The "orc baby" paladin problem

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

The clergy are unlikely to be able to protect themselves. What's more, given the fundementalist leanings of the bishop (whom the player characters do not see eye to eye with -- if there weren't imminent threats to the barony they're running around dealing with, I suspect he'd be a Lawful Not-Evil villain they'd be all over, in a non-combat fashion), they'd be very unlikely to if they could.

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?

They're in an air-filled cave in an underwater lake. Bobbing barrels to the surface without the scragpoles escaping would be a huge trick -- they only stayed in on the way down because they did so voluntarily. The scragpoles have never eaten anything except humanoids, so it'd be a toss-up if they'd take a bite out of anything else.

 

[Voadam]

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?

The two paladins who were in my games. Hmmm.

Sir Malachi Templar of St. Cuthbert would say "They are evil, wielding the sword of Truth I know there is no deception about their evilness." And he would slay them all.

I have no idea how the paladin of Athena in my old ravenloft game would deal with it. He had his own ideas about his religious restrictions which I was happy to go with.

As a DM I would not rule it an evil action and would not strip away a paladin's powers for slaying them. I would be fine either way a paladin's PC decided was right for his character.

 

[Mort]

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.

Interesting that you characterise them as "young, helpless trolls", that's not in the original post. I can just as easily say "irrational, rabid, dangerous, indiscriminate killing machines", does that make the decision easier?

Remember this is not a blank slate for the paladin. His teachings likely tell him "these are irredeamably evil. If they fall into the irredeamably evil slot, they get squished like maggots." Now if his teachings tell him otherwise (perhaps there are acclimated trolls that live in relative pease with others in this world, they just need the proper upbringing) then it's a completely different story.

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.

But if the human babies haven't been "raised" yet, then they do have the capability to change - so your argument is faulty here. Also in D&D, unlike real life there is an ABSOLUTE means to determine good vs. evil - as long as you trust that means the question becomes much easier.

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?

This is actually an issue of wisdom because prophecies are funny things. Killing the paladin is not thinking things through, because what if killing her is what triggers her rise - for a fun example see this story hour. Also, rember D&D Paladins and clerics have means to an answer, if they worship a LG deity and that deity says "sorry she must die," it's hard not to take that at face value - heck if she's truly devout she may do it herself.

 

[Warren Okuma]

Paladin's are foremost religious warriors. What do their god wants. All else is rubbish.

Ask what would Saint Cuthbert God of Retribution want? Retribution.

Arguing Kant is blasphemy. Paladin's do not worship Kant. Paladin's do not worship Superman. Asking what would superman would do is heresy. You would lose your paladinhood faster than you can say blasphemy. You would ask what would Saint Cuthbert God of Retribution would do... That's the paladin's way.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Paladin's are foremost religious warriors. What do their god wants. All else is rubbish.

Ask what would Saint Cuthbert God of Retribution want? Retribution.

Arguing Kant is blasphemy. Paladin's do not worship Kant. Paladin's do not worship Superman. Asking what would superman would do is heresy. You would lose your paladinhood faster than you can say blasphemy. You would ask what would Saint Cuthbert God of Retribution would do... That's the paladin's way.

It's a little trickier for a Lothianite paladin, in that case. Lothian's word has been stretched into multiple directions since he lived as a mortal. It's been used to justify the wholesale slaughter of arcane spellcasters and anyone worshipping another god (which the fundementalists say -- with some scriptural back-up -- were all actually demons). And he's also been touted as a god of love. Emmerson's view is more toward the latter than the former, but he's also been raised hearing a less tolerant version of Lothian's word.

 

[Delta]

Killing evil things on the probability (not the certainty) they will do evil acts is a cynical act...

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....

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?

And yet the 1E DMG defined "Lawful Good" in precisely the way that you reject.

I think under D&D principles human babies of a given tribe would have to be born evil to be as "potentially" evil as troll whelps. You can't say that they're "less evil" and yet "more evil" in the same breath.

I also believe that killing the 2nd paladin would in fact be justified, playing by the 1E understanding. Now, you'd better have a rock-solid guaranteed prophecy (which I've never seen in D&D!). If you're wrong and act on it then you just "pulled a Miko". If you're right then your secular life may get overwhelmingly difficult anyway -- paladinhood is tough.

 

[phindar]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I think its possible that Paladin A would kill the scrag whelps in the interest of public safety, and Paladin B would bring try to raise them as civilized beings, and Paladin C would release them in the wild, far away from civilization, and all three paladins would be correct.

Alignment is a guideline. As long as the paladin's players are guided by their conscience and are trying to do what they believe is right, I think they're within the code. (Even if I disagree with them.)



(Also, I never saw the prequels and only have a vague idea of what a "Sith" is, but I read that line in a Twisted Toyfare Theatre and it always cracked me up.)

 

[mythusmage]

My problem is...

Just how does a baby orc get to be a paladin?

 

[Korgoth]

I never imagined that so many people would think of Paladins as moral relativists or utilitarians. If I expect anybody to be a moral realist and absolutist, it's a Paladin.

Just look at the way it works in religions that have Commandments. If blasphemy is absolutely prohibited, that means that you can never do it under any circumstances ever. Look at all the martyrs in history who have been burned, skinned, grilled, raped, devoured, etc. because they wouldn't transgress their religion. That's a Paladin for you: he will never blaspheme under any circumstances no matter what the consequences. A moral absolute short-circuits any reasoning based on consequences: if it is absolutely prohibited, then you can never do it regardless of the consequences of doing or not doing it. Period.

For a Lawful Good Paladin, blasphemy won't be the only absolute prohibition. At the very least, rape, infanticide, adultery and murder will be in there. So no Paladin could commit a rape even if he knows for a fact that doing so will stop some terrible evil from happening. Because that's one of the things you're absolutely not allowed to do.

I understand that we don't discuss real world religions here, but I can think of several rather old (but current) ones that have just these prohibitions as absolutes that can never be transgressed. Being a Paladin should be at least as hard as adhering to the sort of common modern religious code that defines behavior for hundreds of millions of people in the real world. Maybe even ever so slightly harder. But still quite do-able... it just means making some tough choices sometimes.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I think its possible that Paladin A would kill the scrag whelps in the interest of public safety, and Paladin B would bring try to raise them as civilized beings, and Paladin C would release them in the wild, far away from civilization, and all three paladins would be correct.

Alignment is a guideline. As long as the paladin's players are guided by their conscience and are trying to do what they believe is right, I think they're within the code. (Even if I disagree with them.)



(Also, I never saw the prequels and only have a vague idea of what a "Sith" is, but I read that line in a Twisted Toyfare Theatre and it always cracked me up.)

Yes and no. You may hold that alignment is a guideline; that may be so. But there are two things to consider: First, alignment is not wholly subjective, since beings do radiate it. Therefore there is a limit what people may get away with even if they think they're doing the right thing. Lord Soth, for example, didn't think he had done anything particularly evil when he gave up on his holy quest, at least until he became an undead Death Knight...

Second, a Paladin must not only uphold a LG alignment, but he must also uphold his god's tenets. In this case, the tenets of the particular branch of Lothianism he professes. I'm assuming mercy has some bigger part of it than in the branch his bishop professes.

So if I were that paladin, considering that there is no practical way to take them to some sort of remote wilderness monastery where they could be raised as good creatures; and that there probably isn't any such monastery; and that the tadpoles are intelectually developed enough to understand they are being deliberately malicious, I'd smite them. Then I'd do some penance helping fix up some peasant huts, perhaps, after the adventure is over, or some sort of religious pilgrimage. At any rate, try to atone a bit. That would be both interesting and a possible source of plot hooks.