[Aus_Snow]

On top of this, the Scrags alignment is *usually* chaotic evil, so clearly it is possible to redeem a Scrag from it's baser genetic nature.

Yep. In fact, it's also technically possible to redeem even those listed as always [_____] evil. Or even for them to "redeem themselves", as it were.

Doesn't sound like an honorable/good act to kill such creatures to me... sure, it might be *expedient*, because the paladin doesn't have to worry about raising them and making sure they're on the right path, but since when has the paladin's code ever been about the easy/expedient path?

When what could be seen as easy and/or expedient happens also to be the right thing to do, I imagine.

 

[Hypersmurf]

For starters, I'd take a close look at the description of the Detect Evil Spell.
Even when concentrating for 3 rounds, the aura of a *full grown* Scrag (6HD) would be very faint (Faint is defined as up to 10 HD). Your typical orc's evil aura (1HD) would be so faint as to almost be unnoticable. So I'd rule that even if a creature *could* have a genetically evil alignment without commiting any evil acts (such as these tadpoles must have), the aura of these scrag babies would be incredibly faint...
Clearly it isn't a black and white decision... something isn't either evil or not evil, or else the spell wouldn't define degrees of evil in this way.

Except those degrees of evil are defined.

They aren't "Incredibly Faint", "Very Faint", "Pretty Faint", "Kinda Faint", "A Little Bit Faint", and "Faint". There's one degree, "Faint", which covers the 1HD orc, the 6HD scrag, and the
10HD Ogre Bbn-6. If all three of them were in a room, and I used Detect Evil through the closed door, the information I would receive is "Three faint evil auras"; they would be otherwise indistinguishable.

On the other hand, if the ogre were a Bbn-7, I would detect two Faint auras and a Moderate aura.

-Hyp.

 

[gribble]

Except those degrees of evil are defined.

Ok, fair enough. Personally, I don't like the idea of a discrete continuum, and I'd use it as a continuum going from 0 - infinity, where a 1HD creature has a weaker aura than a 10HD creature.

There is some precedence in the "lingering auras" and "good alignment/stunning" sections of the spell description to indicate that the table isn't complete (i.e.: that there can be other strengths of aura - dim and overpowering enough to stun a good character), and I imagine they had to introduce an element of discreteness to simplify things - a table that included incredibly faint, very faint, mostly faint, faint, etc... would take up way too much room.

Still, you are correct by the RAW. Regardless, the aura would still be "Faint".

 

[DragonShadow]

Figured I'd toss in my two cents, giving my opinion based on the situation layed out by the OP.

While I don't agree that anything but outsiders should be born evil (though you're entitled to your opinion), the fact that the tads are tripping the Evilsense means that the Pally has the responsibility to act.

Killing them is a viable option, but only as a last resort, IMO. The reason for this being, Paladins aren't (or at least shouldn't be) mindless slayers of all things evil. Taking action doesn't necessarily mean smiting. Can the tads be brought up to deny their heritage? I'm assuming there have been other monstrous-types in the past that have fought against the norm of their race.

Unfortunately, most options being out of the question, based on the dungeon/danger setting, killing them is really the easy way out; you ensure that they won't grow up to be truly evil.

I wouldn't think that the Paladins deity would be upset with him/her for this, though I suppose that depends on the deity -- Heironeous has a different stance on such things than St. Cuthbert does. If, however, it rains on the conscience of the Paladin so much that he can't let it go, by all means do something in atonement. ---> It wouldn't be the first time somebody needlessly atoned.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Detect evil is positive - kill it.

Ahhhh. The Paladin's Detect Evil & the Thought Police. The "orc baby" problem, indeed.

We all knew what we would read here in the five word topic header, didn't we? It's all variation on a theme as old as the game.

The main quandaries of the Paladin and the "Orc baby" problem classicly present themselves as:

• is the creature inherently evil?
• are all monsters hard-wired to be "evil"?
• even if it is predisposed towards evil, can it be redeemed?
• is evil just a behavior or does it require a true selling of one's soul to outside influences or the unlife beyond the grave to "count", absent a demonstrable crime to match the alingment?
• are humanoids and others deemed to have free will and souls to be treated differently?
• does the detection of evil in the absence of a correspondingly evil act amount to the Thought Police? Does the relevance of that question change with the creature detected?
• does detect evil only work on those few creatures who have actively aligned themselves with an evil external power or greater cause?

These are the main points that constantly resurface in these discussions. There are, of course, others.

I think, on the whole, we as human beings tend to make a differentiation along the evolutionary track when considering any other species, be it real or imagined: those creatures that most resemble humans are given the benefit of the doubt with respect to redemption and a presumption of innocence, while as we move away from the human to the , humanoid and then to the monstrous and the abominations, our granting to the creature those presumptions of free- will, redemption and innocence deteriorates until the thing - of whatever age or cycle of development - just merits death for being what it is.

The same can be said for our sense of revulsion at the general appearance of any creature in the real world. The closer something is to us on the evolutionary tree, the less abhorent it is to us.

Kittens are cute>> a mouse is a pest but *can* be cute (woohoo mammals!)>>snakes are kinda creepy>> spiders are really creepy>>> a slug is just plain **icky** - step on it NOW!

(In the real world, invertebrates have no rights!)

FWIW, I can accept how a mind flayer tadpole is not given the benefit of any doubt and is simply killed not as a dangerous animal - but as a dangerous monster.

How unique and free-willed monsters are treated in the game world is handled by every group (yes, group - I don't just mean the DM on this point) differently.

The rules don't help us much though when it comes to trolls. In D&D terms; the orc is humanoid, the troll is a giant. The orc is OFTEN Chaotic evil, while the troll USUALLY is.

The devil is in the details. "Often" suggests a much larger parameter for self governance and free will than "usually". Both fall short of "always".

What is very clear during play is that when a creature is listed as says "always" chaotic evil, it's usually for a good reason. The moral quandary of what to do with such a critter never manifests itself.

YMMV.

 

[Elf Witch]

I disagree with the premise you can kill something simply because it's evil. Being good means respecting the lives of even evil things.

Why?

Why does good have to respect the right of an evil being right to live. Do you think evil beings turn around and give good beings the right to live?

Now I don't like when a paladin walks around with detect evil going off and then hacking down anyone who gets pinged as evil without the paladin first investigating why that person pinged.

But paladins have a duty to protect innocents and that duty comes before protecting some evil creature right to life.

I honestly don't get why so many people go out of their way to hog tie paladins the way they do. Paladins are usually holy warriors it is why they have a decent BAB, decent hitpoints can wear heavy armor and have martial skills.

They have the ability to detect evil and the ability to smite evil why give them these abilties if they are not supposed to use them.

Now if a character wants to play a paladin who isre about redeeming evil instead of smiting I can see the philosophy of evil creatures should have a chance at life so I need to redeem them so they don't harm any innocents.

But to say all paladins have to follow this code is just IMO wrong and unfair to the player playing the paladin. And if a DM enforces this kind of behavior from a paladin then it is not fair to put the paladin in these kind of moral dilemmas.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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

After dispatching a pair of murderous river trolls (scrags) in their underwater cave, the party discovered a series of water-filled barrels brought to the area by the trolls. 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.

The rest of the party wants to dispatch them. The paladin is aghast at killing helpless tadpoles. He's normally pretty practical, although he's also extremely idealistic (his fondness for Superman has served him well, IMO).

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 really wonder if these threads are trolls, probably designed to attack people who don't like paladins (in a subtle way). If you're trying to lure me into saying "paladins suck because they often/have to kill baby scrags" then it won't work. You can dislike paladins and still be rational about it.

Now onto the situation: it shouldn't happen. Scrag tadpoles shouldn't be evil. They haven't even had a chance to grow up yet. Even if scrags nearly universally turn evil, regardless of upbringing, their tadpoles shouldn't be evil and shouldn't register as evil. They're not outsiders made of pure evil. As a result, the paladin shouldn't detect them as evil and shouldn't kill them. But if the DM decided that in their campaign, scrags young really were evil, then they should be treated like dretches, fiendish animals and other such barely sentient fiends - kill 'em.

(This would be a more reasonable thread if you were actually talking about orc babies. I'd have to ask the GM why they think orc babies should detect as evil.)

Then they could move onto some other much more reasonable situation where paladins can make the game less fun for other players *sigh*

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I really wonder if these threads are trolls, probably designed to attack people who don't like paladins (in a subtle way). If you're trying to lure me into saying "paladins suck because they often/have to kill baby scrags" then it won't work. You can dislike paladins and still be rational about it.

Yes, that's it. And I created a second account, made lots of posts with it and then posted as my "player" on another thread about the same issue to complete the illusion. Damn you for seeing through my fiendish ruse.

Now onto the situation: it shouldn't happen. Scrag tadpoles shouldn't be evil. They haven't even had a chance to grow up yet.

Tadpoles != eggs

A lot of folks on this thread seem to be confusing the two. There's a whole range of being a tadpole, up until the moment that limbs are grown, but at no point are they equivalent to innocent eggs or immobile babies. The scragpoles are sentient free-willed beings who have had the opportunity to act.

They're evil because they have and intend to again.

Then they could move onto some other much more reasonable situation where paladins can make the game less fun for other players *sigh*

Please get off the cross. We need the wood to burn the witches.