The "orc baby" paladin problem

[Deadguy]

Well, Whizbang Dustyboots, I HOPE YOU'RE SATISFIED.

Bravo, hong!

 

[Trench]

Well, Whizbang Dustyboots, I HOPE YOU'RE SATISFIED.

heh.

 

[phindar]

A discussion of paladin behavior and alignment has somehow spiraled into personal attacks? What... are... the... odds?

I do find one thing strange. Paladin debates go spiraling out of control all the time, and they aren't the only class that have alignment restrictions, but I have never heard or read anyone complaining a barbarian has been going around being honest and fair and was in danger of becoming Lawful and losing his ability to rage. That never comes up. But paladins face a dilemma, and we go all Lord of the Flies on one another.

 

[Torm]

I would like to add that I meant no insult or disrespect to anyone with what I said. In the real world, it is extremely difficult for someone to HAVE "utter moral clarity" - myself included - and honestly, I tend to worry a bit about most who seem to.

 

[bissichan]

A discussion of paladin behavior and alignment has somehow spiraled into personal attacks? What... are... the... odds?

I do find one thing strange. Paladin debates go spiraling out of control all the time, and they aren't the only class that have alignment restrictions, but I have never heard or read anyone complaining a barbarian has been going around being honest and fair and was in danger of becoming Lawful and losing his ability to rage. That never comes up. But paladins face a dilemma, and we go all Lord of the Flies on one another.

Ohhh! Are Clerics modeled after Piggy?

 

[Trench]

Yeah, we see how well Piggy turned out.

Who has the conch? That's the only way to solve this.

 

[pawsplay]

"No, we do care what's in their heart. That's why we detect evil. And if their heart currently contains evil, it is a good act to destroy them. If a gnome found out that humans raised would become CE, the idea would then be to kill them when they become CE, maybe wage a war on their tribe, reform them with missionaries and violence, because they have a choice."

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?"

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Warren Okuma]

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?"

Different gods.

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.

Not required. Just a license to kill.

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?

The god the paladin worships decides that it must die. It's a divine thing.

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.

Yup.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

If they detect evil. Gods paladins worship is collectively generally lenient toward children.

Punishing someone who is not guilty of something, purely because they might if they had the opportunity, is not just.
Correct, but who are you to judge the gods?

Simply because humans might wipe out an ancient forest in a few generations is not a justification to begin exterminating their children now.

Correct, but who are you to judge the gods?

 

[Falkus]

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

As I recall, in the default setting of DnD, gods are nowhere near omnipotent, and do not define good and evil anymore than a mortal does.

 

[Aaron L]

Different gods.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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."


Goddang, that show was good.