Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 3334671" data-attributes="member: 15538">Kamikaze Midget, your arguments are interesting, but they just don't convince me. What you are saying makes sense for a Vulcan. It does not, however, work for a LG paladin. They must never do evil, they must remain in the main Lawful, and they cannot betray their code. Killing evil things on the probability (not the certainty) they will do evil acts is a cynical act, and further, raises the question, "what is the difference between good and evil if both simply kill all who oppose them?" The "greater good" couner-example I gave is straight out of Kant. When asked whether it was permissible to lie to save someone's life, he replied no, if it is wrong to lie, it is always wrong to lie. There is another school of thought, called utilitarianism, which focuses on achieving good for the many, even if it means the suffering of a few. 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. 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.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?</blockquote>

Verification