The "orc baby" paladin problem

[DragonShadow]

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.

I'm not entirely sure how evil and menacing a tadpole can be whilst in a barrel, but you do have a point.

Evil even on the atomic level is still evil.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They're just in the barrels at the moment. They were free range scragpoles back home, before they were trucked in to be part of the new invasion force.

 

[Elf Witch]

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

How does having a paladin in the party make the game less fun for the other players? I don't get that I have played in many a game with a paladin and they have never made the game less fun for me or anyone else at the table.

If anything CN lone wolves have ruined more game fun than any lawful good paladin.

 

[Mistah J]

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.

Actually, if the creature has an "always X" alignment then:

"The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions" MM p. 305, emphasis mine.

RAW, Trolls are usually evil so they aren't born that way. The DM here however has changed that so it has lost some of its effectiveness as a guide.

To the actual question, I think what kind of Paladin your player is playing should help decide. A lot of times, people think all Paladins should be the same in attitude and ethics - you see one, you've seen them all.

I really don't think that is the case, Lawful Good is an alignment - it is just as open to interpretation as any of the others. No two people have the same personality and that makes it really hard for them to behave the exact same way in given circumstances, impossible I'd say.

Same thing goes for the Paladin code: you can have a Paladin whose interested in jumping into the most evil pit she can find and make sure she is the only one to walk out again. You can also have a paladin who'd rather spend his time teaching - guiding people into the path of good. If they met, they'd probably disagree on a few things.

In the end, there is no one "right way" to be a Paladin. Don't get me wrong, there are most definately "wrong ways" to be one - and you have to watch out for it in all cases. "Smiting" paladins have to watch their zealotry and make sure they don't go after someone not because they are evil but because they are "not as good as me." Redeeming" paladins have to ensure they aren't being hoodwinked into letting evil slip by them.

As for the "scrag-poles," the main thing for your paladin is that something has to be done. The infants can't just be ignored or left behind - they must be dealt with. As long as the paladin does that, in whatever way, then its clear.

I dunno, maybe Paladin dilemmas should focus less on what they must do and more on what they musn't do.

 

[DragonShadow]

They're just in the barrels at the moment. They were free range scragpoles back home, before they were trucked in to be part of the new invasion force.

That makes sense, then, as even a Scrag tadpole can be dropped into well water to wreak havoc in city sewer systems as best they can, until they can finally grow some...legs.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If anything CN lone wolves have ruined more game fun than any lawful good paladin.

Over the years, I have often toyed with the idea of banning True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral characters from my game for this very reason. Neutral Disruptive characters just aren't fun for anyone by the individual player, most of the time IME.

 

[Falkus]

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?

And how is that a justification? He doesn't respect life, so I don't have to?

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

Except that in the situation under discussion, there's no innocent life at risk.

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're also supposed to be GOOD above all else, and that means not talking the easy and quick path when presented with a dilemma.

 

[pawsplay]

I disagree also; however, if we're going with the idea of genetic evil (something, incidentally, that makes me *very* uncomfortable in the case of "natural" beings that aren't alignment exemplars, undead, or constructs; JRRT sidesteps the problem by making orcs into constructs of a sort), then I think one has to assume that it's simply impossible to leave the orc babies alive. If there's no way to make them into productive citizens, *or even merely nonaggressive beings who'll leave humanity alone*, then what can the paladin do other than a) kill them or b) leave them to die of exposure?

Whether or not a creature is innately evil or chooses it, it is not your choice how it behaves. Even though the human assassin may be the result of moral failure, and the red dragon of inclination, you still know the human assassin is just as dangerous. And you cannot smite either one without some pretext. As I've noted before, preemptive smiting, that is, a firm amount of prudence, is ultimately a neutral perspective.

Killing evil creatures at birth is certainly prudent, it's just not Good. A truly good creature sacrifices some prudence in order to practice a higher principle.

If the paladin has no better recourse, slaying orc babies is certainly an option. But it's not the first option. If slaying 39 orcs is enough to force their retreat, the paladin should not slay 40, and if the orc babies can be left in the care of another, they should be.

I've heard it asserted that some creatures in D&D are essentially, irredeemably evil. That is not true. Creatures like red dragons have an inlination toward CE, but they are capable of choosing another enlightenment; doing so means overcoming their born nature, but they are intelligent and could be so persuaded. Even angels can fall and demons be redeemed; though they retain their alignment subtypes, their actual alignments can change if they are persuaded to change them. Again, they are fighting inclination, but moreso, they are fighting their nature. An angel trying to be evil would feel the temptation to do good; angels, by nature, are never tempted to evil, and if they fall to evil, they do so by deliberate choice.

 

[Elf Witch]

And how is that a justification? He doesn't respect life, so I don't have to?



Except that in the situation under discussion, there's no innocent life at risk.



They're also supposed to be GOOD above all else, and that means not talking the easy and quick path when presented with a dilemma.

Big difference evil does not have any respect for life. They will take it without remorse and to suit their needs. By the paladin respecting an evil creatures right to life he is allowing this creature the ability to kill other innocent creatures.

Who has more right to live the evil creature or the innocent who has never done any wrong?

The paladin has a chance to think this over because they are not a threat yet. But they will be if he does nothing. So he has to make some kind of decision. Now the DM has said these creatures are evil because they have already done evil acts and will do them again. In this case the duty of the paladin seem pretty clear. There is a part of the code that says must protect innocents.

I see nothing wrong with the paladin slaying these creatures for the greater good. I also don't see anything wrong if the paladin has a less lethal way of handling the situation.

Let me tell you about the quick and easy path. Sometimes it is stupid not to take the quick and easy path.

I played a paladin in Forgotten Realma game with a DM who thought like you do.

We chased some evil drow clerics into the woods for over seven days after they had kidnapped some elven children. They were to be used in an ancient ritual to unleash a horrible plague onto the land and throw the world into darkness.

We caught up to them right before they killed the last child. We battled and killed all but the high priestess who surrendered. In the battle tow of our party were slain. I wanted to kill the last drow right then and there but the DM told be that I would be violating my code. So we tied the cleric up gagged her and off we went back on the seven day journey.

Now since there was only two of us left we had to take watches alone while the other slept. On day three she got lose and killed the other PC on watch she then grabbed the child and ran I went after her but she had a head start. I could hear her chanting something as she ran. She threw herself and the child off a cliff thus finishing the ritual and unleashing hell.

Even to this day this makes me mad that my lawful good paladin hands were tied in such a stupid way as to allow the destuction of the world.

There are times that a paladin has to do the quick and the dirty and there are times when he has more choice.

I think a good dM leaves the choice up to the player it is usually kind of obvious what path to take.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

The game is, in part, predicated on near genocide as most races are inherently evil and fit only to by killed by the PCs. Philosophical discussion and wasting time with dialectic is silly and pointless. Keep your mouth shut, do what they game was designed to and kill them.