The "orc baby" paladin problem

[pawsplay]

How d'you figure? Neutral characters don't do evil. They don't do good, either. They just do what is in their best self-interest for survival and easy living.

Thus, every time they do a good or evil act, their alignment shifts until the act is then perfectly balanced by an opposite act.

Perhaps my statement was a bit too categorical, because obviously one aligned action doesn't change the alignment. There is no difference between being evil and habitually doing evil would be the more accurate way to phrase it.

And what evil does a troll infant habitually do? Either the definition you are using is wrong, or it is not consistent with the parameters of the OP, or you have a definition of "doing evil" that is identical to "being evil," or you have conceded the argument.

Who habitually does evil? Someone who is evil. Who is evil? someone who habitually does evil, according to you. How does someone become habituated to evil in the first place?

I think the only answer is that they acquire an inclination toward evil.

If Evil was based on actions, wouldn't a mass murdering tyrant have a more powerful aura of evil than an annoying imp? Yet auras in D&D are based on personal power (HD) and relationship with supernatural powers (clerics, outsiders, undead). Also, in D&D, you must have at least an Int of 3 to have a non-neutral alignment.

Alignments seem to be a question of moral choice, not guilt.

 

[Seeten]

I believe the scragpoles were habitually killing people and eating them. I believe thats in the OP itself. If not, its in one of Whizbang's first clarifying posts.

 

[pawsplay]

I believe the scragpoles were habitually killing people and eating them. I believe thats in the OP itself. If not, its in one of Whizbang's first clarifying posts.

But that is natural to them. Killing and eating humans isn't evil for them any more than killing and eating cows is for a human. You could butcher a human and feed them to a human toddler, it still wouldn't make them evil. Wolves aren't evil.

 

[Seeten]

Well, if trolls killing humans isnt evil, I dont see why humans killing trolls is evil. Good day, Sir.

 

[pawsplay]

Well, if trolls killing humans isnt evil, I dont see why humans killing trolls is evil. Good day, Sir.

So you believe a paladin slaying a succubus is morally equivalent to a thug killing a ten year old child. I understand you perfectly.

 

[Aaron L]

Really, whoever wrote the description of Alhandra "killing Evil without mercy" made an extremely poor choice in wording (I would actually call it "abhorrent"), which I must have blocked out of my memory as some kind of aberration, because the phrase "without mercy" shouldn't be in any description of a Good alignment. "Without mercy" is pretty much the antithesis of Good, and I'll just have to bow out of this discussion now since I can't agree with the rule's definition of the term Lawful Good anymore.


Really, killing "without mercy" is unacceptable behavior for anyone claiming to be Good; Good without mercy is NOT Good, regardless of what the rules say.


Sorry for my mistake.

 

[Elrond Half Elven]

It really depends on your players actions so far, i.e. how they have handled similar situations before (if there has been any). If the player has killed every last goblin (or allowed them to be killed, even after surrendering) the obviously that paladin is a warrior, crusaiding against every form of evil. A few might question wither or not this is appropriate for a paladin, i agree to some extent. I feel that a paladin's ethos should depend on their god's ethos and also being LG doesn't mean not being proactive. I could understand a paladin of the god of war (albeit a war god who doesn't care about honour) slaying the tadpoles, however other gods i'm not sure.
Additionally it also depends if the character is a realist or an idealist. A realist would suggest that the creatures are born evil and have no, or very little chance of redemption of chance and should be slain to prevent them, say, killing an innocent. Additionally a realist might argue that with their parents dead the young have little chance to survive in the wilderness and the best thing to do would be to put them out of their misery. An idealist might suggest that the creatures have a chance to choose a different path than their parents, or even that the creatures are only doing what they do to survive and should be allowed to live.

Just my scribblings

Hanx
A-semi-coherent Elrond

 

[Mort]

But that is natural to them. Killing and eating humans isn't evil for them any more than killing and eating cows is for a human. You could butcher a human and feed them to a human toddler, it still wouldn't make them evil. Wolves aren't evil.

So you're saying that killing a wolf that's a proven man eater, is an evil act? I don't think that'l hold up very well.
If somethings very nature is to kill and eat humans the paladin is not going to be in any trouble for eliminating it as a menace (read in D&D: it needs killing).

 

[Seeten]

Really, whoever wrote the description of Alhandra "killing Evil without mercy" made an extremely poor choice in wording (I would actually call it "abhorrent"), which I must have blocked out of my memory as some kind of aberration, because the phrase "without mercy" shouldn't be in any description of a Good alignment. "Without mercy" is pretty much the antithesis of Good, and I'll just have to bow out of this discussion now since I can't agree with the rule's definition of the term Lawful Good anymore.


Really, killing "without mercy" is unacceptable behavior for anyone claiming to be Good; Good without mercy is NOT Good, regardless of what the rules say.


Sorry for my mistake.

Lets just change what Good means in every campaign based on each individual DM's preconceived notions of real world good and evil. That way, we can all wonder together what sort of rules we're playing under daily!

RAW? Who cares! I say killing evil dogs that eat human babies is evil, and so it is! pg 107 phb is stupid anyway!

 

[Seeten]

So you believe a paladin slaying a succubus is morally equivalent to a thug killing a ten year old child. I understand you perfectly.

Wait. Is the thug a troll?