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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3335643" data-attributes="member: 2067">Let me say first of all, so that I'm clear, that this is the position I would *actually* take in the game. There's a thousand different flavors of "adhering to the paladin's code," and this is a sticky enough situation that I wouldn't penalize the paladin for making a difficult choice.Well, if they're interesting and valid, that's mostly what I was shooting for. Y'know, so you can see how a rational DM could uphold the killing of these scragpoles without penalizing the paladin. Philosophical ethics aside, both sides in D&D *should* kill all who oppose them. Evil characters additionally want to kill those who don't really oppose them and also those who side with them and pretty much everyone else in existence. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Good characters are comfortable with those who don't oppose them, and would aid those who side with them. Now, that's something of an extrapolation from the alignment rules, and is certainly open to debate, but what's clear in the game is that the good guys (PC's) kill the bad guys (monsters) and this is a good act. Good guys don't kill neutrals (NPC's), and, in fact, help them out a lot, and this is a good act. Bad guys kill neutrals and work against them, and this is an evil act. Bad guys also kill good guys and work against them, and this is an evil act. Bad guys also kill bad guys and work against them, and this is an evil act. A paladin cannot tolerate the existence of evil. Evil exists in those tadpoles. Those tadpoles are bad guys. That's as certain as killing any fully-grown orc berserker. It's not a mere "maybe they will," it's an issue of "They have and aside from going to extreme and unrealistic lengths to rehabilitate them, they will again."Think of the paladin faced with a prisoner, a necromancer's apprentice. Say, the paladin is an epic-level hero of renown, and the apprentice is some level 1 adept who wants to raise the dead. Certainly not a threat to the paladin, but possibly a threat to the townsfolk. The paladin knows he's evil. He doesn't seem repentant about that fact. The necromancer's apprentice will continue every day to do evil deeds to further his evil aims. Does the paladin have to leave him alone, simply out of respect for life?How ya figure? Killing evil babies makes for a world where there aren't evil adults, and if you abhor the existence of evil in any form, that sounds like a pretty sweet world. Now, human babies aren't evil, so you can't go around killing them. But scragpoles? Absolutely fair game, here.And if all trolls everywhere are always born virtually irredeemably evil? It's permissible D&D Good-aligned genocide. It doesn't have to be *pretty*, but it is very much *good*. They are helpless to the paladin, but obviously not entirely helpless, or they would not have been able to commit the evil that enables them to have their alignment. It's not for a better society -- it's a direct divine retribution for their crimes and sins. They are guilty. They are evil monsters . You can't get much more clear than that.And lest someone tries reductio ad absurdium, let me say that the circumstances certainly weigh in on the ideas of honor and lawfulness in killing things "just because they're evil." In this case, killing it just because its evil is pretty much required. If it was a merchant in the square, it'd be different (namely because said merchant would have legal protection, but for other reasons as well). 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. A barrel full of tadpoles isn't just likely to be CE. They are, at the moment. They've done things to make them so. Intentions have a bearing, but actions determine your alignment. Alignment is what you do, not what you think. If you are good, you do good. If you are evil, you do evil. If you are neutral, really don't do much of either. More to the point here, it is not morally questionable to kill these scragpoles. They are evil. They have been. They will be. They threaten every humanoid they come across. They're the wolf loose in your back yard. Do you wait for them to eat your children before you shoot them?I'd say sure. It's definitely not an act they'd loose their status for. It's an entirely justifiable LG position. Now, it's risky...making a habit of jumping to conclusions and using violence to accomplish your goals certainly isn't the safest way of guarding your soul. A wise paladin would caution that all other methods of trying to avert the prophecy must be tried first, and would make absolutely sure that killing this paladin would actually avert the prophecy (as in, the half-fiend can't be born to a different paladin). But I could see a LG church slaying a woman pregnant with the foetus of Satan. Heck, I could see her *begging* to be killed. Better that she sacrifice herself for the greater good than to allow such great evil into the world.In fact, I think I've run campaigns like that before, with the PC's caught int he middle. I am kind of a fan of Good vs. Good plotlines, though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification