Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Souza 09-13-03, 09:35 PM	So, the party kicks the door, kill the 20 or so hobgoblins, and loot everything that shines. In the last room, they find 9 young hobgoblins that will not fight, as stated in the adventure module. So they lock them on the kitchen (or the 'food-making' room), so someone will later save them, and they have food for weeks. While they loot everything, the papa hobgoblin (hehe; the BBEG) return to the area with some scouts, kills the player cohorts (roleplayed, not leadership feat) who where outside the building, and then find the heroes on his base and everyone else killed; he challenges the paladin, fight to death, and the scouts run. Now the players, annoyed with the death of his followers, want revenge, and tried to burn the youngsters. I told them that its against their allignment (NG, two LG), but the session ended here. For next week, i think the youngsters are damned. "But im a NG cleric of elven god, if they grow up theill attack my country so ill just kill the youngsters!". The LG paladin says something like, as well as the dwarven defender. Being a follower of race-based deity (the dwarf prays to Moradin) makes you a trully nazi? Should i change the players allignment if they do kill the baby hobgoblins? Iv never been on such situation, so while i dont put my hands on the BovD, how should i handle this? Thanks for any comments.:b:
Derren S. 09-13-03, 10:10 PM	Ah baby monsters. one of the toughtes questions in D&D about alignment. You will surely hear many different answers to your questions and no one will compleatly be right or wrong. If killing baby gnolls is evil depends imo if they are already evil or if they haven't adapted the way of the gnolls. Also sometims the lack of other options makes killing them one of the more nicer things comparing to let them starve to death. Try to suggest to use detect evil on the gnolls. If they are evil killing them isn't the worst thing to do. in your special case the motivation also plays a role. Killing them (if they are evil) to prevent slaughters in the future is "good", but killing them for revenge is not. They already decided to leave them locked up untill they are rescued so they will have a hard time to explain why they are going to kill them if not for revenge. I don't say that revenge per se is evil, but they want to kill creatures which did nothing to them for the actions of a other creature. And that is imo evil. But it mostly depends on your definition of evil and the chance evil creatures in your campaign have to change their alignment.
Oberon_of_Avalon 09-13-03, 10:34 PM	Hm...hobgoblins aren't "always" evil creatures. Plus, you said the young ones didn't fight the adventurers, and as far as the adventurers know they've done no harm, right? So, there is no way to say "Yes, these are evil, they shall now die." I would remove the paladin's...um...paladin abilities (that was kind of redundant, but oh well), penalize the cleric (maybe cut his effective caster level by half until he atones?), and start telling the dwarf that he has nagging urges to do strange and unusually cruel things. And, as stated in the post above, the only reason to kill them would be to get even with the BBEG hobgoblin, which would be evil in any case.
Janus Krug 09-13-03, 10:59 PM	Go ahead and let them. For killing the defenseless, the paladin will lose all of his powers until he atones, which will involve a quest to prove his worthiness. The cleric will likely fall into disfavour with his god, and find his spellcasting limited, his turning weak, and his overall power reduced. The dwarf shouldn't suffer any in game penalties, but you should keep note of any future acts. If he keeps things like this up, alignment go from LG to LN, then to N or LE, then possibly to NE.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-13-03, 11:42 PM	Strip the pally of his powers, give the cleric a stern warning from on high, then when the get home, have hobgoblins that have recently done the same thing in a human village. Bloody filthy buisness this.
Fixxxer 09-14-03, 12:14 AM	You said it yourself...the PCs wanted revenge. They obviously knew what the right thing to do was, since their original action was to remove the innocent children from harm's way. They didn't suddenly change their minds on the subject, they went back to give a violent death to those they decided to save just because they were mad at the BBEG. This is not in keeping with the LG alignment at all. Personally, I would suggest enforcing everything that Janus Krug said.
piwi 09-14-03, 06:22 AM	They could cast raise dead????????? and then if they continue feeding them you would have a cool npc an good or neutral hobgoblin
The Dragon Keeper 09-14-03, 09:40 AM	Personally, and this is comeing from my player side, I would take the children home and train them in the ways of the paladin. Can you imagine an army of LG Hobgoblin crusaders?:smirk:
Zael 09-14-03, 12:20 PM	Depending on how strict you run alignment the elf and dwarf may be ok if they do strictly good things. BUT innocent until proven guilty, so what if they MAY grow up to kill some people, they still are too young to know the difference. And anyway you color it the paladin is screwed. His powers are gone and only a specific quest or "attonement" can help him, if he takes place in it. it's blatant slaughter! C'mon, sure thay can do what they want, but too many DMs are too easy on thier PCs for thier wrong decisions. You need to be strict, especially with that paladin. -Zael
bitnine 09-14-03, 01:28 PM	Yeah... nothing like the concept of "lawful good genocide."
BenjCano 09-14-03, 03:32 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Yeah... nothing like the concept of "lawful good genocide." :D Thank you bitnine!
sputnik monkey 09-15-03, 12:11 AM	If this is the first time that they've performed a somewhat morally reprehensible action in vengence, i wouldn't dock them yet. Instead start to keep an "alignment file". The paladin gets about 3 strikes, the cleric 5, and the fighter 9, before they drop alignment 1 degree. When the time comes to atone, the Paladin has to atone in full for all 3 actions (like 3 full out quests laden with goodness with little reward... all without his paladin abilities), the cleric gets 5 mid-level service type things, work for 5 days in a plague city, perform a marriage for a couple who can't afford anything etc. And the fighter makes a little donation to the church or something like... the point of all this bein that the paladin has the strictest standard imposed on him, and he must work the hardest to get it back, fighters are generally rough types anyway (i mean their job is killing) so they get a little lee-way. Of course, my opinion is slightly biased. When i play, and we find ourselves in this type of situation i generally wind up in the role of "cleaner". While the paladin and the noble-minded mage argue about what to do with the orc who we subdued, tied up and questioned, i quietly slit its throat. When they notice, they act shocked, lecture me sternly, and we proceed...
Skeane 09-15-03, 12:21 AM	If this is the first time that they've performed a somewhat morally reprehensible action in vengence, i wouldn't dock them yet. Instead start to keep an "alignment file". The paladin gets about 3 strikes, the cleric 5, and the fighter 9, before they drop alignment 1 degree. I agree with S.M. on this one... I'd add that you should give some sort of indication to the players (spec. the paladin) that sends a strong 'hint' that he's started down a bad path... if he turns things around and gets back to the L.G. ways for a few more sessions, forgive him of the incident altogether, if not... he's got 2 more strikes before going down a road of paladin attonement quests...
Sarta 09-15-03, 01:19 AM	I'd go with Janus' suggestions and here's why. They can rant and rail about how they are in the right to destroy these future threats to their people and lands. Had they bashed in the door to the last room and killed the nine children where they stood this argument would be a fairly strong one and may not elicit such a harsh penalty. However, they realized at that moment that killing children wasn't right -- regardless of race. Instead they showed mercy (although one could argue that locking them in a pantry so that they would die of thirst in a matter of days is hardly mercy). Now the only rationalization for killing these children is simple revenge which no matter how you slice it is an evil motivation. Sarta
Skeane 09-15-03, 01:29 AM	keep in mind that the we're playing a game. Janus' suggestion is a good one, if you've given plenty of warning to the paladin that acting in unpaladin ways has reprocussions... but, we play D&D as a game (for fun) and nobody will enjoy the eunich-ification of their characters as a result of one poor decision... penalize them lightly... or give them a scare... basically a slap on the wrist kind of thing. tell the paladin 'he feels unnaturally tired' and have him work his adventure as if he were 'fatigued' (the work of his displeased deity) and then when he goes to rest, he has nightmares about the path of revenge/evil... let him know clearly that his L.G. consience and deity is upset with his actions... same with the cleric, but don't do something that will set the players and your campaign totally out of whack for one incident...
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-15-03, 01:35 AM	Since when do the god slaves get strikes? Especially for cold-bloodedly roasting non-combattants alive? No quarter, I say. The pally certainly tore up the Code and burned it here. And unless the cleric is worshipping the Lord of the Ninth, he's not in good graces anymore either. There are evil things you do that noone cares about, and then there are acts of wanton brutality.
Skeane 09-15-03, 01:42 AM	god slaves give warnings if doing so will keep the game running smoothly. If a god strips the paladin of his powers and penalizes the cleric, then I've got to freeze whatever plot hooks I'm working on and come up with a paladin redemption quest... It's not fun for DM or player... I say make sure the player knows that their god is displeased, but don't go too extreme... you'll just mess up things for players and DMs alike...
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-15-03, 01:50 AM	You don't have to run a redemption quest. Ya, I know what that sounds like, coming from me, but follow me here: The party now has a choice (read: RP oppurtunity). Redeem the Pally, missing oppurtunites, some of which would in fact be the greater good. Or follow the plothooks, some of which may have a time limit but,in following the plot hooks, the Pally redeems himself through his actions. Or, of course, the redemption via actions is handed down by the Good powers that be. No unsightly side quest, maximum holy smack down on the venomous scum PCs, everyone wins.
sputnik monkey 09-15-03, 01:52 AM	The strikes are meant to represent the fact that the (good) deity who the paladin serves is merciful, as well as just, and is giving the paladin time to reform his actions... And in my campaign anyway, the gods are more or less disinterested in the specifics of mortal life, so long as the prayers keep coming... it would take about three strikes before the deity realised that he needed to re-assert his authority in the paladin's life...
DrakathTheRatling 09-15-03, 04:47 AM	There is no way a REAL Paladin would kill someone who was defenseless and harmless. The Pally should lose his abilities. I can't believe anyone can debate this. Sure, the game goes smoother if you ignore the Paladin's obviously EVIL action. The game goes even smoother if you just dispense with roleplaying all together and play Diablo II. If you can't play a Paladin, don't play a Paladin. Then you can kill all the innocents you want.
angry_keebler 09-15-03, 06:47 AM	The simplest solution is to have someone cast detect evil on the children. If they are evil, there is no harm in killing them. If they are good, or even neutral, the party should probably take the back to town, or an orphanage, as leaving lesser, non-evil beings to be tormented into becoming evil should be seen as an evil act. Perhaps for revenge, the PCs could find out who was the leader of the BBEG Hobgoblin, and slaughter that band of evil creatures. This would satisfy the need for revenge, and positively affect the world by bringing about the deaths of more evil creatures.
Prophet Pax 09-15-03, 08:46 AM	I guess it comes down to the old genetics vs upbringing. If you believe that children are shaped by the events around them then the babies are likely nuetral. If you believe in genetics as the over riding factor then they are probably evil. My players encountered this dilemma and came to the conclusion that no matter what the alignment it would be an evil act to slaughter defenseless children. They left them behind...
Mr. VanderMeer 09-15-03, 09:02 AM	There is no way a REAL Paladin would kill someone who was defenseless and harmless. The Pally should lose his abilities. I can't believe anyone can debate this. Sure, the game goes smoother if you ignore the Paladin's obviously EVIL action. The game goes even smoother if you just dispense with roleplaying all together and play Diablo II. If you can't play a Paladin, don't play a Paladin. Then you can kill all the innocents you want. Exactly, if a paladin slaughtering innocent children just to get back a somebody can be forgiven because it is easier for the flow of the adventure... well then maybe you should start a Diablo-like campaign with evil characters. (preferably chaotic evil, playing lawful might be a bit over their roleplayiong capabilities as it requires some consistency)
Derren S. 09-15-03, 09:28 AM	Not the nicest way of saing it but yes. The players knew the code of conduc for paladins and the alignment of the gods for clerics. If they don't follow them its theyr problem. Maybe you shouldn't remove their abilities completely but reduce them (About to the abilities a cleric 1/2 their level has) and the only way for atonment is helping a (nonevil) hobgoblintribe or whatever.
Sir Neil 09-15-03, 09:37 AM	If they go through with it, strip their powers. They decided to spare the young hobgoblins, then found out that the BBE hobgoblin killed their allies. After killing him, they still want revenge, so they're going to kill someone who isn't responsible for the death of their allies? They'll like being CE. They can take levels in assassin and blackguard.
jasper 09-15-03, 09:50 AM	it is up to YOU to decide how ingrained evil is in your campaign. Is a baby orc always CE? Or 99.9% chaotic evil. Or to put another way, are the evil races like rattlesnakes. Even the baby ones grow up to be dangerous. IMC evil races are EVIL slay them to last. HOWEVER if baby orc jr is neutral or good. Just before your sword or spell cooks off, you will get a telephone call from the PTB to warn you there is good in baby orc. But once you decide don't punish your players for their pass actions. If you decide they were wrong, tell they were wrong for x,y, and z reasons but they get a free pass since your rule was not in play.
Chobemaster 09-15-03, 11:00 AM	Be sure to be fair to your players, however. If YOU are going to interpret what THEIR alignments constrain them against doing, a dicey proposition, though not unreasonable here, YOU have the responsibility to ensure the Paladin's and Cleric's players know that's going to be your ruling in advance. Call it the conscience of the PC's if you want, but remember that the paladin and the cleric themselves will of course have a much, much more ingrained sense of what's appropriate and what's not, within the campaign world, their tenents & codes, etc, than what the player would. We all like to and encourage role playing, but actually becoming another person is impossible...we have RL to deal with, and obviously haven't been playing these characters 24/7 since birth. It's not necessarily great DMing to set up situations where the Paladin has to fail through no fault of his own. There may have been other options in this specific situation, this advice is more general If the party can't take the hobgoblin children with them (must take portal into hell in the next 6 hours or the world is destroyed for example) and had no reasonable option, with foreknowledge or reasonable expectation of the existence of the children, other than killing the parents, then you've left the paladin with no viable choices. Presenting Paladins with ethical choices, or making them live with the consequences of earlier informed decisions is one thing...setting them up is another.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-15-03, 11:25 AM	Originally posted by Chobemaster It's not necessarily great DMing to set up situations where the Paladin has to fail through no fault of his own. There may have been other options in this specific situation, this advice is more general If the party can't take the hobgoblin children with them (must take portal into hell in the next 6 hours or the world is destroyed for example) and had no reasonable option, with foreknowledge or reasonable expectation of the existence of the children, other than killing the parents, then you've left the paladin with no viable choices. Thats not what happened here, though. The PCs left the children and found thier henchmen dead. So they took the approach of "You kill me servants, I'll immolate the future of your race" and did so. No DM intervention at all.
Mr. VanderMeer 09-15-03, 11:30 AM	but remember that the paladin and the cleric themselves will of course have a much, much more ingrained sense of what's appropriate and what's not, within the campaign world, their tenents & codes, etc, than what the player would. That may be so, but they should be able to figure out that killing babies is abhorrent behaviour. Or else I would hate to see what their definiton of right and wrong is.
bitnine 09-15-03, 11:32 AM	So... They go ahead raid the place a find some babies. Realizing that killing them on sight would probably be a very naughty thing to do (I think not, say, eating babies is directly mentioned in the Paladin's code or somesuch), they go ahead and confine them to a space with plenty of food and water, so that they can leave them there to be found. However, then they find some of their companions have been killed in their raid. And so suddenly they come up with a long spiel about how they obviously need to kill the babies because there's a chance that some of them will become evil. Which is odd, since they took all of that effort to find them a room with food so they could live orginally. So, all in all, they are about to kill a group of helpless children by roasting them alive out of spite. By all means, allow them to know that this is on the no-no list of their deities and code of conduct, respectively. I can see giving Paladins a few strikes before declaring them in violation of their ethos and in need of atonement, but this act in particular is worth a couple dozen strikes. [Edit: That may be so, but they should be able to figure out that killing babies is abhorrent behaviour. Or else I would hate to see what their definiton of right and wrong is. It has recently come to my attention that there's quite a few folk believe that the good alignment has certain liberties when dealing with races that have the "usually evil" descriptor next to their alignment. I was not aware that people would consider racially motivated murder, torture, or genocide acceptable actions undertaken by good characters (even when directed at creatures that are "usually evil"), but apparently that was just my ignorance. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. I'd say that includes babies. /Edit]
Skeane 09-15-03, 11:49 AM	Not the nicest way of saing it but yes. The players knew the code of conduc for paladins and the alignment of the gods for clerics. If they don't follow them its theyr problem. That's the assumption isn't it? That players know the code of conduct and the alignment reqs for playing that character. It may be true, but recall your job as a DM is to teach people the game... and I say do it in a way that wont detract from the players enjoyment... if after 'teaching', it's clear that the paladin player isn't cut out for rp paladin's then go ahead and strip the powers and come up with a quest... but then you'll be at an advantage, bcs you could have time to prepare a really cool paladin redemption quest and the player will have known it was coming, and not be so sore about diabolical DM. So, all in all, they are about to kill a group of helpless children by roasting them alive out of spite. By all means, allow them to know that this is on the no-no list of their deities and code of conduct, respectively. I can see giving Paladins a few strikes before declaring them in violation of their ethos and in need of atonement, but this act in particular is worth a couple dozen strikes. They are not roasting children. It's quite reasonable for the players to think it out this way. They clear out the vicious adult hobgoblins and leave the babies thinking them innocents... they later witness the truly evil nature of their protectors and have second thoughts about the babygob's nature, and go back to make sure they 'correct' their mistakes... Is it wrong to kill babies? Of course! Is it wrong to kill baby hitler... hmmmmmm...
Cabren 09-15-03, 12:02 PM	Punishing them for this is like punishing them for adventuring. Just let them do it. If they go and kill a celestial or human, then you can complain.
Derren S. 09-15-03, 12:03 PM	recall your job as a DM is to teach people the game I hate this argument. My players said this to me all the tme because they were to lazy to learn the rules. They clear out the vicious adult hobgoblins and leave the babies thinking them innocents... they later witness the truly evil nature of their protectors Ähm, the Hobgoblin killed a murderer who killed his familiy. This isn't that kind of evil which justifies genocide. Is it wrong to kill baby hitler... hmmmmmm... Thats why paladins have detect evil. If they detect as evil, go slay them except there is a resonable chance that they can be reformed. If the aren't evil find other ways in dealing with them, killing will kost your paladin status.
archcomponent 09-15-03, 12:08 PM	Originally posted by Skeane They are not roasting children. It's quite reasonable for the players to think it out this way. They clear out the vicious adult hobgoblins and leave the babies thinking them innocents... they later witness the truly evil nature of their protectors and have second thoughts about the babygob's nature, and go back to make sure they 'correct' their mistakes... Is it wrong to kill babies? Of course! Is it wrong to kill baby hitler... hmmmmmm... Of course. Sure, according to the MM their race is only "Usually evil" (meaning only 40-50% match that alignment, as per the MM definition), and maybe those babies are at the moment incapable of moral action and therefore neutral (though I'm not sure about that part). But the fact is that the party thinks that those babies or evil - or at least that the babies will become evil. And that ensures that killing those babies is a good act.
Derren S. 09-15-03, 12:16 PM	Here we go again..... I will just use my lates argument against the beliving=alignment from our last discussion. Just replace orc with hobgoblin. But what they belive is irreleveant when it comes to alignment. Beliving that an orc paladin is evil doesn't make him less good. And when you kill a good creature without a reason you do evil, and beliving that someone is evil especally when you have means to prove it, is no reason. PS: Before we start a discussion about if alignment depends on the belive of a person and doing so going off topic open another thread. On topic: The DM already gave them a warning that they are going against their alignment and unless he changes his mind he has the right to remove their abilities. Did they already detect evil on the hobgoblins and when yes as what did they appear?
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-15-03, 12:16 PM	But by burning him alive? Its the kind of thing he would do, and one has to appreciate the subtle irony, but these are supposed to be good people.
askandarion 09-15-03, 01:00 PM	Amen, bitnine. This is one reason I really like DMs who take the time to discuss at least some of the intricacies of the paladin's code or the dogma of the cleric's god. It sets the boundaries of the character's expected behavior. These two (I don't know about the dwarven defender) have an expected way to act in situations. You're kind of having to deal with this on the fly, it seems, so you have my sympathies for dealing with people who are beginning to take their characters outside of the expected boundaries. Make sure they understand what the characters are expected to do in the eyes of their gods, and that going back after having spared the children's lives is a sort of betrayal of their beliefs (and the children, but for them that's irrelevant). If they are insistent, let them, but strip their powers. They are playing in a game with GODS. Depending on the level of interference of the gods in your world, they might not like having such representatives. Yeah, I'd be lenient if they'd killed them outright, but they have already established that the good thing to do would be to spare the lives of children. Now they have to explain why, instead, this is an evil act and why killing them would be good. I say they can't do it. Revenge is evil, particularly when visited on the children. You might have noticed I'm not a big fan of the whole sins of the father thing.:D
The_Dark_One 09-15-03, 01:06 PM	It seems to me that this is not about the evil of hobgblins, as preventing future evil is not the motivation behind this murder. They are mad, since they can't take it out on the person who did it, they find the nearest defenseless creatures and slaughter them. This is bad.
Souza 09-15-03, 01:08 PM	Lots of feedback; thanks :) Sputinik Monkey Of course, my opinion is slightly biased. When i play, and we find ourselves in this type of situation i generally wind up in the role of "cleaner". While the paladin and the noble-minded mage argue about what to do with the orc who we subdued, tied up and questioned, i quietly slit its throat. When they notice, they act shocked, lecture me sternly, and we proceed... Thats exactly what happens all the time. Theres a Fighter in the party who got lycantropy (so hes a bit more powerfull); he was Lawful something, but the 'wolf inside' is slowly changing his alingment; he is CN now. Usually, while the party returns to the wagon to get chains in order to tie up the captured enemy, he stays, kill them, thrown the bodies on the river, and when the paladin returns, he bluff him (no 1 except him got sense motive); so he just says they escaped or something, and they proceed. When he cant do this (when he just kill the prisioner), they do nothing at all - like "you coward! lets go." This fighter wasnt on our last session; im sure they will try to get distracted so he can 'clean' the house as he aways do, but this time (if that happens again) i think ill warn the paladin in some way, and he will have to decide between his friend or his paladinhood. But anyway. BTW, our next sessions start within 20 mintes :) . Sooo.. Or else I would hate to see what their definiton of right and wrong is. Theyre yet trying to find it out. Some villagers got kidnapped in the forest; the players went to the temple, found that the olders were sold as slaves and the childrens killed in an altar for some evil tiny deity; the hobgoblin youngsters (not babies) where using the childrens clothes, but they arent allowed to carry weapons already (so, this was not their falt, just a, lets say, 'class' about their deity on how to be evil). They are in a foreign country, fighting for the paladin temple (he is a Templar), while their own kingdom is near to burn in a civil war (because of some "good" nobles, leaded by the players province Count who wants the crown for himself; the paladin Temple is loyal to such Lord, and i want to see what will the player do when he finds it out); they have no time for 'training the hobgoblins in the way of goodnes', neither to send prisioners half continent north to receive the adequate punishment; plus, they lost many friends already (PCs and NPCs) in honored combat and ambushes (like an invisible rogue who killed some of them during the night, or orcs on boats in the river with xbows using commoners as shield). They're becoming some sort of hateful heroes, who march to fight glorious battles, just to find that their own kind isnt much different from the 'evil guys'; they just have a better public relationship :) (or something like). I decided to not punish them in XP or alignment if they kill the youngsters, but some of them will surely have some powers 'shut down' for a while if they burn the kids with oil and a everburning torch, as they planned to... Well they're here. Ill post something later.
Derren S. 09-15-03, 02:05 PM	I wouldn't punish them either when they kill members of an evil cult, except ehen they kill them in a cruel way.
Chobemaster 09-15-03, 02:23 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Thats not what happened here, though. The PCs left the children and found thier henchmen dead. So they took the approach of "You kill me servants, I'll immolate the future of your race" and did so. No DM intervention at all. Did you read where I specified my comment was more general than the specific situation presented?
bitnine 09-15-03, 02:27 PM	I really don't think of it as punishment. I'm not there as a DM with a big stick to try to whack my players for doing something "bad." The simple fact of: Paladin + baby murders = loss of powers until atonement Yeah... that doesn't necessarily the DM is telling them OOC that they did something wrong. Perhaps their character would indeed have acted like that. The loss of paladin abilites isn't going to be me passing judgement on my players. Certain acts have repercussions and natural results. You hit someone, they lose hit points. I'm not "punishing" them for having a low AC. It's just what happens. [Edit: Like I've said before and I'll probably say a few times again: there's a difference between a valid action for a character to take and a good action, eh? /Edit]
Chobemaster 09-15-03, 02:38 PM	Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer That may be so, but they should be able to figure out that killing babies is abhorrent behaviour. Or else I would hate to see what their definiton of right and wrong is. I said specifically that my advice was the general case to avoid this post, apparently for naught. I'm not making the argument, and I don't believe it, but I recognize the merits of the argument, that killing the children, and avoiding future conflicts, could be a net good. It goes along the lines of the slippery-slope type argument "If you could sacrifice one person to save 100, would you?" "5?" "10?" etc. And despite our modern-world morality bias, it's perfectly reasonable for a deity to declare certain creatures/races "outside" the bounds of its dictates. Similar to how Judeo-Chrisitanity sets animals outside the borders of what's accorded certain rights. For example, we eat chickens, but find it wrong to eat people. A farmer can slaughter his cow and make a coat out of it, but doing so with his wife is frowned upon. To avoid the "D&D is satanist" crowd, and to make it fit in better with modern liberal moral relativism, "good" means "intelligent beings" so it would be "evil" in D&D to raise and kill orcs for their tusks and hide. But there's no inherent reason why all D&D worlds would have this moral compass. Imagine a campaign world where humans and orcs are locked in a titanic struggle, mirroring wars between the human and orc gods. If you use the worshippers=power for gods theory, then killing any orc helps the gods win. Guess what rules the gods are going to set as to when you can/can't kill orcs? The niceties of "good" behavior aren't necessarily going to be applied any better than how we treat farm animals, or for that matter, crop plants. We sit here in moral judgement, the dominant species on the planet, that all intelligent life has certain rights, and we're adding more and more of these rights to animals and plants as well. But who are we to declare this an absolute moral certainty when we've not lived in a world with a dozen other intelligent races competing for resources. Just my $.02. Declaring that automatically killing evil-race babies is automatically evil is just as myopic as declaring it automatically acceptable. In most campaigns, though, paladins shouldn't be crusing around killing baby hobgoblins, though.
Chobemaster 09-15-03, 02:44 PM	Originally posted by Souza Lots of feedback; thanks :) Thats exactly what happens all the time. Theres a Fighter in the party who got lycantropy (so hes a bit more powerfull); he was Lawful something, but the 'wolf inside' is slowly changing his alingment; he is CN now. Usually, while the party returns to the wagon to get chains in order to tie up the captured enemy, he stays, kill them, thrown the bodies on the river, and when the paladin returns, he bluff him (no 1 except him got sense motive); so he just says they escaped or something, and they proceed. . 1. Sense motive can be used untrained. Unbelievable tales like - "these guys I was watching just escaped, and I'm unharmed, and there's no sign of struggle, and I have no idea where they went in the 2 minutes you were gone." would likely lead to a -10 circumstance penalty to your fighter's check. I bet that more than wipes out his ranks, so SOMEONE in the party is likely to think he's lying. 2. IF all the PC does is say " they escaped or something" then he hasn't even bothered to bluff, yet. He needs to RP what he's going to say, then the die roll lets you know how convincing it is. Simply saying "I use bluff, I win, let's move on" isn't the proper way to use RP skills.
Zakar 09-15-03, 02:48 PM	The way I see it your players have a few options: 1. Assume all hobgoblins are evil and kill the babies. For the greater good. Once the babies grow up they will do evil. 2. Leave the babies to die from lack of food/water. 3. While the cleric and paladin are taking a nap... Let the dwarf kill them. 4. Try to get them adopted. I don't feel that would realisticly ever happen. 5. Bring the group of hobgoblins along as pets/slaves. 6. Release them and let nature sort it out. The easy option is number 1. Unless you want to delve deeply into the morality of nature vs nuture it solves the problem quickly. As a basic DM tool it is easy to say all of creature type X are evil. The paladin should try detecting evil on the young. If they were evil .. Kill them... If they are not evil release them into the wild. As a DM it is up to you as to how big a deal you want to make it.... However, at some point it will no longer become fun for the players. I am not sure you want to have to deal with the players raising baby hobgoblins.
archcomponent 09-15-03, 03:01 PM	Originally posted by Zakar 1. Assume all hobgoblins are evil and kill the babies. For the greater good. Once the babies grow up they will do evil. The easy option is number 1. Unless you want to delve deeply into the morality of nature vs nuture it solves the problem quickly. As a basic DM tool it is easy to say all of creature type X are evil. It really isn't all that controversial. They think that the hobgoblins are or soon will be evil creatures, therefore they have a duty as good creatures to immedinately eliminate them in the manner they find to be the best for their needs. Would you really require them to have to wait for the babies to grow up and become evil creatures and murder innocent people before you'd say that the paladin could put them to the stake? He's just saved potentially hundreds of lives - moreover, he's doing exactly what he has pledged to do, rid the world of evil. Just my $.02. Declaring that automatically killing evil-race babies is automatically evil is just as myopic as declaring it automatically acceptable. That's ridiculous. You just said it yourself - an evil race. The Paladin is bound to kill them, as he's supposed to fight evil without mercy. There's nothing myopic about declaring it acceptable. There's no "good evil" alignment.
mercurial67 09-15-03, 03:12 PM	Originally posted by Sarta I'd go with Janus' suggestions and here's why. They can rant and rail about how they are in the right to destroy these future threats to their people and lands. Had they bashed in the door to the last room and killed the nine children where they stood this argument would be a fairly strong one and may not elicit such a harsh penalty. I have to agree with Sarta on this. There is a big difference between coming across hobgoblin children and killing them on the spot & saying they will spare them and later kill them out of revenge. The paladin should loose his paladin abilities. Revenge doesn't really seem like a part of the paladin's code of ethics. Plus, it's not even really revenge since the children didn't participate in the slayings. It's more retaliation against innocents. They could argue the children aren't innocents if they had just killed them as SOP, but they spared them and are now killing them to get back at creatures they have already killed.
sputnik monkey 09-15-03, 04:19 PM	Originally posted by Souza Well they're here. Ill post something later. I'm curious to find out how you decide to handle this situation, as well as your players' and their characters' responses.
Chobemaster 09-15-03, 04:26 PM	Originally posted by archcomponent It really isn't all that controversial. They think that the hobgoblins are or soon will be evil creatures, therefore they have a duty as good creatures to immedinately eliminate them in the manner they find to be the best for their needs. Would you really require them to have to wait for the babies to grow up and become evil creatures and murder innocent people before you'd say that the paladin could put them to the stake? He's just saved potentially hundreds of lives - moreover, he's doing exactly what he has pledged to do, rid the world of evil. That's ridiculous. You just said it yourself - an evil race. The Paladin is bound to kill them, as he's supposed to fight evil without mercy. There's nothing myopic about declaring it acceptable. There's no "good evil" alignment. Expedience isn't a hallmark of good. This is more like how a lawful neutral would deal with baby orcs. Hobgoblin's aren't ALWAYS evil. If the paladin takes the children back to his chapterhouse or whatever, and the babies are raised in the faith of Pelor, they may have just as much chance to be good as humans. Certainly, the paladin can't be sure that they will ALL grow up to be evil in that case, so how does he know which ones to kill. And for that matter, simply having an evil alignment isn't a crime. It's a hard thing, killing a (hobgoblin.) You take away all that he is, and all that he'll ever be. Maybe our paladin shouldn't be to quick to mete out death and judgement. After all, many die that deserve life, right?
BenjCano 09-15-03, 04:37 PM	Originally posted by Chobemaster It's a hard thing, killing a (hobgoblin.) You take away all that he is, and all that he'll ever be. Maybe our paladin shouldn't be to quick to mete out death and judgement. After all, many die that deserve life, right? Awesome, Chobemaster. You managed to quote a) my favorite movie and b) one of my favorite books. Go you. :tiphat:
The_Dark_One 09-15-03, 04:45 PM	That's ridiculous. You just said it yourself - an evil race. The Paladin is bound to kill them, as he's supposed to fight evil without mercy. There's nothing myopic about declaring it acceptable. There's no "good evil" alignment. There is a big difference between being from an evil race and being an evil individual . A person can be from an evil race and not be evil. Even members of races that are always evil can sometimes be good. These are murders commited out of anger and frustration. They can't hurt the hobgoblins who killed their friends, so they kill they ones they can get to. This is petty, vindictive, and takes the path of least resistance . All of those lead to evil.
archcomponent 09-15-03, 04:49 PM	Originally posted by Chobemaster And for that matter, simply having an evil alignment isn't a crime. So are you trying to tell me that the line: [A lawful evil character] is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Is supposed to really mean that an evil character who just happens to obey the law and do nothing wrong in front of a paladin gets a free pass? Well it says about good characters: She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. They fight to oppose evil, and as long as they believed that the creatures in question are or would soon become evil, then killing them is a good act. The method with which this is accomlished is of secondary importance.
Mr. VanderMeer 09-15-03, 04:55 PM	There is a big difference between coming across hobgoblin children and killing them on the spot & saying they will spare them and later kill them out of revenge. I agree that this difference is very important. Coming across the young of evil creatures and releasing the world of a threat, in a humane and quick way would be more defendable. Going back out of vengeance to kill them by burning them by oil is unecessarily cruel and vindictive. I must say I probably think this way because of the way I run my games. I make it very clear from the start to my players that all actions have consequences. They should not make immediate assumptions about things. In my campaign there is no race that is 'always evil'. So maybe I am not the best person to judge this situation. In my eyes goes completely against the paladin's code and against the good alignment. But that is my opinion. And I do actually see some reason in the quote: But there's no inherent reason why all D&D worlds would have this moral compass. That is a fair consideration.
Derren S. 09-15-03, 04:57 PM	Originally posted by archcomponent They fight to oppose evil, and as long as they believed that the creatures in question are or would soon become evil, then killing them is a good act. The method with which this is accomlished is of secondary importance. No, paladins and other good characters can't kill because they belive belive that the enemy is evil. To err is human and in mathers of live and death they should trust the gods to sort the good from the bad (->detect evil) And the method should be as quick and painless as possible. (What burning alive clearly isn't)
archcomponent 09-15-03, 05:35 PM	Originally posted by Derren S. No, paladins and other good characters can't kill because they belive belive that the enemy is evil. To err is human and in mathers of live and death they should trust the gods to sort the good from the bad (->detect evil) Most babies of evil races simply aren't evil yet. If a Paladin really believes that they are going to soon be evil, he is well within his alignment and his code in killing them. And the manner is hardly that big of an issue. Though I wouldn't try to light oil with an everburning torch, myself. Paladins fight evil without mercy, so they don't need to go out of their way to coddle every evil thing that they see.
danielinthewolvesden 09-15-03, 05:41 PM	All Paladins are not the same. Read carefully the section on his God, and the clerics God. Check for references to "mercy" or "punishment". I'd say a Paladin of Tyr could get away with it, but not a Paladin of Ilmater. This is a "close call" and is something that they need to think about. If they do consider it carefully, and their actions are not against their God's Dogma, then I'd let them get away with it. I might sneak in a nightmare or something, or if their God didn't like the idea- a dream warning (and if they got warned like that, then they woudl get punished if they went ahead with it).
sputnik monkey 09-15-03, 05:42 PM	Originally posted by archcomponent The method with which this is accomlished is of secondary importance. I disagree most strongly on this point. The method and the motivation are the two components which most often seperate an evil act from a good one. Even assuming that ALL baby hobgoblins are inherently evil, and can be naught but evil from birth to death, the method of burning them alive is unnecessarily cruel (ie. evil), while the motive of revenge is, if not always strictly evil, is seldom considered "good". In a society in which survival is the mandate of everyday living (ie. barbarian fronteirs) then pragmatism can be, in that context considered "good". Thus, a lawful good barbarian could, in all justification say, "I must kill these hobgoblins. They may grow up to menace my tribe, or at the very least, they compete with me for resources... ug." While a paladin needs a much more complex and well reasoned motivation, since in an individual who lives in a civilised situation is much less likely to be concerned only with the imediate needs of survival. To illustrate the importance of method and motivation, lets consider for a moment, the classic example of the confrontation between Luke Skywalker and the Emperor. Remember, first and foremost that the Emperor is THE BBEG. He is the one who the PCs are supposed to hunt down and kill without mercy. It is well known that he and he alone is the reason for the enslavement of numerous intelligent races, he is the driving force behind war on a huge scale, he causes people to live in fear, he supports the use of torture, &c. &c.... Unquestionably, he is the embodiment of the soul of evil. Luke, being a Jedi is almost analagous to a paladin, in that he has a strict standard of "good" which he must maintain or risk falling to "the dark side". Now, when Luke is brought before the Emperor, he is given the opportunity to "strike him down". However, Luke cannot take that opportunity because his motivation would be hatred (evil) and his method would be to strike down an unarmed man (although one could argue that the Emperor wields such terrible power as to never be considered unarmed). Thus, the question of "is killing 'good' in this case" is valid, even when confronted by the soul of evil.
Derren S. 09-15-03, 05:42 PM	When they aren't evil jet than there is no evidence that they will become evil. If the race is always evil (like demons), that the children would be too. So you can't use "They will become evil" as justification. And I don't know how it is in the FR, but paladins don't have to follow a god and don't get their powers from a god but from the universal good force in the world.
Chobemaster 09-15-03, 05:44 PM	Originally posted by archcomponent So are you trying to tell me that the line: Is supposed to really mean that an evil character who just happens to obey the law and do nothing wrong in front of a paladin gets a free pass? Well it says about good characters: They fight to oppose evil, and as long as they believed that the creatures in question are or would soon become evil, then killing them is a good act. The method with which this is accomlished is of secondary importance. Joe citizen who happens to be evil and takes it out on his cat, while despicable, hasn't committed a crime (animal cruelty laws are new). He's certainly not done anything worthy of death. If you and yours enjoy psycho slayer Children of Light paladins, go ahead, but know that you're in the minority, so when you join a new group, be prepared to adjust your thinking.
Al2902 09-15-03, 06:01 PM	In my humble opinion, the most important single factor in determining the alignment of any action has to be the question of motive. You have to talk to the players and ask them, frankly, why the paladin killed the baby hobgoblins. 1) He was angered by the boss hobgoblin killing his friends, and was driven by revenge and bloodlust. Probably a chaotic neutral action- it doesn't really go into evil, since it was not particularly self-serving. It was merely an emotional reaction, a crime of passion, if you like. Nevertheless, it's not unreasonable to assume he falls. 2) He believes *truly* that the hobgoblin race is both inherently evil AND irredeemable. In this case, it is perfectly permissible to kill hobgoblin babies since letting them live will only cause more suffering in the long run. The problem with this approach is that if he believed it, he would have slaughtered them from the beginning. It is hence very hard for him to assert that the paladin took this mentality from the beginning. One way of reconciling this with his previous actions would be if the brutality of the hobgoblin boss caused a paradigm shift in his view of the hobgoblin race. If, and only if, he was so appaled by the hobgoblin boss' actions that his view of *the entire race* was fundamentally changed, then his actions are both coherent and consistent with a lawful good alignment. It is a narrow get-out clause, but it is there. As Chobemaster says, circumstances can be conceived under which his actions were reasonable- though those circumstances would be exceptional. More likely than not, situation 1) applies, and his falling from paladinhood would be a well-deserved punishment for his succumbing to petty vengeance.
DrakathTheRatling 09-15-03, 08:14 PM	If a Paladin really believes that they are going to soon be evil, he is well within his alignment and his code in killing them. Guilty until proven innocent, eh. Kill them before they grow up and turn against you. History is full of this, and it ain't LG. Sure, you can try to find loopholes and justification, but doing so just proves it isn't LG. Or just drop alignment altogether and then you don't have to worry about it.
Fixxxer 09-15-03, 08:19 PM	Guilty until proven innocent, eh. Kill them before they grow up and turn against you. History is full of this, and it ain't LG. Right...more like Lawful Evil. Attempting genocide based on a belief that the world will somehow be better without a certain race was tried by someone already. Oh, what was his name again....Adolf somethingorother...
Souza 09-15-03, 08:23 PM	Here am i, again; by Zakar: 2. Leave the babies to die from lack of food/water. Thats what they did. They left the youngsters in the room, with plenty of food. By the way; there was some goblins slaves in the Temple, and they hated the hobgoblins and all, but the party, instead of giving freedom for the poor goblins, locked them together with the young hobgoblins in that room... Go figure. Surely the goblins didnt survived. The room where they are isnt larger than 10x10 :rolleyes: ; they have food, so? Theyll die from cold (its winter) or lack of higienic (sp?) any way... Around the Temple, the Fighter werewolf guy changed into a wolf, and scouted the area; he found a young hobgoblin who managed to escape the temple slaughter with 6 war dogs; he bluffed the dogs to kill the hobgoblin (with his canine bonus to some skills and whatsoever), changed to human, scored a nice diplomacy check, and took the dogs for himself. Poor goblinoid... Later, they fought the last hobgoblin group, 6 of them, with some goblin warriors; the hobgoblins were quickly destroyed, but the goblins, trying to save their lifes, made the party laught with some coward words (i didnt expected that; i was just roleplaying goblins, y'know); instead of locking them on the temple or just slaying them, the party left them to their own luck. Carbof, the Goblin leader, was even invited to join the party (!!), but few seconds later they realized it wouldnt work. Yea, the young hobgoblins didnt died (but will). Something interesting is that one of the hobgoblin kids, son of the old temple leader, tried to defend his temple and the other youngsters with words of revenge and anger ('we will pillage your town, fools!' and etc), aaand... the dwarf defender knocked him out, almost killing him. The cleric (elf) didnt liked that, so healed the kid; few seconds later, he was subdued again, and left crying in the ground; this time, the cleric just stabilized him with a heal check, and moved out. !!! I mean, wow! Thats how heroes should work? Punishing kids with the scabbard of their weapons? Thats more or less how hobgoblins would act, While Sacking A Village! The elf and the dwarf sometimes really do act like nazi.. (Not the paladin, he is straight LG; "lets flank them!" "No, ill fight as an honored paladin should!" *charge* *receives twelve readied bolts, falls subdued...*; oh well). Well, well... I didnt punished them bc theyre going to the death's door in a daily basis, plus they have lots of negative stats and drained levels for the cleric to heal them a little every day, and they are far from home; but im thinking about the quest from his god, or something like. IMC, alignment arent that important, more for rules factor and such, i dont like to limit their roleplaying because of such small rule, and i preffer to have this neutral world, rather than a black and while good vs evil campaing. I just didnt expected them to catch this so far :). Any comments?
Sir Neil 09-15-03, 08:44 PM	Originally posted by Souza I mean, wow! Thats how heroes should work? :thumbsup: Absolutely! Punishing kids with the scabbard of their weapons? Thats more or less how hobgoblins would act, While Sacking A Village! Hobgoblins would use the blade, not the scabbard.
DrakathTheRatling 09-15-03, 11:12 PM	Thats how heroes should work? Punishing kids with the scabbard of their weapons? Not very heroic, but possibly in character. As long as it's not a LG PC. I would not have the young hobgoblins die, or at least not all of them. Keep at least the son of the leader alive and have him swear vengence on the dwarf.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-15-03, 11:32 PM	Wow, I didn't know good meant brutalizing people and leaving them to die in thie own fetid waste. And kids, who would have thought good guys pick on kids in their spare time? Man, kind of makes you wonder about the parts of Superman they don't show in the comics.
Cabren 09-15-03, 11:42 PM	Originally posted by Souza I mean, wow! Thats how heroes should work? Punishing kids with the scabbard of their weapons? These "heroes" didn't kill their enemies, which means they failed as heroes. By letting them live, they made sure that someone is going to suffer as a result of their stupidity, and that is what they should be punished for. You NEVER leave an enemy or witness alive. Because it will always come back to hurt you. If it's in the monster manual, you kill first, and ask questions if the dm required it. And you walk away without regret or harm.
sputnik monkey 09-15-03, 11:53 PM	Originally posted by Cabren These "heroes" didn't kill their enemies, which means they failed as heroes. So the definition of hero is "someone powerful enough to kill anyone who gets in the way of his goal"? Originally posted by Cabren You NEVER leave an enemy or witness alive. Because it will always come back to hurt you. This sounds more like NE or CE behaviour to me... not at all heroic, definately not even remotely acceptable behaviour for a paladin of a good-aligned deity! Originally posted by Cabren If it's in the monster manual, you kill... and you walk away without regret or harm. Yes! AMEN!! Kill the freaks! All of them!! Cabren, are you, by any chance, running a Book of Vile Darkness campaign? The apropriately "heroic" response you described looks more like the actions of the BBEG.
bitnine 09-15-03, 11:59 PM	You NEVER leave an enemy or witness alive. That's going to be my next Paladin character's code of conduct. Or was that blackgaurd? I always get those two mixed up.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-16-03, 12:08 AM	Why bother writing up a code anymore. From what I've seen over the past week, this is the Paladin Code: Kill Everything that could possibly be Evil, even if it doesn't detect 'cause we all know evil is tricky.
Janus Krug 09-16-03, 02:49 AM	Gotta love the people who think that a paladin's alignment can be "interpreted". Paladin's are hard to play because of the strict rules they must willingly follow. In second edition, you had to have excellent stats and a bunch of other stuff to be a paladin as well. And you know what? Despite all this, we wanted to play them. You know why? There's no greater good guy than the good guy who has the belief system of Superman. Those who believe in the way Vaalingrade unfortunately states as a sad truth aren't paladins. They're fighters who want to be paladins, plain and simple.
Sarta 09-16-03, 03:01 AM	Originally posted by Janus Krug There's no greater good guy than the good guy who has the belief system of Superman. While I agree with your sentiments, I have always been more fond of the belief system of The Tick when it comes to paladins, after all they are the class that can get by with the least intelligence: "Everybody was a baby once, Arthur. Oh, sure, maybe not today, or even yesterday. But once! Babies, chum: tiny, dimpled, fleshy mirrors of our us-ness, that we parents hurl into the future, like leathery footballs of hope! And you've got to get a good spiral on that baby, or evil will make an interception!" -- The Tick Cheers, Sarta
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-16-03, 03:18 AM	:rofl: You know, we used to make a lot of interceptions, but our special teams suck nowadays. Apathy picks us off everytime. A well, there's always next season *holds up a "Go evil" pennant*
archcomponent 09-16-03, 11:31 AM	Originally posted by Janus Krug Gotta love the people who think that a paladin's alignment can be "interpreted". Paladin's are hard to play because of the strict rules they must willingly follow. What, like fighting evil relentlessly and without exception? That sounds like a Paladin to me. If he finds members of an evil race or believes a creature to be evil, then they should more than likely lose their powers if they allow the world to continue to suffer the existence of that creature.
Cabren 09-16-03, 11:42 AM	Originally posted by Janus Krug Gotta love the people who think that a paladin's alignment can be "interpreted". Yeah, it's pretty dumb that people actually think paladins are not relenless destroyers of evil, that they are supposed to be some kind of nice, benevolent group of do-gooders. Maybe in a game made for 5 year olds. No, paladins are killers who seek to annihilate evil, and they don't stop for mercy or compassion. They are fanatics who destroy everything that is contrary to good and their faith. If you want nice, find some kind of pacifist cleric. Just note that it will die about 2 sessions in because being nice has no place in an adventuring game.
archcomponent 09-16-03, 11:45 AM	Originally posted by Cabren Yeah, it's pretty dumb that people actually think paladins are not relenless destroyers of evil, that they are supposed to be some kind of nice, benevolent group of do-gooders. Maybe in a game made for 5 year olds. No, paladins are killers who seek to annihilate evil, and they don't stop for mercy or compassion.. Damn straight. There's a reason that lay on hands got pushed back while Paladins get Smite Evil at first level.
Souza 09-16-03, 11:57 AM	So, a guy who stole a chicken is making the world more evil, thus he must die by the hands of a paladin instead of staying one week on the jail..? By letting the kids alive, they know that they will grow up, will wield weapons, making ppl suffer, and will have their own kids, who'll stay doing the same think. Killing something that WILL be a problem is, well, acceptable i think; but the kids are innocents! Paladins shouldnt kill a pregnated woman just because her future says that she will give born to the antichristus, they must belive in redemption as well! So, the paladin can fail on his codes, because a single quest for his god/temple/whatever will give him his powers back(unless he screwed so badly that his alignment changed); but a Hobgoblin kid cant breath, because he is a hobgoblin, so he must die. Period. Thats just not right! Paladins are the last bastion of pure good in the world :) (too bad that they like so much to fall and rise as a blackguard:rolleyes: ) IMHO.
Fixxxer 09-16-03, 12:42 PM	Originally posted by Cabren ...and they don't stop for mercy or compassion. So that whole "help those in need" vow goes right out the window, huh? If it's in the monster manual, you kill first, and ask questions if the dm required it. So elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes can't be in the group of PCs due to the fact that they're in the monster manual and must be killed. On top of that, metallic dragons, fey, celestials, assimar and animals (including horses) must also be killed on sight. Dude, it's great that you have your own view on how a paladin (or possibly even a game) should be run. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that your way is the only way (or even the best or most-used way).
bitnine 09-16-03, 12:48 PM	Originally posted by Fixxxer So that whole "help those in need" vow goes right out the window, huh? Also, please try to ignore any statements to the effect of: Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
Janus Krug 09-16-03, 01:51 PM	When I stated that the Paladin's alignment can't be interpreted, I meant to say that they are to a one required to be valiant, courageous against evil, benevolent towards the weak, honorable to the core, and completely dedicated towards the causes of good and order. Killing evil is a necessity when that evil will not surrender to you. When evil surrenders, a paladin accepts this. The paladin is likely not a fool, so he will ensure that the evil person will not go back on their word by restraining them and watching them until they are in the hands of the just authorities, but he will not kill the evil person out of spite. All things can be redeemed. Well, maybe not the lords of the nine, but you never know.:)
bitnine 09-16-03, 03:22 PM	Ah, posting on the WotC boards isn't complete until you witness a moral debate on wheter a paladin lighting babies on fire out of spite violates his code of conduct or not. Everyone here, thanks!
Fixxxer 09-16-03, 03:38 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Ah, posting on the WotC boards isn't complete until you witness a moral debate on wheter a paladin lighting babies on fire out of spite violates his code of conduct or not. Everyone here, thanks! :rofl:
Stafir Ortnev 09-16-03, 03:42 PM	It should be noted that while a paladin goes out and destroys evil..they should not commit evil in the process. Killing defensless children who have the capaticy to one day grow up to be evil..is not good. The ends do NOT justify the means. Destroying evil does not mean killing those who are evil..it can also mean..*gasp*..reforming those who have strayed to the side of evil. I'll be honest...if a paladin goes out and kills some helpless creature. They better have a reason better than 'well, its evil', otherwise their God will probably take away some powers. If they have a better reason (and there can be alot) then they might get away with it. But in this case..killing those defensless children, just because you 'think' they are evil..or you 'think' they can become evil. Is an evil act in and of itself. And that pally, if he had done so, should have been punished by his God, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Mr. VanderMeer 09-16-03, 04:01 PM	one of the hobgoblin kids, son of the old temple leader, tried to defend his temple and the other youngsters with words of revenge and anger Okay, your next move should be obvious. Instead of dying this hobgoblin kid finds an ancient tome, uses it to summon a vile fiend and make a pact with it. He then gains fiendish powers (half fiend template?) and becomes a necromancer. He turns the other hobbo's into flesheating undead children (ghouls?) to serve him and he strikes out to have his vengeance on the intrepid adventures that were stupid enough to let him live. Won't that be a nice surprise. :devil: And I am almost tempted to use your statement as a sig, bitnine: Ah, posting on the WotC boards isn't complete until you witness a moral debate on wheter a paladin lighting babies on fire out of spite violates his code of conduct or not. :D
Demon Lightfoot 09-16-03, 04:07 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Ah, posting on the WotC boards isn't complete until you witness a moral debate on wheter a paladin lighting babies on fire out of spite violates his code of conduct or not. Everyone here, thanks! I think that I've found a new sig.:D
Arbitrary Aardvark 09-16-03, 04:13 PM	Originally posted by archcomponent So are you trying to tell me that the line: Is supposed to really mean that an evil character who just happens to obey the law and do nothing wrong in front of a paladin gets a free pass? Well it says about good characters: "She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly." They fight to oppose evil, and as long as they believed that the creatures in question are or would soon become evil, then killing them is a good act. The method with which this is accomlished is of secondary importance. Why does "oppose evil" equal "kill evil"? If a lawful evil landlord overcharges for rent, refuses to fix the tenements, evicts unwed mothers with small children during a snowstorm, rents rooms to known criminals, and kicks his dog -- does he deserve to die? Or are there other possibilities, including the legal system, boycots, etc. And does a horrible small minded (LE) carriage driver who cheats on his wife, drives the long way round to raise fairs, bad mouths demi-humans, brags about cheating on his taxes, and thinks Voldemar had the right idea deserve to be killed by the LG character with "detect evil" who happens to hire him? (Change "carriage" to "taxi", "Voldemar" to "Hitler", "demi-humans" to "ethnic minorities", and remove the "detect evil" and you get my last cabbie but two.
The_Dark_One 09-16-03, 05:26 PM	Why does "oppose evil" equal "kill evil"? If a lawful evil landlord overcharges for rent, refuses to fix the tenements, evicts unwed mothers with small children during a snowstorm, rents rooms to known criminals, and kicks his dog -- does he deserve to die? Or are there other possibilities, Yes, though these possibilities include savage beatings on a daily basis.
danielinthewolvesden 09-16-03, 06:19 PM	Originally posted by Janus Krug When I stated that the Paladin's alignment can't be interpreted, , but he will not kill the evil person out of spite. All things can be redeemed. Again, I say it depends on the God you are a Paladin of. Paladins of Kelemvor can (IMHO) get away with some pretty merciless behaviour against undead & Necromancers (not the specialist wizards, those who animate dead). Knights of Ilmater should put Mercy first. Those who hold Tyr as their God will hold Justice highest. A paladin of Lathander could quite possibley get away with "executing on the spot" an EHP of Cyric- even if he "surrendered". Etc, etc. Read the Dogma of your God. Still our OP hasn't said what God the Paladin in question worships. A God of Vengance might not blink an eye at such behavior from His Paladin.
bitnine 09-16-03, 07:08 PM	And don't even ask what the dogma of Toastytot, the god of lighting babies on fire, entails.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-16-03, 07:30 PM	Originally posted by bitnine And don't even ask what the dogma of Toastytot, the god of lighting babies on fire, entails. :rofl: You're on a roll bitrine.
Nightshade22 09-16-03, 08:25 PM	Originally posted by bitnine And don't even ask what the dogma of Toastytot, the god of lighting babies on fire, entails. I concur with Vaalingrade Ashland. :bow:
Nephet 09-16-03, 09:53 PM	This is how it seems some DMs want their adventures to go: DM: The princess has been kidnapped by bad guys. PC: Do the bad guys have kids? DM: Yes. PC: I go to the pub and have another ale. DM: What about the princess? PC: I never put kids in danger - not even bad guys' kids. DM: But you're a paladin. PC: You're right. I don't have an ale. I go to the local church and work in the soup kitchen.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-16-03, 10:08 PM	There's a difference between putting the kids in danger and gunning for them. DM: The princess has been kidnapped by bad guys. PC: Do the bad guys have kids? DM: Yes. PC: I go smash thier skulls in while they sleep. DM: :confused: PC: Hey they were the children of an evil man and would have grown up to be evil. DM: But you're a paladin. PC: Bloody right, now tell me, does the sobbing midwife detect as evil? Mavericks are not Paladins.
bitnine 09-16-03, 10:14 PM	Originally posted by Nephet This is how it seems some DMs want their adventures to go: DM: The princess has been kidnapped by bad guys. PC: Do the bad guys have kids? DM: Yes. PC: I go to the pub and have another ale. DM: What about the princess? PC: I never put kids in danger - not even bad guys' kids. DM: But you're a paladin. PC: You're right. I don't have an ale. I go to the local church and work in the soup kitchen. Obviously the choices must be between that and lighting babies on fire. It's got to be one or the other. There's nothing inbetween. Man, I really wish I knew what a "false dichotomy" was. I think I'd get some use out of that phrase.
Fixxxer 09-16-03, 11:28 PM	Originally posted by Nephet DM: The princess has been kidnapped by bad guys. DM: Are you a bad enough dude to save the princess? bitnine = teh funnay!
stephenKingMinion 09-17-03, 01:45 AM	It's too much of a real-life ethical and philosophical question to have to deal with in a game. In mine, everybody is adult or teen. NO KIDS.
PhaedrusXY 09-17-03, 05:12 AM	Originally posted by Skeane keep in mind that the we're playing a game. Janus' suggestion is a good one, if you've given plenty of warning to the paladin that acting in unpaladin ways has reprocussions... but, we play D&D as a game (for fun) and nobody will enjoy the eunich-ification of their characters as a result of one poor decision... penalize them lightly... or give them a scare... basically a slap on the wrist kind of thing. tell the paladin 'he feels unnaturally tired' and have him work his adventure as if he were 'fatigued' (the work of his displeased deity) and then when he goes to rest, he has nightmares about the path of revenge/evil... let him know clearly that his L.G. consience and deity is upset with his actions... same with the cleric, but don't do something that will set the players and your campaign totally out of whack for one incident... Bah, this kind of stuff can make great campaign fodder. What you see as a hinderence could actually be a great roleplaying boon. I say let them do it and sock it to them. Take away all the powers of the cleric and palladin until they atone. The palladin's atonement should be exceptionally harsh and not be a guaranteed success.
Chobemaster 09-17-03, 09:26 AM	Originally posted by bitnine And don't even ask what the dogma of Toastytot, the god of lighting babies on fire, entails. Prolly not a LG god to start with, though :)
Chobemaster 09-17-03, 09:28 AM	Originally posted by bitnine Obviously the choices must be between that and lighting babies on fire. It's got to be one or the other. There's nothing inbetween. Man, I really wish I knew what a "false dichotomy" was. I think I'd get some use out of that phrase. HEHE! For an instant, I was going to explain it. You're one deadpan dude...at least, as deadpan as posts can be.
Mr. VanderMeer 09-17-03, 09:34 AM	Bitnine is the master of funny statements in this thread. He's on fire! :mage: He must be feeling like a baby hobgoblin by now.
bitnine 09-17-03, 10:01 AM	Well... I fired off a statement to custserv, since I figured that asking them a quick question wouldn't hurt: Is it true that D&D condones the brutal murder of infants (say, by lighting them on fire) as a possibly nonevil act, and in fact good enough to fit within a paladin's code of conduct given proper motivations? No? Would it help if I mentioned that the killings might be, at least in part, racially motivated? Okay, I didn't really send that question off to them, but I was tempted. (And by the way, thinking about it, the two things I mentioned in my previous post aren't exclusive at all. I'll assume that everyone's read a Modest Proposal. Think about it.) But I'm glad to have learned quite a few new good actions over the last few days. It's been quite a wildfire. Here's a quick recap: Killing a tribe of goblins in order to take something that you want (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99337) Killing a naga who's chatting with the party out of the blue (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100421) Plotting to kill someone because of their race/slitting their throat (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95256) Killing things that detect as evil as soon as you detect evil (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100011) Inventing a spell that really roasts a paragon squirrel (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100298) This thread, of course, I don't I need a summary for that And I'm sure I've missed some, particularly related issues brought up within each thread. However, after reading through all of these, I can't help but feel that I wouldn't mind seeing a rewrite of the Paladin's Code/description of the good alignment in order to better highlight all of these wonderfully good acts that I glossed over that my Paladin could be committing right now!
Mr. VanderMeer 09-17-03, 10:18 AM	Still on fire there, bitnine. The thing is, all these people posting the questions are just looking for validation. They know their actions are wrong (well, maybe a couple of psycho's have trouble with that) but want to get people on their side, saying what they are saying. Well, surprise! Just because you can find a couple of people to agree with you, doesn't make you right!
bitnine 09-17-03, 10:24 AM	Heh. I find it slightly funny that just before this spurt of posts flared up, I posted the following on the "things you hate" thread: - And players who want to show off their ideas of moral relativity by trying to make EVERY possible action (at least contingently) nonevil (in D&D terms): "Oh, sure, sticking a baby in a blender is an evil act most of the time - but if you did it to save a million puppy dogs and it was a naughty baby, that wouldn't be evil! And what about the spell Eternety of Pain? I know it's in the Book of Vile Darkness, has the [evil] descriptor, and is specifically designed to torture someone horribly without killing them for all eternity, but that doesn't make it EVIL. How could it be evil? It's just a spell! It's all in how you use it! So my LG cleric should be able to use it, it's in my philosophy!"
Incenjucar 09-17-03, 10:30 AM	...Why would you be afraid to consider the children in an encounter? They're a great RP source. Way back when, we had a game involving some half-dragon half- succubi (half-dragon alu fiends, really), that got at one of the characters, and resulted in a small horde of half-dragon, fiendish children. One of the other characters (The LN one, heh), adopted them, to train as his own little mercenary group. Remember the children, they're you're future. Your financial future.
Chobemaster 09-17-03, 11:11 AM	Originally posted by Incenjucar Remember the children, they're you're future. Your financial future. Perhaps we should teach them well and let them show the way?
Mr. VanderMeer 09-17-03, 11:23 AM	:rofl:
Fixxxer 09-17-03, 01:51 PM	Originally posted by Chobemaster Perhaps we should teach them well and let them show the way? You tour with the band "Sexual Chocolate", don't you? :D
Demon Lightfoot 09-17-03, 02:58 PM	Originally posted by Chobemaster Perhaps we should teach them well and let them show the way? Teach them now before it gets too late? Teach them how to be the parents of tomorrow or they will become the parents of today, and pass on all our hate and madness to a whole new generation?
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-17-03, 09:46 PM	Originally posted by bitnine 1.Killing a tribe of goblins in order to take something that you want (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99337) 2.Killing a naga who's chatting with the party out of the blue (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100421) 3.Plotting to kill someone because of their race/slitting their throat (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95256) 4.Killing things that detect as evil as soon as you detect evil (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100011) 5.Inventing a spell that really roasts a paragon squirrel (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100298) This thread, of course, I don't I need a summary for that (numbers added by me.) 1) Didn't see this one. 2)This one either. 3)This started the whole thing. 4)This one continues to hurt my feelings as a some what decent human being 5):D I like poking at psycho-killers. There's also one about butchering an Efreeti after their party member told it they were on its side and passed his bluff And on the Mature Boards, there's on about brutalising baby green dragons. Honestly, does this mean that it is possible by the rules to be Good, but still be a bad person?
Mr. VanderMeer 09-18-03, 06:21 AM	Honestly, does this mean that it is possible by the rules to be Good, but still be a bad person? No it doesn't. This means that many people would like this to be true. And they post here hoping to get some support.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-18-03, 05:17 PM	Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer No it doesn't. This means that many people would like this to be true. And they post here hoping to get some support. But they get so much support. Its like more than half the boards are fine with horrible, horrible people counting as good.
Mr. VanderMeer 09-18-03, 05:49 PM	But they get so much support. Its like more than half the boards are fine with horrible, horrible people counting as good. That is probably because so many people would like to act free from the constraints of alignment. Many people would like to do whatever they please in games (including many questionable things). However they also want to be the heroes and have the good alignment. This leads to a conflict that people like to solve by trying to combine the two. Because that way they can have their cake and eat it too. (Is that the correct saying? English is not my mother tongue. But you understand what I mean, right?)
bitnine 09-18-03, 07:31 PM	I find it a little odd that not one of the acts under question has not been defended as perfectly acceptable for a Paladin to undertake. Up to, and including this thread. I'm very tempted to start a thread (albeit I think it'd have to go over on the mature boards) about if people would consider it a good act if a Paladin were to rape a succubus. After all, most of the idea that seems to be being tossed around is that given a proper (i.e. evil) victim, any act is defensible and unquetionably allowable. Some highlights: Originally posted by jasper Or to put another way, are the evil races like rattlesnakes. Even the baby ones grow up to be dangerous. IMC evil races are EVIL slay them to last. Originally posted by Skeane They are not roasting children. It's quite reasonable for the players to think it out this way. They clear out the vicious adult hobgoblins and leave the babies thinking them innocents... they later witness the truly evil nature of their protectors and have second thoughts about the babygob's nature, and go back to make sure they 'correct' their mistakes... Originally posted by Zakar The paladin should try detecting evil on the young. If they were evil .. Kill them... If they are not evil release them into the wild. As a DM it is up to you as to how big a deal you want to make it.... Originally posted by archcomponent Most babies of evil races simply aren't evil yet. If a Paladin really believes that they are going to soon be evil, he is well within his alignment and his code in killing them. Originally posted by Al2902 He believes *truly* that the hobgoblin race is both inherently evil AND irredeemable. In this case, it is perfectly permissible to kill hobgoblin babies since letting them live will only cause more suffering in the long run. Originally posted by Cabren These "heroes" didn't kill their enemies, which means they failed as heroes. By letting them live, they made sure that someone is going to suffer as a result of their stupidity, and that is what they should be punished for. You NEVER leave an enemy or witness alive. Because it will always come back to hurt you. If it's in the monster manual, you kill first, and ask questions if the dm required it. And you walk away without regret or harm. So... I guess those of you who feel that a Paladin's code prevents him from lighting babies on fire out of spite are in the minority, then. Probably because its not like he used poison or anything like that.
Skeane 09-18-03, 09:08 PM	So... I guess those of you who feel that a Paladin's code prevents him from lighting babies on fire out of spite are in the minority, then. Probably because its not like he used poison or anything like that. I know that it's impossible to quote everything I wrote on the subject, but If you'll go back through those posts (my posts, at least) you'll find that not all of us are condoning the actions... Personally I think that the paladin acted in an unpaladin way, and deserves a reminder of what it is to be a paladin... but I don't think that the crime is as egregious as some would paint it, and don't think that it deserves a full paladin-power strip as others would reccomend.
Fixxxer 09-18-03, 11:39 PM	Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer Because that way they can have their cake and eat it too. (Is that the correct saying? English is not my mother tongue. But you understand what I mean, right?) You got it perfectly. :) bitnine, I think you'll get my vote on the next "Who's the most useful/humorous/whatever poster here?" thread. :D
bitnine 09-19-03, 12:30 AM	I have been moved. Personally, I don't believe in using avatars or signatures, but seeing this thread has inspired me to make an exception. Thanks, all!
Chobemaster 09-19-03, 08:59 AM	Originally posted by Skeane I know that it's impossible to quote everything I wrote on the subject, but If you'll go back through those posts (my posts, at least) you'll find that not all of us are condoning the actions... Personally I think that the paladin acted in an unpaladin way, and deserves a reminder of what it is to be a paladin... but I don't think that the crime is as egregious as some would paint it, and don't think that it deserves a full paladin-power strip as others would reccomend. That's the problem...paladin's don't get "second chances" with evil actions. Willfully commit an evil action = no more paladinhood, ever! This namby-pambying of "well it was evil, but it's not like you tortured and killed HUMAN babies, so this is the diet coke of evil, no smiting for one day" is totally counter to what paladins are supposed to be, and removes the counterbalance to their kewl powerz...which is some players' intention, I don't doubt.
Al2902 09-20-03, 08:48 AM	bitnine, I believe that you quoted me out of context. The context wherein I made the statement that you quoted was as a notion between two alternate hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that the paladin was driven by his emotional rage; the second was that the paladin had, as a result of the brutality of the adult hobgoblin, refined his world-view to assume that baby hobgoblins were both irredeemable and inherently evil. Given that the second involved a paradigm shift in his entire view of a whole race based on the actions of one individual, I thought it overwhelmingly more likely for the former hypothesis to be true- and for the paladin to fall. However, I stand by the notion that the second hypothesis is, at least in theory, an (albeit very small) alternative. You have to pose this question: if a person is irredeemable and inherently evil, is it morally wrong for a paladin to slay them? I would argue no. There is, tragically, no alternative. Since they are irredeemable, any attempt at redemption is self-evidently going to failure. Since they are inherently evil, it will inevitably create more suffering in the long run allowing them to live- even if imprisoned, they will attempt to break out and/or inflict suffering upon their fellow prisoners (who may or may not be evil). In retrospect, however, I will concede one point. The paladin ought not to have killed the babies in any case, not because it is evil, but because it is chaotic. A lawful good character would turn them into the authorities to deal with them appropriately (which may well put them to death). At best, therefore, the paladin's actions were chaotic good. Far more likely that they were chaotic neutral or even chaotic evil. Incidentally, I don't think poison is inherently evil ;) . Edit: Having the babies spit-roasted is evil. If killing must be done, it ought to be done in the most humane way possible. My argument is purely around the notion of the killing alone- the method of killing *in this specific example* is evil; my comments apply to a wider context.
bitnine 09-20-03, 11:52 AM	Originally posted by Al2902 You have to pose this question: if a person is irredeemable and inherently evil, is it morally wrong for a paladin to slay them? I would argue no. There is, tragically, no alternative. Since they are irredeemable, any attempt at redemption is self-evidently going to failure. Since they are inherently evil, it will inevitably create more suffering in the long run allowing them to live- even if imprisoned, they will attempt to break out and/or inflict suffering upon their fellow prisoners (who may or may not be evil). And if a paladin just thinks they are evil, with no basis in reality, he can kill anyone he likes without falling?
laughing-dragon 09-20-03, 12:21 PM	Leaving the question of the paladin aside for a moment, there is little doubt in my mind that the cleric of Moradin was perfectly within his rights to slay the hobgoblin children. Was the act racist? Yes. Moradin is a racist. The dwarven Gods are racist. As for the question of racism itself: In the real world racism is clearly wrong. there is no scientific evidence which points to any one race of people being more intelligent, more inherently violent, or more evil than another. Therefor to assume such a prejudgement in the real world is clearly wrongheaded, ignorant, and quite possibly evil. In the world of Dungeons and Dragons, racism is not so clearly wrongheaded, ignorant, or evil. In the DnD world some races clearly are inherently violent and evil. Hobgoblins are one of them. Is it feasible that with the proper upbringing, these hobgoblin children could turn out good? yeah maybe. But more than likely the fool who takes them in will find his own children dead at the hands of the adopted bullies, and his house pillaged and destroyed. Hobgoblin children have a NATURAL bent toward cruelty and destruction and this will likely have taken firm root while the child is still suckling his momma. Moradin despises hobgoblins and orcs. Every young hobgoblin who grows to adulthood represents a direct threat to the material and spiritual well-being of dwarves. What kind of pansy-arsed Moradin is going to take spells away from one of his dwarven servants because he slew baby hobgoblins? Not the Moradin in my game
bitnine 09-20-03, 12:32 PM	You know what? That's probably right. It's good news for my current character, a Paladin of the god Toastytot. Toastytot teaches that all babies currently born in the current inbalance of the world will become irredeemable and inherently evil. My fellow players were all like "You can't go around lighting all the babies you see on fire just because you think they'll be evil!" But I've got one hell of an answer for them, thanks to this thread. So currently for my paladins code I've got: Using poison: Wrong Lighting babies on fire: Okay Traveling with an evil character: Wrong Killing all witnesses: Common sense Willfully commiting an evil act: Wrong Killing creatures without provocation: Good tactics
Al2902 09-20-03, 02:12 PM	And if a paladin just thinks they are evil, with no basis in reality, he can kill anyone he likes without falling? Ah yes, the old moral relativism versus moral absolutism chestnut :) . I have argued in the past (infamously defending Lye Blackthorn) that people can only act within the context of their perceptions. I hold to that point. In the previous aforementioned thread, I posted the following worked example, and I will post it again. Lord Goodman, the lawful good lord of the local province, is also the local magistrate. A criminal is brought into his court, accused of murder. The evidence available all points to the fact that this criminal was the murderer. The local laws have a death penalty for murder. Goodman, therefore, in accordance with his laws and with own beliefs based on the evidence, puts the criminal to death. Later, it transpires that the criminal was in fact innocent. Has Goodman committed an 'evil' act? Of course not. Goodman acted within a lawful good alignment insofar as the evidence *he* had available. Had Goodman perfect knowledge of the situation, it would have been both chaotic and evil to executive the accused; since he did not, his actions were both lawful and good. The paladin is in a similar situation. He believes that hobgoblins, being inherently evil and irredeemable (it's rapidly turning into a catchphrase isn't it :D ) are guilty of crimes worthy of death. The evidence that he has available suggests that they are worthy of death- again, if he had perfect knowledge, he may have acted differently. It is unreasonable, however, to expect him to have such knowledge. Nevertheless, whilst his actions are not evil, I am happy to concede that they are chaotic (which means he ought to fall). He did not consult any legitimate authority beyond himself, and there was no reason why he could not. He did not consult his order as to the right thing to do, rather taking a significant decision (mass killing) into his own hands. The paladin does fall, but by shifting away from law, not towards evil.
Demon Lightfoot 09-20-03, 03:45 PM	I have to agree with bitnine and the others who hold that intentionally roasting humanoid children alive is an evil, reprehensible act -- even if the babies were evil in and of themselves, it would still be evil to kill them. Unlike bably dragons, humanoid children have no credible attacks or defenses. Killing them because they may be a problem in some nebulous future time is still evil. Those who would wish to lessen the impact of their evil actions upon their own psyches might attempt to convince themselves that killing a pod of Hob children is a "necessary" evil, but they'd be lying to themselves. It's still an evil act. Actual justification for an evil act is hard to come by -- and by "justification", I don't mean "because Character X felt it was justified", I mean "the facts of the matter, when taken as a whole, forces one, out of necessity, inexorably, to perform this deed." An example of this is in the movie Fail-Safe. SPOILER WARNING FOR FAIL-SAFE (an excellent movie; go watch it): * * * * * * * * * American bombers, through a series of misadventures, miscommunications and mechanical errors, violate Soviet airspace and bring atomic havok upon Russian soil. The President, as a show of good faith that this was unintentional and to forestall the possibility of nuclear war, after much soul-searching and failed negotiations, takes it upon himself to order an American plane to drop an atomic bomb on New York. Now, when it comes down to it, slaying an evil outsider-type (as is discussed in another thread) is A-OK with me; demons, devils, ifrits, et cetera are handy packets of phat lewt and EP that can be done in generally without moral qualms, whether they're devouring orphanages, sipping tea and meditating or clipping coupons for their weekly trip to the local Piggley-Wiggley. The same goes for vampires and to a lesser extent, lycanthropes. Now, if the DM is running a game-world where not all such critters are automatically evil and kill-worthy (note how there have been a plethora of non-evil "demons" in Buffy and Angel, for example), then that doesn't hold quite as true.
Derren S. 09-20-03, 04:16 PM	Originally posted by Al2902 Ah yes, the old moral relativism versus moral absolutism chestnut :) . I have argued in the past (infamously defending Lye Blackthorn) that people can only act within the context of their perceptions. I hold to that point. In the previous aforementioned thread, I posted the following worked example, and I will post it again. Lord Goodman, the lawful good lord of the local province, is also the local magistrate. A criminal is brought into his court, accused of murder. The evidence available all points to the fact that this criminal was the murderer. The local laws have a death penalty for murder. Goodman, therefore, in accordance with his laws and with own beliefs based on the evidence, puts the criminal to death. Later, it transpires that the criminal was in fact innocent. Has Goodman committed an 'evil' act? Of course not. Goodman acted within a lawful good alignment insofar as the evidence *he* had available. Had Goodman perfect knowledge of the situation, it would have been both chaotic and evil to executive the accused; since he did not, his actions were both lawful and good. The paladin is in a similar situation. He believes that hobgoblins, being inherently evil and irredeemable (it's rapidly turning into a catchphrase isn't it :D ) are guilty of crimes worthy of death. The evidence that he has available suggests that they are worthy of death- again, if he had perfect knowledge, he may have acted differently. It is unreasonable, however, to expect him to have such knowledge. Nevertheless, whilst his actions are not evil, I am happy to concede that they are chaotic (which means he ought to fall). He did not consult any legitimate authority beyond himself, and there was no reason why he could not. He did not consult his order as to the right thing to do, rather taking a significant decision (mass killing) into his own hands. The paladin does fall, but by shifting away from law, not towards evil. Than it is good that, other then Lord Goodman, a paladin has acces to detect evil, so he can't justify killing because he thinks a creature is evil, because the paladin has a way to make sure if it is evil or not. Not using this a a fault of the paladin and he should get the full consequences for his actions. The only time a paladin should be allowed to kill non-evil creature (either knowingly or unknowingly) is in self defense or to prevent harm to other people. I admit that there are special cases where the paladin has no chance to detect evil before he has to act and he shouldn't be penalized if he acts accordingly to his code, but that normaly dosn't happen very often. (Most cases are covered by the two exeptions I mentioned above)
Asser Carabel 09-20-03, 05:02 PM	Ask your player a question ? Are you willing to play always evil if your character is half-orc ? since all the orc childs are naturally drawn to the evil ... Answer will give you a hint what will be the correct way to handle evil act or not act of evil ... ...
bitnine 09-20-03, 05:24 PM	I told my fellow players my Toastytot idea, and they said that I was being inconsistant. They said that I was invoking absolute morality when it came to killing evil creatures, when saying that killing an evil creature is never an evil act by its nature, and then switching over to a subjective stance at the same time when considering lighting nonevil babies on fire, making that part dependant on motive. They said that I couldn't have it both ways.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-20-03, 05:59 PM	But if all babies have to potential to be evil, then some would say you're doing the right thing. Not me though. Not even I'm that evil and I have the Lords of the Nine and Bill Gates on my payroll.http://www.geocities.com/flammabledragon/goevil.TXT
Derren S. 09-20-03, 06:07 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland But if all babies have to potential to be evil, then some would say you're doing the right thing. Only that everyone has the potential to be evil, even baby Solars. (1/1000000 chance not to be good)
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-20-03, 06:21 PM	Then based on the ideals of some posters, the Paladin's duty is clear: wipe the universe clear of living things and then begin a planar collapse so evil may never exist again. And where does that leave us? I'll tell you where we're not -- the universe
Nightshade22 09-20-03, 06:44 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Then based on the ideals of some posters, the Paladin's duty is clear: wipe the universe clear of living things and then begin a planar collapse so evil may never exist again. And where does that leave us? I'll tell you where we're not -- the universe Hee-Hee.. :D (So, Vaalingrade, how do you do the guy waving "GO EVIL")
Nightshade22 09-20-03, 06:46 PM	Originally posted by Nightshade22 Hee-Hee.. :D (So, Vaalingrade, how do you do the guy waving "GO EVIL") [/B] Never mind http://www.geocities.com/flammabledragon/goevil.TXT
Labyrsman 09-20-03, 07:26 PM	1. Ok, as far as I know, Clerics have no code of conduct and can thus act as they wish, with the exception of those spells forbideen to them by their god's alignment and/or their own. 2. A Cleric of Moradin is going to have a kill them all, let them rot in hell when it comes to the hated racial enemies of their race. A Paladin of Moradin will have no problem with it either as by Moradin's creed all Hobgoblins are evil, period, no excuses for leaving them behind. 3. Setting the place they were in on fire and burning them to death, not really a nice thing to do but IMHO, no worse than walking in and slitting their throats of their racial enemies. IN fact it is pretty much the same as collapsing the roof on top of them and letting them smother to death. It is just the images that the methods gives us that makes it seem more evil one way than the other. 4. It is an EVIL act that immediately affects a paladin, not a chaotic or even unlawful act. I don't go for the nuetral evil act or the nuetral good act, there is simple 1 axis for this question, Good, Nuetral or Bad. A Paladin can do a Lawful act and still get dinged by his good if the act was also evil. 5. There is no 1 single code of conduct for Paladins. The one given by Wotc and others is a general one but which can change accoding to the needs of the God the Paladin worships, especially racial ones. I know that they don't need to worship one but then they get the general rules, as modified by the DM. 6. A Paladin in DnD is not the same as presented in various literature through the ages. They can drink, sleep around, over indulge in hobbit weed, without affecting their paladinhood. 7. In the Forgotten Realms, clerics and Paladins have Gods or they don't get their powers, no forces of good or nature, etc.. In fact in the Realms, you have to have a patron god with the same axis rules as a cleric or you can't be raised and your soul is considered to wander the plain as an unfaithful soul ufor eternity or until some demon steals it for torture.
Al2902 09-21-03, 06:14 AM	Having re-read the thread, I'm won over. It has become abundantly clear that none of the PCs- the dwarf, the elf or the paladin, genuinely believed that the hobgoblin babies were evil. If they did believe that the hobgoblin babies were evil and irredeemable, then putting them to death in a humane way (i.e. not lettting them starve and/or spit-roasting them) would have been just about acceptable. Not detecting evil is stupid but (just about) forgivable, veering strongly towards chaos by acting upon emotions and instincts rather than hard fact. As it transpired, Souza's posts lead me to believe that the PCs did not believe that the children were evil. In this case, their slayings were the wilful and knowing killing of a known non-evil sentient creature: murder. The paladin should fall. The elf and dwarf get alignment shifts- the dwarf need not fall, since Moradin presumably accepts LN, and the dwarf I would put LN with very strong evil tendencies. Much more, and he's over the edge.
Derren S. 09-21-03, 06:21 AM	Originally posted by Al2902 Not detecting evil is stupid but (just about) forgivable, veering strongly towards chaos by acting upon emotions and instincts rather than hard fact. I disagree that it is forgivable.. This is like putting a suspected murderer to death without a trial or an actual investigation. That shows that the paladin has no respect for live. And don't forget that paladins also have to stay lawful, so he should also fall for beeing chaotic.
Al2902 09-21-03, 09:30 AM	And don't forget that paladins also have to stay lawful, so he should also fall for beeing chaotic. Agreed. That shows that the paladin has no respect for live. In my experience of DMing, it's far more likely that the PC is simply stupid :).
sputnik monkey 09-21-03, 04:25 PM	bitnine, you should do that "Paladin rapes Succubus" thread... i already want to post to it. hur hur
Labyrsman 09-21-03, 11:59 PM	A dwarven paladin would not be punished by Moradin for killing the enemies of his race, in fact, this is his job. While the methodology, burning them to death is distasteful, it is no worse than slitting their throats, letting them starve to death (by intent or neglect) or even dropping the roof of the building/cave on top of their heads. For some reasons how they die seems to be more important than the fact that they do die. Remember Lawful means according to the laws of Moradin, not your moral qualms. Good means what Moradin considers good, again, not something for real life moral qualms. In fact, if it was a Paladin of Moradin, I would send the Paladin a warning for having left members of the enemy race behind to possibly grow strong enough to hurt dwarves in the future. No single act of good or evil automatically affects anybody except a Paladin. A change of alignment is usually long term, not 'I woke up and decided that today I am going to be Lawful Evil, rather than Lawful Good.' Personally, yes I consider burning children to death is a bad thing but as my character, even a lawful good one, I have no problems throwing a couple of hundred fireballs into a orc village and burning the entire population to death, man, woman or child. I have no problem in slaughtering entire towns of my enemies and consider it to be a good thing. Now I am fairly certain that they would consider it a bad thing but then I consider my wife loving me a good thing while my mother in law thinks it IS a bad thing or so she intimates to me. 99% of what a PC does could in fact be considered Evil, looking at it from our modern moral standard. PC's walk into the houses of various beings, kill all the inhabitants and then tear the place apart for loot and/or claim it for their own. Does this sound a bit like a home invasion to you? It does to me!
Derren S. 09-22-03, 12:36 AM	A dwarven paladin would not be punished by Moradin for killing the enemies of his race, in fact, this is his job. While the methodology, burning them to death is distasteful, it is no worse than slitting their throats, letting them starve to death (by intent or neglect) or even dropping the roof of the building/cave on top of their heads. For some reasons how they die seems to be more important than the fact that they do die. Remember Lawful means according to the laws of Moradin, not your moral qualms. Good means what Moradin considers good, again, not something for real life moral qualms. In fact, if it was a Paladin of Moradin, I would send the Paladin a warning for having left members of the enemy race behind to possibly grow strong enough to hurt dwarves in the future. Wrong. Moradin has nothing to do with paladins. A paladin may worship Moradin, but he doesn't get his powers from him and Moradin can't take them away. Personally, yes I consider burning children to death is a bad thing but as my character, even a lawful good one, I have no problems throwing a couple of hundred fireballs into a orc village and burning the entire population to death, man, woman or child. I have no problem in slaughtering entire towns of my enemies and consider it to be a good thing. Then you play a lawful evil character. Only why you or even the god you worship consider it to be a good act dosn't mean that it is a good act.
Labyrsman 09-22-03, 04:04 AM	So therefore, according to your definition, every character in DnD is lawful or chaotic evil. We all invade dwelling places, just because the inhabitants are orcs, goblins or the like. We kill them all, loot their bodies, their dwelling place. What do your characters do. Walk up to the cave full of orcs and kobolds and ask them nicely to give you their gold and treasure or do you sneak in, killing the orcs and other inhabitants without mercy. As for your bit about a Paladin of Moradin not getting his powers from Moradin, what in the heck are you smoking. If he was just a Paladin who was also a dwarf, worshipping no specific god, that would be true. But when he swings his hammer and declares his allegiance and subservience to Moradin with (EXAMPLE: NOT MEANT TO BE ANYTHING BUT) 'Moradin Wills It So', he is getting his powers from Moradin. His laws and definition of good are Moradin's, not his own, that is part of what being a Paladin of a specific god is all about and Moradin's plans, desires and commands is that killing hobgoblins, orcs, kobolds and the like, is a good and lawful thing. Joan D'Arc, a real life paladin, had no problem in catapaulting firepots into cities inhabited by the English, civilians included. Roland, another Paladin of real life, killed entire villages, just to keep them from being used by his enemies as bases, killing women and children by direct action or by denying them food and/or shelter. Why should my willingness to kill my enemies make me evil in any way, just because you don't like my methods.
sputnik monkey 09-22-03, 04:11 AM	Originally posted by Labyrsman Joan D'Arc, a real life paladin... Roland, another Paladin of real life... They must have been real low level though, 'cause i think the reports of spellcasting were highly overrated....
Derren S. 09-22-03, 05:23 AM	So therefore, according to your definition, every character in DnD is lawful or chaotic evil. We all invade dwelling places, just because the inhabitants are orcs, goblins or the like. We kill them all, loot their bodies, their dwelling place. If the only reason for the PCs for this slaughter is loot, than yes. If they do it because the (evil) orcs are raiding nearby towns than not. What do your characters do. Walk up to the cave full of orcs and kobolds and ask them nicely to give you their gold and treasure or do you sneak in, killing the orcs and other inhabitants without mercy. No, my characters don't kill creatures because of their gold. They aren't evil. As for your bit about a Paladin of Moradin not getting his powers from Moradin, what in the heck are you smoking. If he was just a Paladin who was also a dwarf, worshipping no specific god, that would be true. But when he swings his hammer and declares his allegiance and subservience to Moradin with (EXAMPLE: NOT MEANT TO BE ANYTHING BUT) 'Moradin Wills It So', he is getting his powers from Moradin. His laws and definition of good are Moradin's, not his own, that is part of what being a Paladin of a specific god is all about and Moradin's plans, desires and commands is that killing hobgoblins, orcs, kobolds and the like, is a good and lawful thing. When you play in the FR then you are right, but in D&D paladin powers don't come from your patron god. Paladins have to be good and goodness is universal and if beeing good means that he has to leave a kobold comunity alone or even has to help a group of nonevil giants or orcs Moradin can't do a thing against it. He can't rob him of his paladin powers, because Moradin dosn't grant paladin powers. Only clerics get their powers by their patron god. Paladins may worship a god, but the rules they have to follow are universal. Joan D'Arc, a real life paladin, had no problem in catapaulting firepots into cities inhabited by the English, civilians included. Roland, another Paladin of real life, killed entire villages, just to keep them from being used by his enemies as bases, killing women and children by direct action or by denying them food and/or shelter. Why should my willingness to kill my enemies make me evil in any way, just because you don't like my methods. You are wrong. There are as many paladins in real life than orcs. Zero. You mistake paladins with knights.
Mr. VanderMeer 09-25-03, 05:43 AM	There are as many paladins in real life than orcs. Exactly. Paladin's exist in myth, legends and games only.
Necron 09-25-03, 09:27 AM	Originally posted by archcomponent It really isn't all that controversial. They think that the hobgoblins are or soon will be evil creatures, therefore they have a duty as good creatures to immedinately eliminate them in the manner they find to be the best for their needs. Would you really require them to have to wait for the babies to grow up and become evil creatures and murder innocent people before you'd say that the paladin could put them to the stake? He's just saved potentially hundreds of lives - moreover, he's doing exactly what he has pledged to do, rid the world of evil. That's ridiculous. You just said it yourself - an evil race. The Paladin is bound to kill them, as he's supposed to fight evil without mercy. There's nothing myopic about declaring it acceptable. There's no "good evil" alignment. So there is no differance in fighting evil and killing evil ? So what are all the streetworkers for doing their social work ? In your terms just kill all burglars, drug-addicted and other criminals. I think your viewpoint is by far too simple and therefor you wouldn't be allowed to play a paladin IMC. Paladin has to be hard to play as well as a cleric of a LG-god. They do have restrictions on what they may do and what not. One of these is to presume that some baby or child may be saved from evil no matter what the cost (another soul for the god)! And for that stupid comment on baby hitlers .. why not kill all germans just to prevent any gene of hitler to evelop ? Stupid .. real stupid. Just my 2 cents btw. being a farther makes me quite angry on some of the so called "arguments" brought forth here.
Arilou_skiff 09-25-03, 09:45 AM	The Hobgoblin entry says, and I quote "Usually Lawful Evil" USUALLY that means that about 50% of the hobgoblin populace will be LE; assuming that 40% will be divided among the other alignments (NE and LN respectively) there are then 10% that won't be either LE, NE or LN (admittedly some of them might be CE, but a larger group will probably be LG, NG, TN, CN or, most rarely, CG) Which means there is a substantial case for raising a nonevil hobgoblin, now, if you were speaking of a Chasme-egg or an Illithid Tadpole you might ahve an argument...
Skeane 09-25-03, 11:54 AM	So the adventurers killed a monster that they were 90+% sure would grow up to do evil things and threaten those they sought to protect... Those bastards!
archcomponent 09-25-03, 05:36 PM	Originally posted by Skeane So the adventurers killed a monster that they were 90+% sure would grow up to do evil things and threaten those they sought to protect... Those bastards! Yeah, it would have been completely within their alignment to just let them go and grow up and start killing those who are actually innocent. I mean, that's what the good alignment is all about, right? Please.
Derren S. 09-26-03, 02:34 AM	Correction: They killed monsters they first wanted to leave alone out of revenge in a cruel fashion without checking if they were evil.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-26-03, 03:05 AM	Originally posted by Skeane So the adventurers killed a monster that they were 90+% sure would grow up to do evil things and threaten those they sought to protect... Those bastards! Hey, lets not insult the members of these boards who don't know both their parents. These guys were rat-scum. You are a human first and a soldier second. Children are not combatants and thus you are automatically out of line when you kill them. and if they were going to kill them, they would have at the very least not been rat-scum if they had done it humanely. But nope -- scum. The burned them alive. Personally, I hope the meet a Fire elemental with a +42 grapple check for each child they coldly murdered. And then an epic rogue with a sap for the kid the brutalized with the scabbard. Let those who strike down those who are not thie enemies by punished. Let those who would strike down the helpless be slain. And let those who would bring a child to harm taste of the bitter agony of the Inferno
angry_keebler 09-26-03, 03:45 AM	It all comes down to what your feelings are about evil individuals (criminals) IRL. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of Murder should be sentenced to death immedately, with no appeals. I, personally, think that someone convicted of Rape should be sentenced to death immedately, with no appeals. I, personally, think that someone convicted of Corporate fraud and Embezzlement (Enron Executives) should be sentenced to death immedately, with no appeals. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of Felony Theft should be sentenced to mandatory 50 years, 1 appeal. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of possession of illegal drugs should be sentenced to mandatory 50 years, 1 appeal. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of misdermeanor theft should be sentenced to mandatory 10 years, 1 appeal. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of underage possession of alcohol, drugs, porn, etc. should be sentenced to prision untill the age of 21. Additionally, I believe that prison should consist of gruelling, 14 hour days of back breaking labor, 6 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Labor like digging a 10 foot deep hole, and then filling it back up. Or Quarry work. This is, in my opinion, lawful good behaviour. Therefore, in the event you are playing a fantasy game, where the monsters are going to grow up evil, it is probably lawful good to kill them as babies.
DrakathTheRatling 09-26-03, 04:13 AM	Originally posted by angry_keebler It all comes down to what your feelings are about evil individuals (criminals) IRL. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of Murder should be sentenced to death immedately, with no appeals. I, personally, think that someone convicted of Rape should be sentenced to death immedately, with no appeals. I, personally, think that someone convicted of Corporate fraud and Embezzlement (Enron Executives) should be sentenced to death immedately, with no appeals. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of Felony Theft should be sentenced to mandatory 50 years, 1 appeal. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of possession of illegal drugs should be sentenced to mandatory 50 years, 1 appeal. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of misdermeanor theft should be sentenced to mandatory 10 years, 1 appeal. I, personally, think that anyone convicted of underage possession of alcohol, drugs, porn, etc. should be sentenced to prision untill the age of 21. Additionally, I believe that prison should consist of gruelling, 14 hour days of back breaking labor, 6 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Labor like digging a 10 foot deep hole, and then filling it back up. Or Quarry work. This is, in my opinion, lawful good behaviour. Therefore, in the event you are playing a fantasy game, where the monsters are going to grow up evil, it is probably lawful good to kill them as babies. Hmmm...I think I've heard of a country or two like this. ;)
angry_keebler 09-26-03, 04:25 AM	Yep, It's called America, land of Awesome.
Wayward Son 09-26-03, 09:29 AM	*makes a note to not vote for angry_keebler, should he run for office* :D
archcomponent 09-26-03, 09:43 AM	It would be like that Next Generation where they visited the world where all crimes had but one punishment: death. And then Wesley disturbed the growing plants and they went ahead to execute him. That was neat.
Donnavin Snowolf 09-26-03, 09:48 AM	Originally posted by angry_keebler I, personally, think that anyone convicted of underage possession of alcohol, drugs, porn, etc. should be sentenced to prision untill the age of 21. Hoooo boy... Hides his magazines. What? :D (btw, porn is legal at 18)
Necron 09-26-03, 12:37 PM	Originally posted by angry_keebler It all comes down to what your feelings are about evil individuals (criminals) IRL. .. Additionally, I believe that prison should consist of gruelling, 14 hour days of back breaking labor, 6 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Labor like digging a 10 foot deep hole, and then filling it back up. Or Quarry work. This is, in my opinion, lawful good behaviour. Therefore, in the event you are playing a fantasy game, where the monsters are going to grow up evil, it is probably lawful good to kill them as babies. And another stupid quote: Yep, It's called America, land of Awesome. Well .. after your first post the first thought was of the third reich (germany, 1933 - 1945, Adolf Hitler .. you know, knowledge doesn't hurt). But now I see that some of those guys sadly survived .. sad indeed. The only good thing is that I know many americans that are not that ignorant to history and that you are hopefully only the minority. Necron :(
Asser Carabel 09-26-03, 01:06 PM	Criminal does not mean evil .... There are more criminals for example in Suzail than evil ... belive me I am evil and still have a place in Suzail because I am not a criminal... making me obvious lawful evil ....and this me not the one who thinks is guiding me in those so rare gaming sessions.
Asser Carabel 09-26-03, 01:10 PM	Toastytot teaches that all babies currently born in the current inbalance of the world will become irredeemable and inherently evil. My fellow players were all like "You can't go around lighting all the babies you see on fire just because you think they'll be evil!" But I've got one hell of an answer for them, thanks to this thread. [/B] I saw the light and the voice told me : Then the right strategy is to kill all weak GOOD people to get all the babies born to be Good and strong since the balance. Again this is one thing you can backup any evil things you have done....
Chobemaster 09-26-03, 01:16 PM	Originally posted by Necron And another stupid quote: [b] Well .. after your first post the first thought was of the third reich (germany, 1933 - 1945, Adolf Hitler .. you know, knowledge doesn't hurt). But now I see that some of those guys sadly survived .. sad indeed. The only good thing is that I know many americans that are not that ignorant to history and that you are hopefully only the minority. Necron :( He knows, too. Keebler should be an elf, but he's actually a troll.
Donnavin Snowolf 09-26-03, 02:36 PM	I haven't been following the whole time (just some of it). But I thought of a question. What would a Paladin do if he found out the guy next to him had been burning babies? has this been mentioned?
bitnine 09-26-03, 02:39 PM	Originally posted by Donnavin Snowolf What would a Paladin do if he found out the guy next to him had been burning babies? Probably be offended that the other character didn't invite him to join in earier, given some of the responses I've seen.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-26-03, 03:20 PM	He'd hug the guy and call him 'brother'.
Xaxor 09-26-03, 07:21 PM	What a tangled web we weave... Has the original question been sufficiently answered? Or is it still up in the air?
bitnine 09-26-03, 09:24 PM	Originally posted by Xaxor What a tangled web we weave... Has the original question been sufficiently answered? Or is it still up in the air? Good point. It's answered. Lighting babies on fire = great for a Paladin. Case closed.
Mr. VanderMeer 09-29-03, 07:52 AM	Good point. It's answered. Lighting babies on fire = great for a Paladin. Case closed. Well, I disagree. I think the paladin is letting the babies off too easy. If they are not yet evil and he kills them then they go to a plane of neutrality in the afterlife. So the paladin should take the babies, raise them to become big, mean, evil, adult hobgoblins. To make sure they do not stray from evil alignment (seeing as how they are only usually evil) he should abuse them and indoctrinate them in the ways of evil. Only after that should he burn them... and they will receive their rightful punishment and go to hell (lawful evil plane). Lawful Good is all about righteous punishment, isn't it?
Xaxor 09-29-03, 08:08 AM	What about showing them the bodies of the other hobgoblins then saying 'This could be you. Wait, it will be you.' *SMITE* Or 'They were evil. Don't grow up to be like them. Of course...' *SMITE* Hmm... scary to think in this manner.
Demon Lightfoot 09-29-03, 04:15 PM	Originally posted by Xaxor What about showing them the bodies of the other hobgoblins then saying 'This could be you. Wait, it will be you.' *SMITE* Or 'They were evil. Don't grow up to be like them. Of course...' *SMITE* Hmm... scary to think in this manner. Sounds like Dolph Lundgren in The Punisher.
Hazzurath 09-29-03, 04:43 PM	Originally posted by Souza "But im a NG cleric of elven god, if they grow up theill attack my country so ill just kill the youngsters!". The LG paladin says something like, as well as the dwarven defender. Being a follower of race-based deity (the dwarf prays to Moradin) makes you a trully nazi? Should i change the players allignment if they do kill the baby hobgoblins? Iv never been on such situation, so while i dont put my hands on the BovD, how should i handle this? Thanks for any comments.:b: I'm a bit late but I'll comment anyway. Are the baby Hobgoblins EVIL? Has the Paladin sensed their alignment? If so and they had evil alignments, then the Paladin is within his/her rights to smite them to kingdom come. Evil beings have done evil stuff e.g. sacrifice virgins to dark, elder gods for dental plans etc... You just don't wake up evil. Look at it this way. A character can change their alignment to (say) evil by acting really nasty (killing non-evil babies just to hear them sqeak, for example). This indicates that you are not born evil. Same with hobgoblin babies. Ultimately its the DMs fault for putting evil babies in the campaign. It either means 1. they're just lazy (not thinking what evil is really about), 2. the DM's playing mind games with you or 3. the babies are really evil because they've stuck sharpened sticks into captured adventurers' eyes just to see them pop. As a player I'd give the DM the benefit of the doubt and assume #3 and smite the baby hobgoblins heartily. This, of course, can sting the characters if they haven't done their homework and checked to see whether the baby hobgoblins are really evil first - random smiting of babies is evil. :cloud9:
archcomponent 09-29-03, 05:00 PM	Originally posted by Hazzurath This, of course, can sting the characters if they haven't done their homework and checked to see whether the baby hobgoblins are really evil first - random smiting of babies is evil. It's hardly random if they are from an evil race. As a player I'd give the DM the benefit of the doubt and assume #3 and smite the baby hobgoblins heartily. But in essence, I agree with you. The players came across these children of an evil race after other members had just brutally murdered their cohorts and caused them to realize the dangers that they would have subjected innocents to by allowing the babies to grow up into full-fledged evil beings. It was the Paladin's duty to make sure that they would not harm the innocent, so he took what method he knew would accomplish that goal and rid the world of evil.
Hazzurath 09-29-03, 05:18 PM	Originally posted by archcomponent It's hardly random if they are from an evil race. Hence the warning about DMs playing mind :looloo: games. Just how do you think the Monster Manual statisticians come up with the alignment for a race? There a few ways: [list=1] Just choose the nearest individual to base the entire write-up on. Take a survey and average the results. Make up some numbers. [/list=1] I think #2 is how they did it which would mean that statistically speaking there is a chance that non-evil Hobgoblins exist (which could include some of those babies you are encouraging Paladins to smite without checking first).
archcomponent 09-29-03, 05:27 PM	Originally posted by Hazzurath I think #2 is how they did it which would mean that statistically speaking there is a chance that non-evil Hobgoblins exist (which could include some of those babies you are encouraging Paladins to smite without checking first). It's been mentioned that even Detect Evil could fail. You can play mind games with your players to various levels, all the way from, "How did you know that that baby ogre didn't have a heart of gold?" to "How did you know that that rampaging ogre wasn't a polymorphed innocent under a compulsion spell who showed up to Detect Evil falsely?" If a Paladin has a choice between these children, whom he believes to be evil (as members from an evil race), and the genuine innocents that they would inevitably harm (as so well illustrated by their cohorts death just before), then it isn't even a choice - his code demains that he purge the world of evil.
Mike the DM 09-29-03, 05:27 PM	Innocent until proven guilty, or "Evil is as evil does" - A being may be evil in his or her heart, but unless the being acts on it, a good being is obligated to respect and protect the evil being's right to exist. For example, an lawful evil being in a highly lawful society may be greedy, selfish, and want to murder anyone who crosses her path, but due to her lawful orientaction, she does not act on her evil impulses except as may be condoned by society (i.e., she may gouge on prices - whatever the market will bear - but she never puts her thumb in the scales for fear the thumb may get cut off if she's caught) - a neutral character might decide to nuke her anyway, but a good character would hold out hope for her redemption and respect her right of existence. Nobody said it was easy being good. The end does not justify the means, or "Expediency is not an option!" - Depriving a being of its right to exist simply because it's evil is not a good act; stopping an evil being from in the act of perfoming an evil act, even with force if necessary, is a legitimate. Destroying an evil being simply to prevent evil from occurring is a neutral act, not a good one. Beings that are "born evil" may still be redeemable (i.e., alignment shifts). Again, nobody said it was easy being good. Good and evil are more than philosophies, or "Feel the Good flowing through you..." - IMC, good, evil, law, and chaos are more than POVs; they are supernatural energies. with distinct boundaries. The character's alignment allows the being to tap into that energy, and in turn the energy may empower a character's actions. (This is why I allow clerics to function without specific deities or pantheons.) Characters have free will, and by their actions may move toward another energy (netural to lawful, etc.) - when they cross that metaphysical boundary, the energy that empowered them before is lost (hence class skills that are alignment dependent may no longer function, etc.). The ever-present exceptions, or "Mom! Dad! Don't touch it! It's EVIL!" - Evil outsiders and undead should be fair game for immediate dispatch, as both are irredeemable and ineffably evil (unless you rule differently in your campaign - me, I don't have reformed fiends sneaking around the landscape...'cause they're EVIL!) Or some stuff like that.
Hazzurath 09-29-03, 05:32 PM	Originally posted by Mike the DM Innocent until proven guilty, or "Evil is as evil does" The end does not justify the means, or "Expediency is not an option!" Good and evil are more than philosophies, or "Feel the Good flowing through you..." The ever-present exceptions, or "Mom! Dad! Don't touch it! It's EVIL!" Or some stuff like that. Yet some of this contradicts the PHB definition of evil... A Paladin gets to treat evil as the PHB defines it (thus gets to smite those that detect as evil).
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-29-03, 05:33 PM	They decided the monster alignments based on a very scientific: What would players enjoy killing with impugnity most? Or How ugly is it formula.
Mike the DM 09-29-03, 05:41 PM	Originally posted by Hazzurath Yet some of this contradicts the PHB definition of evil... Rule 0, my friend, Rule 0... If the rules as written don't work for you, fix 'em.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-29-03, 05:41 PM	Originally posted by Mike the DM The ever-present exceptions, or "Mom! Dad! Don't touch it! It's EVIL!" - Evil outsiders and undead should be fair game for immediate dispatch, as both are irredeemable and ineffably evil (unless you rule differently in your campaign - me, I don't have reformed fiends sneaking around the landscape...'cause they're EVIL!) Not all undead are evil. Ghosts being the biggest example, though you've really got to work at it to finish off a ghost once and for all. Also, some of the creatures labled evil now don't have the basic common sense to be evil. Demons, Devils, Daemons, Fiends. IMC are the words the peasantry use for the biological anomalies created by the (evil) God of Darkness. Most of them are basically remote control avatars for him, but the Stronger (I'm talking Marilith/Balor level) ones are truly sentient. And with sentience comes personality. Some like Quicksilver, the Exdedient Death are just vicious nasty creatures. Others, Like Nemorra the Shade decide the whole 'covering the world in Darkness' bit isn't thier thing. Of course, making that decision means being hunted like a dog for the rest of you Immortal life.
Hazzurath 09-29-03, 05:44 PM	Originally posted by Mike the DM Rule 0, my friend, Rule 0... If the rules as written don't work for you, fix 'em. But they do work for me. Hence my not needing to change them. But if you did change this I'd advise you detail exactly how you deal with evil to your Players else you'll be in for some long arguments...
split infinitude 09-29-03, 05:54 PM	Hoo boy. I hope I live far, far away from the baby-burning contingent. I can almost smell the burning flesh from here . . .
Mike the DM 09-29-03, 05:56 PM	If I remember my MM correctly, skeletons and zombies are not evil either (please correct me if I'm wrong), but undead are powered by negative energy, which in my cosmology is rooted in the same energy as evil. A paladin may smash these neutral beings with impunity by the nature of their undeath. Ghosts represent one of the ever-present exceptions - the way I play it, becoming a ghost results in an alignment shift one step closer toward evil (a good being becomes a neutral ghost, a neutral being becomes an evil ghost, and an evil being says, "Right on!"). Again, this has to do with the connection between metaphysical evilness and negative energy. A paladin may choose to destroy a ghost, or not, depending on (ta-da!) the ghost's actions - for example, a ghost of a good cleric (now neutral) may still serve as an advisor to the paladin's order or the clerics of the temple where the ghost once served. The ghost acts as a sort of order or temple historian, perhaps, or even as a trainer. (Makes for some interesting roleplaying.) IMC, fiends (demons, devils, etc.) are beings steeped in the evil energy (which is stronger in the outer planes) - it is part of the fabric of their being, as it were. Again, paladins and other good characters are on safe moral ground pulping pretty much an evil outsider they meet. I know this isn't straight outta the PHB - I've definitely taken some license to develop a cosmology and metaphysical realm that works with my world.
Mike the DM 09-29-03, 05:58 PM	Originally posted by Hazzurath I'd advise you detail exactly how you deal with evil to your Players else you'll be in for some long arguments... Darn straight - a metaphysical guidebook is a part of the "orientation packet"...! ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-29-03, 06:01 PM	Originally posted by Hazzurath But they do work for me. Hence my not needing to change them. But if you did change this I'd advise you detail exactly how you deal with evil to your Players else you'll be in for some long arguments... The ARP in my sig provides IMO the best way to remove mericlous killing and endless attempts at justifying the aformentioned murders. The way I see it, if you can't detect evil, you don't have anymore grounds for hunting down and killing people for something they may or may not have done in a brutal reenactment of McCarthy era witch burnings. If they can't tell who's good and who's evil by staring at them for 18 seconds, they're more likely to act like human beings.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-29-03, 06:10 PM	Originally posted by Mike the DM If I remember my MM correctly, skeletons and zombies are not evil either (please correct me if I'm wrong), but undead are powered by negative energy, which in my cosmology is rooted in the same energy as evil. A paladin may smash these neutral beings with impunity by the nature of their undeath. 3.5, in its infinte capacity to miss the point made zombies and skeletons NE. Also, though I prefectly respect you you play (heck, I banned pallies for the very reason this thread exists), but Negative Energy is neutral, as is the Plane from with it comes. By the same token, Positive Energy is also neutral (amusingly enough, negative energy wastes you away and positive energy makes you explode.)
Mike the DM 09-29-03, 06:26 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland 3.5, in its infinte capacity to miss the point... Truer words are not oft spoken... I abandoned the traditional, "official" D&D 3.x cosmology right at the giddyup - I found that it cut down on the metagaming aspect a lot, and made the workings of the planiverse a mystery to be discovered again, which is really what it should be to beginning characters. I strive mightily for as consistent an internal logic as I can develop, so that the player's can feel comfortable that if I'm going off the page, it's not by the seat of my pants. I read the ARP, and while I've at times debated going to a similar system, I rather like some of the side effects (and even primary effects) of a (slightly tweaked) alignment system. As long as the play remain's the thing, it's all good...so to speak... ;)
Voran 09-29-03, 07:47 PM	Quite an infamous topic. Always a treat :) If I found myself in such a situation, I'd flip it back on the DM by using my cleric to talk to my god. "Hey Bigguy. What do you want me to do with these kids?" or "Hey Bigguy, will I **** you off if I whack these kids? Yea or Nay?" Then it becomes the DM's decision on if the act of whacking hobi kids is acceptable. To avoid the headache of being stripped of my divine granted powers, I'd base my actions on my god's response.
bitnine 09-29-03, 08:34 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Also, though I prefectly respect you you play (heck, I banned pallies for the very reason this thread exists), but Negative Energy is neutral, as is the Plane from with it comes. By the same token, Positive Energy is also neutral (amusingly enough, negative energy wastes you away and positive energy makes you explode.) Erm, just for the record, I think that positive energy makes you explode as a natural property, I think that's more that your imperfect mortal frame cannot contain the boundless energy that the positive energy plane tries to impart to you - not any natural explosivosity property of positive energy. "That's right, all. It's the energy of healing, empowerment, and also exploding."
Donnavin Snowolf 09-29-03, 08:46 PM	I've only recently come to realize how rediculous this thread is. Evil Babies Think about it. Babies are a completely blank slate, they know nothing, they have experienced nothing, and don't even have the mental capacity to relize that if you put a block behind your back the block is still there (object permenency). How can one justify that a baby who grows up with no external influences (i.e. those of their evil mother and father) would become evil due to genetics? It is completely illogical.
bitnine 09-29-03, 09:12 PM	Originally posted by Donnavin Snowolf I've only recently come to realize how rediculous this thread is. Evil Babies Think about it. Babies are a completely blank slate, they know nothing, they have experienced nothing, and don't even have the mental capacity to relize that if you put a block behind your back the block is still there (object permenency). Yes, I've already brought that up along with a nifty quote: Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. I would say that babies are incapable of moral action, eh?
Aasimar 09-30-03, 05:07 AM	Well, I disagree. I think the paladin is letting the babies off too easy. If they are not yet evil and he kills them then they go to a plane of neutrality in the afterlife. So the paladin should take the babies, raise them to become big, mean, evil, adult hobgoblins. To make sure they do not stray from evil alignment (seeing as how they are only usually evil) he should abuse them and indoctrinate them in the ways of evil. Only after that should he burn them... and they will receive their rightful punishment and go to hell (lawful evil plane). Lawful Good is all about righteous punishment, isn't it? :rofl: Good one!
Flashypants 10-09-03, 05:50 PM	Look people. It is not human babies we are talking about here and it is not the babies of animals with capacity for neither good nor evil. They are orcs and goblins. Gnolls and bugbears. They are the spawn of evil. Really, much depends on how the DM presents these creatures. Are goblins humorous, orange or green skinned, mischievous little bandits, or horrible, cannibalistic, murderous, throat slashing pillagers of civilization? Are their personalities a product of their basic nature or of their nurture? If you run your evil races similarly to the way orcs and goblins are presented in the original basis of the D&D game, ie the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, then they are the spawn of evil bred only for the destruction of the world. Sure, your orcs and goblins might not have some great destructive organization such as LOTR's Sauron, but they could be just as vile and evil. Think of the evil races as they are presented in the Peter Jackson movies. What if you found one as a baby. Dispite its horrific appearance, you might think "its so helpless and innocent. I can raise it as a human and it will learn compassion and love from me." You pick it up and hold it close to your chest, and IT TAKES A BIG BITE OUT OF YOUR SHOULDER! Mmmmm... Man flesh! It is just plain better to destroy these creatures before they reach adulthood. What is the greater evil? To spare creatures that are going to grow up and kill any number people, or to destroy them before they get the chance. On the other hand, if the DM portrays them as simply more barbaric and ruthless humanoids that are sometimes or often tolerated in the cities, then surely they are not beyond redemption and are deserving of mercy as any other sentient being with free will. If goblins are portrayed with a humorous bent (as mine are) then the PCs will definitely think twice about slaughtering them and may even raise a young one. Maybe in this case, it is not a good act to kill the young of a race that is "less evil." This being said, DMs can create a great variation among the "evil races" by portraying them differently. For your campaign, you could change the alignment entries for some of the evil races by changing the first word. Maybe in your champaign goblins are "Often Neutral Evil," while orcs are "Always Chaotic Evil" and Hobgoblins stay "Usually Lawful Evil." This may make a greater difference between evil races with the same alignment such as orcs, bugbears and gnolls. One could also give one or more of these races the evil subtype because of their horrible nature. It is just my opinion that it is up the the individual DM/gaming group whether it is a good act to kill the young of evil races and depends a great deal on how "evil" the race truly is. And that's all I have to say, about that Flash
bitnine 10-09-03, 09:10 PM	Lighting... living babies... on fire... out of spite... Now, you tell me. Would you also support a Paladin enacting the 'lust' murder in Seven on a succubus, since she is an (inveriably) evil creature? (After all, not a single mortal/non-outsider race in the MM is Always any alignment, but this makes it a given, even.)
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 09:19 PM	Mortal Races are not hamstringed by any alignment. Outsiders are. Hobgoblins do not necessarily become lawful evil. The hobgoblin children might grow up to be lawful neutral or even lawful good. Heck through some strange twist of fate all of them might end up chaotic good. Teen's will rebel... Positive Energy isn't good and negative energy isn't evil? What good purpose can negative energy serve? What evil purpose can positive energy serve? I would like to know. Wielding negative energy to create undead is an evil act. Wielding it to slay a human is evil. Wielding it to control undead is evil. Wielding it period is evil. Wielding positive energy is the same way but opposite. Killing the hobgoblin babies is an evil act. No bones about it. Did the hobgoblin babies do anything to deserve it? If the answer is no, and the party cannot prove that these children will go on to do evil, then the party would be morally wrong to kill them as well. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
bitnine 10-09-03, 09:31 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Positive Energy isn't good and negative energy isn't evil? What good purpose can negative energy serve? What evil purpose can positive energy serve? I would like to know. Wielding negative energy to create undead is an evil act. Wielding it to slay a human is evil. Wielding it to control undead is evil. Wielding it period is evil. Wielding positive energy is the same way but opposite. What's Good? Is casting a healing spell a good act? Often, it is: it relieves the suffering of another creature, promoting the life and well being of that creature. Healing spells do not carry the good descriptor, however, because their moral weight depends heavily on circumstances. Healing a blackguard so he can continue to fight a good party is not a good act at all. Like most spells, healing spells can be used for good or evil purposes, so they are not inherently good. -from the Book of Exalted Deeds (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004c)
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 09:36 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Positive Energy isn't good and negative energy isn't evil? What good purpose can negative energy serve? What evil purpose can positive energy serve? I would like to know. Wielding negative energy to create undead is an evil act. Wielding it to slay a human is evil. Wielding it to control undead is evil. Wielding it period is evil. Wielding positive energy is the same way but opposite. Nope, neutral. The energy itself is neutral. Inflict spells are neutral. Using Pos E to animate objects is not good, nor is casting cure. The other NE uses are arbitarily evil, being that they had no real reason for them to be evil so they came up with a lame 'using NE is evil' excuse even though niether form of energy is inherently anything but dangerous.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 09:49 PM	Ridiculous. Positive energy is not dangerous. That's like calling air dangerous. Positive energy is the source of life. It rejuvenates, regnerates, even aids the soul. Negative energy is death incarnate. It wroughts destruction, pain, and torment. How is positive energy anything but good? How is negative energy anything but evil? Inflict spells are evil. (I don't care if they are or are not possessing of the evil indicator in their spell description. Wielding negative energy is evil in and of itself.) Ravenloft sure as heck agrees with me, and I am yet to see a spot where I disagree with Ravenloft's discrimination as to what constitutes evil. Negative energy is used to harm life. Harming life is inherently evil. Ethically this changes only if harm is used to prevent greater harm. Circumstantial ethics at its core. Only reason why casting harm on a demon can be considered a good act, otherwise casting harm is just plain evil. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 09:52 PM	Ethics change according to the situation. I never said healing was always good. Positive energy is pure "good" made manifest. It is the essence of good. It is the source of good. Healing a bad guy is bad because it propagates harm, which is evil. Healing in and of itself is a good thing. Morally healing is a good thing. Ethically it can vary. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-09-03, 09:59 PM	Pos energy pops you like a zit when you're exposed to it in raw form -- over healing. Its a mindless force, not a moral imparitive. They are clearly stated to be neutral in the Manual of the Planes. Now, following standard DnD logic (icky = evil) Neg Energy should technically be evil, but it isn't. So why the clerical thing? Neg energy even in small doses can kill (its the power of death after all) and pos in small doses heal. But note that neutral clerics can choose with no drawbacks.
ManTimeForgot 10-09-03, 11:11 PM	Positive energy in HUGE doses pops you like a zit. So does too much air or eating too much candy. Small amounts of negative energy harms. Large amounts (Voidstone) disintegrates you from existance just like PCE, from the movie "Time Bandits." No where in the MotP is positive energy described as anything but good. Negative energy is likewise described as evil. Clerics who are neutral and choose to inflict spells must also choose to rebuke undead. I'd say that qualifies as evil right then and there. Obad-hai only allows evil people to spontaneously cast inflict spells, and since nature is the epitome of neutrality, then negative energy must be evil. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
bitnine 10-10-03, 12:09 AM	Indeed. Positive energy is all about healing. Nevermind anything like a Bolt of Glory (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004c). :P
Grizelda 10-10-03, 12:37 AM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Pos energy pops you like a zit when you're exposed to it in raw form -- over healing. Its a mindless force, not a moral imparitive. They are clearly stated to be neutral in the Manual of the Planes. Now, following standard DnD logic (icky = evil) Neg Energy should technically be evil, but it isn't. So why the clerical thing? Neg energy even in small doses can kill (its the power of death after all) and pos in small doses heal. But note that neutral clerics can choose with no drawbacks. Yeah, I got to agree there positive and negative energies should be beyond the concepts of good and evil, they are just forces of nature in the truest sense that as a side effect seem to attract creatures of good/evil alignments. Also utilizing those energies shouldn’t be construed as innately good or evil no matter what the book says. Evil cleric heals his evil sorcerer buddy so they may continue pounding on a group of irritating little fleas (read the party) but that isn’t a good act but he IS channeling positive energy. Good cleric is trying to defeat a vile monstrosity of some kind whose scaly hide turns his weapons and even the paladins mighty blade so he lays hands on the critter and zaps it with an inflict critical wounds and kills it. Is this an evil act since it channel negative energy? Of course not, not any more evil than bashing on the head with a mace for the same damage. We’re not talking Jedi here, these nothing wrong with using you granted powers for attack. It’s all a matter of context. The energy doesn’t know or care how it’s used its just there. <just as a side note this isn’t exactly how it works in my campaign since there is a single entity who inhabits each plane and is basically its source of existence, the positive energy plance is the home of The Phoenix, the One True Phoenix that is the source of all energy and creation in the multiverse and the Negative Energy Plane is inhabited by an ancient Evil basically in my world it is Therizdun each of them are oblivious to the concepts of good and evil the phoenix creates and Theridun destroys. Energy originates in the Positive energy trickles down through the great wheel and all its myriad planes and finally if funneled into the Negative energy where it is destroyed in an eternal cycle. That’s the only balance that really matters not petty bickering and argueing over who killed who.. this is supposed to be a happy occasion.. oh dangit I sidetracked my pwn post. Anyway as I said I think Vaalingrade had a point WAY up there at the top of this post. :D
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-10-03, 12:37 AM	Look at the planar traitsfor those two planes. Now, if a plane is mde of Evil energy, wouldn't it be strongly evil aligned? But its not. Energy types are not evil. And you can't take what they do as an indication of thier alignment. If that were true, Fire would be evil and water (you know, basis for life in carbon based lifeforms?) would be good. But that's not the case.
Lye Blackthorn 10-10-03, 01:37 AM	For once this is the first instance I have seen of a truly noble paladin. What a rarity. Of course he should kill the babies and watch as the father screams in agony then take the father out of his misery since he is too distraught to fight back. Brilliant!! Then you can have baby back ribs using real baby backs....
ManTimeForgot 10-10-03, 03:22 AM	Functionally bolt of glory is used for good. One does not call down a bolt of glory on Fred your neighbor because he didn't return your garden hoe. One uses bolt of glory when Fred your neighbor turns out to be a Pit Fiend in disguise. Since when does everything fire do destructive? It gives warmth. On a cold day a fire is a form of solace. Who is to say otherwise? Since when is water always life giving? A force of water can cut a hole through a mountain isn't that destructive? Rain itself can weather away structures, over time sure, but that sure isn't supportive. Note that the positive energy plane does not have an elemental indicator attached to it, but that the good aligned planes are described as being suffused with positive energy. The negative energy plane is likewise lacking an elemental indicator, and the evil aligned planes are described as being suffused with negative energy. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
bitnine 10-10-03, 09:21 AM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Functionally bolt of glory is used for good. One does not call down a bolt of glory on Fred your neighbor because he didn't return your garden hoe. One uses bolt of glory when Fred your neighbor turns out to be a Pit Fiend in disguise. Just like fireball. Gotcha.
Souza 10-10-03, 01:10 PM	If anyone is still interested; the players didnt killed the youngster, but they lost so much (90% of the party total hit points, their food, wagon, horses, cohorts) that they left the temple leaving behind everything they couldnt carry, like: a siege cannon (they should have destroyed it, isnt?), an entire room of spears, armors and crossbows, and a female Hobgoblin, who was acting like a coward slave (but she was an adept playing for her life :), before she was a cohort, now is the master of the elemental evil temple:smirk: ). Well, i think they got distracted, or really afraid of the dark, dont know. But they rushed through Nulb like kobolds.. Oh, and the nazi dwarf rolled an 1 against an assassin death attack (Chatrilon from Hommlet :) ) and, well, died. The party lost 20K gold to bring him back (they hired a Thrazidum cleric to do the job; now, THATs wrong, right? Smash the bad guys, unless you need them...).
laughing-dragon 10-10-03, 03:13 PM	Having already stated my opinion that any good cleric of Moradin is going to be a racist, I hardly think "nazi" applies, but it is your game, your morality, so I won't complain further. What i do find interesting for the moment is the fact that you began this folder with a complaint about your players playing their alignments properly. Much debate insues. Then you return with an update for us, filling us in on the fact that A CLERIC OF THARIZDUN CAST RAISE DEAD ON THE DWARVEN CLERIC OF MORADIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am sorry. I don't care how much gold changed hands in the process.... I don't care whether the dwarf hid his holy symbol in his shirt, NO CHAOTIC EVIL CLERIC OF THE OUTCAST GOD OF HORROR< HOPELESSNESS AND ABJECT INSANITY IS EVER, AND I MEAN EVER, GOING TO BE WILLING TO RAISE THAT LAWFUL GOOD CLERIC. So, I would suggest that rather than nitpick about whether killing baby hobgoblins is legal for your paladin, you ask yourself: DO I HAVE ANY COMPREHENSION OF WHAT THE CHAOTIC EVIL ALIGNMENT IS? AND IN PARTICULAR, DO I KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THARIZDUN? Yeesh man, if that isn't clearly screwball I don't understand what is!
Souza 10-10-03, 04:14 PM	Having already stated my opinion that any good cleric of Moradin is going to be a racist, I hardly think "nazi" applies, but it is your game, your morality, so I won't complain further. I agree with you. I just wanted to save words ('nazi' instead of 'the one who really hates and tries to kill anything that isnt on the PHB even if its a baby'). Then; he isnt a cleric, but a fighter whos going to get the Dwarf defender PrC, and he is CN (i think i missed his aling in the first page of this topic; anyway). The cleric is the elf. He really liked his friend (sorta like legolas and gimli). The cleric who ressurected him was evil, but dressed like anyone (armor, staff, etc); can you kill someone just because he is evil? No. Can you trust him? They did. And got their friend back, with no xp / stat lost (but he came back with one less finger on his hand; an evil clone, killing innocents in his name? Maybe...). The cleric was surrounded by the party. He made a deal. Instead of dying fighting, he would raise the dwarf, but for a price; otherwise, end of campaing for that player (i really make ressurection hard IMC). They would pay any price, even innocent deaths, i think (the dwarf was strong, so, it would be for the 'greater good'..?). Alignment is (IMC) just something you choose to see how your character will act, not something that bothers, really (sorta of like the Paladin hero of Warcraft III, in the Human campaing). Act against your alingment all the time and you change it. I wasnt really complaing about how they where roleplaying their alignment, but how should i deal with the situation. Example: if the authorities find that they killed hobgoblins childrens, should they punish the party in some way? I mean, you have to be a cold killer to slay innocent kids; the moradin follower and the elven cleric can justify their actions based on their belives, and the paladin order can 'cover his back'. But would the ghosts follow them? Would commoners hid their kids while the party walks up the street? Like that. But instead, this topic changed to a 'should paladins burn babies' and 'LG means racist' (i dont know, didnt read everything). But i got some good ideas from those posts, and well, if youre not interested to know what happened, fell free to ignore me and return to the off topic (now 'main') discussion. Edit: w00, this is my post n° 300!
Al2902 10-10-03, 07:05 PM	DO I HAVE ANY COMPREHENSION OF WHAT THE CHAOTIC EVIL ALIGNMENT IS Yes, chaotic evil is the pursuit of the gratification and/or advancement for oneself and oneself's alone with no regard for social expectation, basic altruism or codes of restraint. There is no reason at all why a chaotic evil character would not raise a LG cleric for lots of cash...just so long as the cash is enough.
laughing-dragon 10-11-03, 09:46 AM	Uhh, no Al..... you just described the neutral evil alignment very accurately, but it is not a good description of CE. A CE character takes DELIGHT in the pain and torment of others. A CE cleric, particularly a cleric of Tharizdun is not going to be out for his own personal betterment, so much as the assurance that he can increase the amount of suffering and horror inflicted on others. I suppose, that if threatened with his life, such a cleric MIGHT raise a member of some other faith.... but I don't even buy that a cleric of Tharizdun would raise ANYONE unless it was as an undead servant devoid of any soul. To summarize, there is no reason a neutral evil cleric would not raise a lawful good individual if the price was high enough. Chaotic evil characters however, are generally as zealous in their desire to spread evil and horror, as a paladin is supposed to be at spreading lawfulness and goodness
Souza 10-11-03, 12:57 PM	But a paladin is more inclined to give his life to his faith than a mad cleric of a CE god. 'Die', or 'cast this spell and walk away rich as bill gates'; what would a CE guy do?. And he has the dwarf finger with him, now i have to check the MMII to see what evil he can do with that; this, plus all the money he got to hire as much nonhumans tribes as he wants, will surely cause more pain and suffering than he would be able to do if dead. But thats off topic.
Lye Blackthorn 10-11-03, 03:01 PM	Originally posted by Al2902 Yes, chaotic evil is the pursuit of the gratification and/or advancement for oneself and oneself's alone with no regard for social expectation, basic altruism or codes of restraint. There is no reason at all why a chaotic evil character would not raise a LG cleric for lots of cash...just so long as the cash is enough. Agreed. Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend. What is the most unpredictible thing you expect a chaotic evil character to do? Actually take time to help someone, even if it is for his own selfish reasons and to fatten his pockets.
Crossover-Chronicler 10-13-03, 10:51 PM	Originally posted by bitnine Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Functionally bolt of glory is used for good. One does not call down a bolt of glory on Fred your neighbor because he didn't return your garden hoe. One uses bolt of glory when Fred your neighbor turns out to be a Pit Fiend in disguise.my emphasis here. Just like fireball. Gotcha. Are you INSANE? You don't fireball a creature that's immune to flames! :mage: Seriously, though; the functional purpose of the spell is to destrouy evil, and the tools of evil (tools like doors, f'rexample). Still, the point stands; positive energy has destructive potential, just as even evil spellcasters have use for healing spells. It's still typically a tool of the righteous.
nick012000 10-14-03, 05:08 AM	Originally posted by bitnine Indeed. Positive energy is all about healing. Nevermind anything like a Bolt of Glory (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004c). :P Now let's look at the damage, based on the target's plane of origin... Material Plane 5d8 Elemental, neutral outsider 5d6 Positive Energy Plane, good outsider none Evil outsider, undead creature 10d8 Negative Energy Plane 15d8 notice how much more damage it does to Negative Energy Creatures than it does to Evil Outsiders? And that Elementals and Neutral Outsiders take the least amount of damage? Funny thing, that... As far as what positive energy represents, it is somewhat ambigious. I will ask on the Planescape boards.
bitnine 10-14-03, 09:29 AM	Originally posted by nick012000 notice how much more damage it does to Negative Energy Creatures than it does to Evil Outsiders? And that Elementals and Neutral Outsiders take the least amount of damage? Funny thing, that... Yes, I'm sure that a commoner would be delighted that he just only took 5d8. I'm sure that certain creatures are more and less vulnerable to positive energy attacks do to their plane of origin, and it's been duly noted. Certain creatures also have varying amounts of resistance to other energy attacks as well, so it's not the largest of surprises.
Asser Carabel 10-14-03, 06:32 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Clerics who are neutral and choose to inflict spells must also choose to rebuke undead. I'd say that qualifies as evil right then and there. Obad-hai only allows evil people to spontaneously cast inflict spells, and since nature is the epitome of neutrality, then negative energy must be evil. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot [/B] I just had to comment : Well I am NE (I hate cure, I love to do damage) Well I am cleric of Kelemvor (we hate undead, we tend people already died, we don't care living people too much) Well I inflict wounds and I TURN undead. Well what I am is from my religion and my Alignement together. It is not always so that evil cleric must rebuke or inflict ... it depends greatly on religion (and in some cases DM).
Flashypants 10-15-03, 02:56 PM	Here's a Paladin idea for you to chew on. Members of "evil" races must be destroyed without extraordinary circumstances. But as living creatures, all evil beings are entitled to as quick and painless a death as possible. This negates the lighting hobgoblin babies on fire, but allows for a quick severing of their spinal column and perhaps and decent burial. Also, torture and interrogation of creatures is out of the question because it causes stress and mental anguish to the being. Surrendering evil creatures will be given full quarter, taken prisoner, given a quick trial where they are allowed to speak in their defense and barring a great revelation, are given a quick execution. Keep in mind that this code is set aside for "evil races." That is any race that the paladin's society considers to be "evil." Humans, and the standard demi-human races are treated by the laws of the land, and would normally be entitled to a trial with council and judged by a magistrate, possibly imprisoned or put into hard labor if the crime was not "evil" enough to warrant a death sentence. This might seem harsh, but it is perfectly viable. That's all I have to say about that. Flash
Vaalingrade Ashland 10-15-03, 03:11 PM	So.... the babies die a quick death instead of being incenerated... Correct me if I'm wrong, but that still results in dead babies based on racism, right? *face fault* Why murder at all if you have no proof they've done anything? Why must every little thing be laid to waste in pursuit of some false ideal of good? A pally that walks the path of wanton blood shed is a monster, plain and simple. One would think they would be above basic mortal ideas like 'kill everything we don't like.'. How about an elf pally who decides that humans are mostly evil because we do all the debasing of well... everything. If he goes on the warpath and levels a few hamlets is he still lawful bloody good?
ManTimeForgot 10-15-03, 03:22 PM	Babies are incapable of higher thought. As a result of that babies are incapable of forming intent. Because babies are incapable of forming intent babies are not capable of morality. Being incapable of morality means that all babies are true neutral and are consequently innocent of everything. Slaying a baby is a crime no matter what paladin code you follow. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
bitnine 10-15-03, 03:28 PM	Originally posted by ManTimeForgot Babies are incapable of higher thought. As a result of that babies are incapable of forming intent. Because babies are incapable of forming intent babies are not capable of morality. Being incapable of morality means that all babies are true neutral and are consequently innocent of everything. Well, I myself have brought up the quote: Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Twice before in the thread and tried to mention that babies should be included in that category. Even deadly babies that eat people, as the case may be. However, apparently many folk give said tots a bit more credit in the moral capacity department than I do. Well, mebbe they like lighting babies on fire, but either way... Surrendering evil creatures will be given full quarter, taken prisoner, given a quick trial where they are allowed to speak in their defense and barring a great revelation, are given a quick execution. Yeah, I'm sure the paladin would yell out "They're coming right for us!" before lighting the babies on fire. Then again, perhaps he'd hold a little trial and see if whatever the babies had to say in their own defense moved his heart. Being, you know, babies, I don't think they'd manage a rousing speech to change his mind, but wouldn't that really be their fault? And as we all know, chaotic means random and evil means killing people, so a person isn't properly playing the chaotic evil alignment correctly unless they are perpetually randomly killing people wherever they go, right?
ManTimeForgot 10-15-03, 03:42 PM	Or maybe detect thumping has become so common as to overwhelm reason and morality so as to cause a complete loss of what constitutes innocence or a disregard for innocence. In any case: You burn a baby you are not only no longer a paladin, but you will never be a paladin ever again. You killed an innocent with no provocation. I don't care what society, what morality structure, or what religion you follow. In all societies (civilized or otherwise) amongst humankind punishing an innocent is wrong. Killing an innocent is the most horrible of wrongs because you can't make ammends for the person now that they are dead. Not only can you not make ammends, but you attacked without provocation, and that makes you a criminal in all societies. Ergo the paladin who lights the baby hobgoblin on fire just to watch it burn, is not only no longer a paladin, but isn't going to be one for the rest of his existance. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time FOrgot
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 10-15-03, 04:23 PM	Did you know that the Positive Energy Plane has less life on it than the Negative Energy Plane? (Ravids and Xag-Ya. That's all.)
Xaxor 10-15-03, 04:34 PM	Three words: Babies on Trial Argh. When will it end? :weep: Killing babies i.e. the defenseless == Evil Killing anyone who looks at you funny == Evil and Chaotic Adjucating evilness based on race == Evil If you know for a fact that this group of orcs or hobgoblins committed some evil, go right ahead. If you slay them upon the fact they are orcs or hobgoblins... open your eyes. You're horribly short sighted and prejudiced. Its bad enough to have people of your own race doing such things to other people. There isn't a lot of room for arguement. Stereotypes only define the majority if you let them. And then, its only stereotyping and prejudice. There are things known as exceptions. If you ignore such, you will create grave mistakes. Its about time to have an orcish druid with a number of families making a home for themselves, yet caring for the world around them as well. They are not all dumb, evil beings. The answer has been posed twenty times over by now. Let it go. Stop perverting a paladin's place.
Flashypants 10-15-03, 07:17 PM	I'm getting sick of arguing this case. You people seem to always forget Rule Zero. I don't advocate the slaying of human babies and it is a sad thing for a paladin to have to destroy the lives of hobgoblin babies, but it may be necessary to further the paladin's cause. Is this racism? Yes, I suppose it is. Is racism a good thing in the real world? No. But then racial minorities in the real world were not created by evil gods, do not reap wonton destruction without provocation (usually), and don't eat man flesh on a regular basis. In a fantasy world, you can have a good aligned character who slays members of evil races without thinking twice. There may be the one in a million that is not evil, but the good character will have to deal with this when he finds one. 99% of the time they will be evil. As for the "innocent" babies of these races, I agree that things get a little sticky. Their alignment may truly be decided by how they are raised or it may be a product of their nature. Read some developmental psychology text books on the Nature Vs. Nurture controversy in humans and decide for yourself. But what does your good character do when he slays a pair of bloodthirsty orcs and finds a week old baby in the back of the cave? Let’s take a look at his options. 1. Kill the child. According to most, this is evil, evil, evil and the character would no longer be good. 2. Leave the child alive where you found it. This might leave a chance for the thing's survival, but it is more than likely to starve to death, freeze to death, or be eaten by wolves or some other creature. Is this less evil? It is certainly less blameless, but not nearly as merciful. 3. Take the child and raise it as your own. This is really not an option for a dedicated adventurer. You can't raise a child when you are constantly on the move and delving into dungeons. What are you going to do, put the little orcling on your back? I don't think so. Every good adventurer that found a child in a dungeon would have to retire in order to raise it. 4. Take the child to be raised my a monastery or a kindly family. In your campaign you might have one, maybe two good religions that are benevolent enough to take in the orphaned young of evil races, but how prelevent are they? Wouldn't the orphanages fill up pretty fast if good aligned people were as common as we would like to think they are? Then you have to think of what kind of life it would be for the orcling. Just because the rescuing character is not a racist doesn't mean that the majority of the population isn't. Unless you play in a perfectly integrated game world (and I know no one who does), the orc would have to be shut in the residence or deal with constant racism from the public. If he ever went around the city or town without the protection of his foster parents he would likely be beat up or killed. If the orc lived to adulthood, he would either have such a low self-esteem that anyone could push him around or he would become a hateful, vengeful beast like his parents. Yes, hatred begets hatred, but you couldn't expect the majority of people to treat an orc child the same way they would a human child. Even good people are going to fear and hate the creatures that raid their villages and kill their families. Therefore, is subjecting a orc child to this kind of life (away from its own kind, in constant racism) a good thing? 5. Give the child to other orcs. This may actually be two different options depending on whether you know a good orc or orc family. This is highly unlikely, but if you do they probably live far from human civilization to avoid the racism mentioned above. They would also live in danger of being killed by adventurers who see them only as orcs or by a clan of their own kind because they are "weak" or "deserters." The other option is to leave the orcling where it is likely to be found by another clan of common orcs. It is doubtful that an evil orc mother would bother to raise a child that was not her own and she might even cook the child to feed here own young. But then maybe it would live to adulthood and join the new clan to raid and murder in the human villages of surrounding lands. It is good to let this creature grow up to be a bloodthirsty beast? There might be other options depending on the campaign, but are there any good options? I am of the opinion that all these options can be good depending on what the character's, DM's, and game world's idea of what is good. There can even be varying ideas of good in the same game. A certain good religion or government can have a different idea of what is the good act in these cases as another good religion or government in the same game. These can provide a great deal of character verity and still have many good characters in the game. All of the above are viable options for good characters but each is different and could theoretically make for a very memorable, unique character. And in my world all are allowed. That's all I have to say about that. Flash
Xavim 11-26-03, 03:22 PM	Reap wanton destruction without provication? Well for all the hobgoblins and orcs on the recieving end of your Paladin's swords there sure as hell IS some damn strong provication. Humanity expands relentlessly into various territories, throwing aside any humanoid and primitive critters they find. A human city sets up a mining community in the mountains where orcs are known to be and are somehow surprised when the orcs attack them? The humanoids have been given the 'American Indian' treatment. Just because they are primitive and 'uncultured' means that they: 1)Do not own land. 2)Are fit only to be abused and slaughtered en masse. 3)Are evil because they attack the burgeoning human settlements 'without provacation' Why are orcs and hobgoblins evil? What do they do that makes them so bad? They attack human villages, and communities mercilessly, taking slaves and slaughtering those to weak to be used as effective slaves. Why do they do this? They have no choice. They have to take slaves and such to ensure that their communities remain functional. They HAVE to attack the humans so that the humans, with their superior societies don't come around and kill them insted. They know full well that nothing they can do will make the humans want to deal with them, so they don't even try. In the orc experience only strength matters. They have been raised through the centuries in an environment where personal power and physical strength are all that kept the race going. The orcs use their breutal methods and war-like nature to survive, and where it not for the other races constantly killing them, they very well could have developed just fine as a much more gentile race. Also remember that orcs belive that all of the world once belonged to them. And that the other interloper races stole the land, etc. from the orcs in ages past and it is the God given right of every orc to spend their lives gaining that land back. Just because you Paladin's God says its okay to kill orcs doesn't mean that its good. The orc gods tell the orcs to kill everything non orc because they're weak. And in Orc society weakness=evil. And evil=death. And by D&D morality, killing an creature simply because it is weaker than you is evil. Thus orcs are evil. How many people think its evil to punish those that have stolen from you? If a band of orcs came and destroyed a character's village those players are perfectly justified to slaughter the orcs in revenge for the horror they inflicted. Why the double standard? Why are orcs evil for avenging and reclaiming their homeland? If orcs destroyed a human settlement and left human babies alive, the babies would be justified in seeking revenge once they grow up. But hobgoblin babies, when presented with the wholesale destruction of their world are somehow evil and twisted when they seek vengeance on mankind. The humanoids do not attack without provacation. They have been subject to racial attacks and genocides ever since the race has existed. In orc myth the whole reason Gruumsh came into conflict with the other gods is because when they drew lots for their races to live, non where left for Gruumsh's orcs so he smote the world and created habitat for his orcs. So the orcs have been getting the shaft since day 1. Hardly what I would call unprovoked.
Xaxor 11-26-03, 04:02 PM	"I'm not dead yet" [/Python] Please let this fade into oblivion. Don't need to confuse any new posters or irritate those who hoped this was done and gone. Its been covered fine.
zagadka 12-22-03, 04:35 PM	This thread really chaps my hide. Requiring a paladin to adhere to his code of conduct makes him a eunuch? Hello? Personally, I think paladins and lawful good characters in general aren't a lot of fun. I would try to discourage any player in my campaign from playing a paladin. But if he or she insisted, I would make it absolutely clear that paladins and other lawful good characters -- especially clerics -- must behave themselves. Being lawful good doesn't mean you have a license to kill anything 'evil,' it means you defend the weak and helpless -- like baby hobgoblins. Otherwise, you aren't role-playing. So the characters are upset because their cohorts got killed? Have you asked your players what they would do to anyone or anything that attacked and pillaged their stronghold? But anything they did to the aggressors wouldn't be wrong, because the book says paladins are 'lawful good,' right? Sure, it's a game and it's meant to be fun. I like to pick pockets and loot corpses when I play. That's why I can't stand paladins. But if you're enjoying that nifty saving throw bonus and all the other perks, don't get mad when the DM insists that you 'restrict' your behavior.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-22-03, 05:29 PM	sweet merciful Takisis, almost a month to the day since Xoxr killed it, this foul thread has risen from the grave! *flees in terror*
zagadka 12-22-03, 05:36 PM	sorry
ColinOfBrechtur 12-31-03, 04:15 PM	Originally posted by Derren S. Ah baby monsters. one of the toughtes questions in D&D about alignment. You will surely hear many different answers to your questions and no one will compleatly be right or wrong. I haven't read the thread, but I'm willing to bet that somebody will be completely wrong. ;)
Bacon and Eggs 12-31-03, 04:20 PM	My Intellegince score is 14 and I'm sticking to that answer.
ColinOfBrechtur 12-31-03, 04:43 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland Why bother writing up a code anymore. From what I've seen over the past week, this is the Paladin Code: Kill Everything that could possibly be Evil, even if it doesn't detect 'cause we all know evil is tricky. Anyone remember the 1st Edition PHB? Way back in the dark ages, I was flipping through that, and came across a picture of some guy in full plate armor, with a long sword and shield, in hell, hacking up devils. Said I, "That's a character that would be cool to play." If you want your paladin to mope around the sidelines, tearing his hair out over non-existent moral quandries and crying when he sees litter on the campground, that's fine. Knock yourself out. But don't berate me for wanting to play a character that actually stands up and fights the bad guys. Chip.
ColinOfBrechtur 12-31-03, 05:15 PM	Originally posted by Donnavin Snowolf I've only recently come to realize how rediculous this thread is. Evil Babies Think about it. Babies are a completely blank slate, they know nothing, they have experienced nothing, and don't even have the mental capacity to relize that if you put a block behind your back the block is still there (object permenency). How can one justify that a baby who grows up with no external influences (i.e. those of their evil mother and father) would become evil due to genetics? It is completely illogical. Evil babies are completely illogical, but a universe where somewhere out there lurks a creature with two heads, one a babboon and one a hyena, and two tentacles instead of arms, that rot you to death if you touch them, is logical? I don't like the evil babies idea myself. But it can be perfectly logical (in the game sense) to say that all orcses are evil, from the get-go. If you want your game to be basically go-kill-the-monsters, then set it up this way, and forget about it. If your idea of a good time is to sit around debating the true nature of good and evil in a fantasy cosmology, then go the way of bitnine and Vaalingrade Ashland. Possibly with less sarcasm. :P Really, I'd be very curious just what these guys' campaigns are like. What kind of adventures do you go on? Is there a lot of moral puzzling in your typical session?
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-31-03, 05:42 PM	I tend to give my PCs actual reasons to fight, rather than morally instigated genocide.
zagadka 01-01-04, 01:31 PM	Originally posted by ColinOfBrechtur Anyone remember the 1st Edition PHB? Way back in the dark ages, I was flipping through that, and came across a picture of some guy in full plate armor, with a long sword and shield, in hell, hacking up devils. Said I, "That's a character that would be cool to play." I remember that illustration very well. It was entitled 'A Paladin in Hell.' Please note that it was not entitled 'A Paladin on the Prime Material.' If you want your paladin to be a killing machine, by all means take him to Hell or the Abyss and go at it. But if you play your paladin as a killing machine on the Prime Material Plane, you're a munchkin who enjoys the perks of paladinhood while ignoring the responsibilities.
ColinOfBrechtur 01-01-04, 03:22 PM	Originally posted by zagadka I remember that illustration very well. It was entitled 'A Paladin in Hell.' Please note that it was not entitled 'A Paladin on the Prime Material.' If you want your paladin to be a killing machine, by all means take him to Hell or the Abyss and go at it. But if you play your paladin as a killing machine on the Prime Material Plane, you're a munchkin who enjoys the perks of paladinhood while ignoring the responsibilities. Well, that's fine when you're about 20th level. I really don't understand where you're coming from. I think you're misunderstanding my position. Look back, and I never said anything in the defense of burning baby hobgoblins; I agree that's a no-brainer. I'm just saying that the role of a Paladin is to take the fight to evil. These are the guys that descend into Moria to clean house. They stand between orc armies and human cities and say, "Not on my watch!" What do you think I'm advocating here, that makes me a munchkin? :mad:
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-01-04, 04:00 PM	standing between the armies and the cities is what you're supposed to do. Going into thier homes and 'cleaning house' is not. Your example of Moria is flawed in several ways: 1) Moria is not the home of orcs. Its is a dwarven city that was captured and is being held by the invading army. Therefore, there are not non-combatants in Moria. 2) DnD is not Middle Earth. Middle Earth's orcs are apparently all soldiers created by Sauron from elven stock. They are more construct than sentient being. DnD orcs are tribal humanoids who's society is bent slightly toward evil (Often evil. OFTEN not always.) 3) Finally, taking the fight to an enemy who has done nothing that you know of (the orcs in Moria were there before Sauron's army moved on Men) is not Good in any way, and sure as hell not Lawful. That's akin to going out to hunt people because you feel like it.
ColinOfBrechtur 01-01-04, 05:04 PM	Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland standing between the armies and the cities is what you're supposed to do. Going into thier homes and 'cleaning house' is not. Your example of Moria is flawed in several ways: So Paladins are obligated to only fight defensive wars? Where do you see that in the PHB? 1) Moria is not the home of orcs. Its is a dwarven city that was captured and is being held by the invading army. Therefore, there are not non-combatants in Moria. We obviously don't know that there are no non-combatants there. But it doesn't even matter, 'cause at no point have I said anything about killing non-combatants. I'm talking about killing the warriors, and specifically the ones who are evil. Fortunately, if there is any doubt, Paladins have a direct hook-up to their god (or non-divine source of power, as the case may be. I've always prefered Paladins as god-related, though), to tell them in no uncertain terms, evil or not. But anyway -- with the stipulation that the paladin is not going to kill non-combatants, and that the orcs are occupying a place that used to belong to dwarves, then you agree that it's ok for the Paladin to march in and try to retake it? Yes, this involves killing lots of orcs. 2) DnD is not Middle Earth. Middle Earth's orcs are apparently all soldiers created by Sauron from elven stock. They are more construct than sentient being. DnD orcs are tribal humanoids who's society is bent slightly toward evil (Often evil. OFTEN not always.) Please repeat "Often not always" a couple more times. Then I think I'll agree with you. ;) It doesn't matter. Because I'm only talking about killing the ones who ARE evil. 3) Finally, taking the fight to an enemy who has done nothing that you know of (the orcs in Moria were there before Sauron's army moved on Men) is not Good in any way, and sure as hell not Lawful. That's akin to going out to hunt people because you feel like it. Admittedly, I didn't get a degree in Middle Earth history. If that's a flaw in my example, fine. Although you agreed, mere paragraphs ago, that the orcs in Moria were an occupying force. I'm confused. Have they done something or not? Ehh, it doesn't matter. The intent of my example is, "We know that these particular orcs have done evil, so we're going to go in after them." You agree that this is a fine thing for a paladin to do? Obviously, with the caveats that they're not going to be hacking up babies or anything of the sort. Let me see if I can sum up your points here. 1. Paladins shouldn't kill babies. 2. Paladins shouldn't kill people who aren't evil (presumably a self-defense exception can be allowed here...) 3. Paladins shouldn't commit genocide. This is, as far as I can tell, just an extension of 2, because as someone has repeatedly pointed out, orcses are often evil not always. Often often often. Not always. Often! Often.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-01-04, 07:16 PM	Paladins also should not people just because they're evil. remember, just being a bastard in general changes that glowing letter above your head to 'e'. Does that mean good people should slaughter shift buisness men and politicains.... Okay, bad example....
Optimus Prime. 01-01-04, 08:01 PM	So, the party kicks the door, kill the 20 or so hobgoblins, and loot everything that shines. In the last room, they find 9 young hobgoblins that will not fight, as stated in the adventure module. So they lock them on the kitchen (or the 'food-making' room), so someone will later save them, and they have food for weeks. While they loot everything, the papa hobgoblin (hehe; the BBEG) return to the area with some scouts, kills the player cohorts (roleplayed, not leadership feat) who where outside the building, and then find the heroes on his base and everyone else killed; he challenges the paladin, fight to death, and the scouts run. Now the players, annoyed with the death of his followers, want revenge, and tried to burn the youngsters. I told them that its against their allignment (NG, two LG), but the session ended here. For next week, i think the youngsters are damned. "But im a NG cleric of elven god, if they grow up theill attack my country so ill just kill the youngsters!". The LG paladin says something like, as well as the dwarven defender. Being a follower of race-based deity (the dwarf prays to Moradin) makes you a trully nazi? Should i change the players allignment if they do kill the baby hobgoblins? Iv never been on such situation, so while i dont put my hands on the BovD, how should i handle this? Thanks for any comments D&D generaly sees good and evil in a black and white perspective. And in this case burning they youngsters is not only evil but also cruel and yes they should lose their ability's for that. What they should do acoarding to their alignment is spare the youngster and maybe raise them temselves or let others do it. A good alignemnent is hard to play in D&D becouse it requires sacrifice of other things. Torture or unnessisary torture is also evil....a good character would not do such a thing.
FriendoftheDork 01-01-04, 09:52 PM	I like the idea of the players taking revenge on the innocent and defenseless hobgoblins, it's a very human thing to do. But I can see that the Paladin could lose his powers if his only reason for doing this was revenge. However, if this was more of merciful murder, such as the Paladin couldn't bring the hobgoblins to safety and had the choise of killing them or letting them starve, then he shouldn't lose his paladinhood. But in any case, if the babies were actually evil (and the paladin should now) then he might be justified in killing them if his code doesen't prohibit killing evil creatures while helpless.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-01-04, 10:10 PM	protect the defenseless doesn't apply to people with the wrong icon hanging over their head :rolleyes:
guru7892 01-01-04, 11:35 PM	if they kill the children it will outrage other hobgoblins in the area. they could acually start a war for this. of course other stuff would have to happen...
Palin the Wizard 01-02-04, 05:29 AM	This thread is STILL alive? Amazing... I personally think it should get the Arturick Shovel Awards. ;)
Elthbert 01-02-04, 03:01 PM	roasting noncombatant chioldren alive is an evil act. let them suffer the concequinces of that act. paladinloses abilities cleric gets slamed dwarf leans torwards evil but nothing else. In my campaign the players freed a hobgoblin with a bunch of humans from slavers the hobgoblin swore fealty and they accepted, after 2 years of play he is good ( a convert to a good god) and they took him back to his tribe to challenge for leadership of the tribe. which being 12 level by this time he one), he promptly killed the shammans and has started the long slow path of converting his tribe. ( although generations of evil is proveing hard to overcome) Many of his tribe have converted to the new obviously strong god but want to follow in an evil way. " why can't we kill them they made light of the great gods greatness" or" why can't we just l kill all the misbelievers and raise there childeren to follow the proper ways" mercy and patiants are hard to teach. It has made for great role playing. And all it took was not killing the hobgiblin out right and liveing there moral code in front of him. Of course they had to show him they where strong for the first few months of play but unless your hobgoblins are not people they should be able to change.
Expanded Psion 06-25-04, 07:50 AM	Hmmm i saw this thread through a signature and decided that "what the heck its only 6 months till the last reply":P... A Paladin is a Hunter of Evil...that doesn't mean he's out to kill anything evil ((cause he would have to kill roughly 1/3 of every single towns population to do that)...he's out to kill the ideal of Evil...whether by actually killing evil creatures (not entirelly justifiable xcept Undead and Outsiders imho) or to actually make them turn their ways... Racism doens't fit a Paladin...a dwarf Paladin should give the evil Orc a chance to redeem itself as well as the evil Dwarf... If your players wanna play Punisher then go ahead and let them be Clerics of St.Cuthbert and Templars but not Paladins... Oh and justifying killing children by saying "When they grow up they'll become evil and kill our people" is not good Paladin roleplay...the true Paladin will try to make sure that these children dont grow up Evil, not just make sure they dont grow up at all...even if they are evil the code of contuct says HELP THOSE IN NEED (xcept if they use this help towards evil or unjust purposes)...i hardly consider staying alive even if Evil an evil purpose...or else the Paladin should begin killing all the commoners he senses as evil (and there are many) even human children because they are evil... Consider that plz:)
laughing-dragon 06-25-04, 10:02 AM	While I agree that a paladin cannot engage in any sort of willy-nilly slaughter, even of races which are generally chaotic and evilly inclined, I do not agree that racism is "un-paladinlike". Of all the good alignments it strikes me that lawful goodness is the MOST inclined toward initial racism, if for no other reason than the lawful inclination to codify and classify things according to their percieved goodness. For intance, in the 2e Planescape material there was a faction called the Harmonium. The sort of "public" alignment for this organization was "lawful good". however, in the case of the Harmonium, LAW was emphasized over GOOD. In the case of many Harmonium types if there were any question as to whether an act was condoned or condemned the adherants would look first to LAW. This often made them seem like hard-headed racists, and in some individual cases, they were. It seems this can also be applied in the case of an individual Paladins alignment. Remember : Lawful good isn't necessarily the purest ot truest good; its merely the most LAWFUL good. The Law is determined by the culture surrounding the individual in combination with a Paladins strict inner code of morals. in the case of a dwarven Paladin, he or she should be looking to the Lawful Good God Moradin, or Clangedin for his or her example of perfection. Moradin is Lawful Good. He is also undeniably racist. He merely disdains elves, but he has an absolute burning hatred of orcs and hobgoblins. History between the two races is so deeply ingrained that I as a DM would never punish a dwarven paladin for the slaughtering of members of one of these races unless the individual or individuals had already demonstrated some inclination towards good. The code here would probably be something akin to "guilty until proven innocent" None of this is to say theat there is no room for a very anti-racist Paladin in my game, is just to say that in a FANTASY SETTING, wherein some races are truly evil, (rather than being PORTRAYED as evil, like in the case of REAL WORLD racism) racism does not nesesarily disqualify one from either goodness or lawfulness. And as for the slaughter of children. In all cases with the exception of the drow, I would encourage a Paladin do choose an alternate path of action. In my world Drow are SOOO corrupted that any child existing in the society past the age of infancy is totally corrupted and evil. Just my game. LD
Phist 07-22-04, 11:59 PM	How harsh you are with the palidin is up to the DM (after all, their power comes from being good, and not just good but a shining example of rightiousness and all that good stuff) but as far as the other characters go, I don't think one evil act has the potenial to even change their alignment one level. (That was a very long sentence.) No one is perfect. Good characters might do a couple evil acts occasionally. And having your friend killed is about as good a reason as you can get.
bitnine 07-23-04, 07:54 AM	Originally posted by Phist No one is perfect. Good characters might do a couple evil acts occasionally. And having your friend killed is about as good a reason as you can get. Yeah, I know my good characters murder a few children now and again - but only when they get really steamed about a friend dying. It's just blowing off steam, so it doesn't mean that they aren't good. Wait - why is this thread alive again?
nick012000 07-23-04, 09:24 AM	Because somebody cast Raise Thread. :P
Aeolus91 07-23-04, 06:02 PM	I dunno if yall have read any Dragonlance, but genocide on basis of racial disposition got a flaming mountain chucked at the earth by the enraged gods of Good. The Kingpriest of Istar issued a decree saying that all races deemed "Evil" were to be killed at all costs. Those PCs ought to get themselves a fiery mountain upside the head.
BlaineTog 12-02-05, 01:04 AM	:bump: to save from thread prune (I consider this thread to be vitally important to prospective paladin players everywhere).
Always-Late 12-02-05, 01:22 AM	The baby hobgoblins are guilty by association. Thus, they must burn! Plus, it's a simple and easy way to get back at the enemy hobgoblin. As an added bonus, if they're evil, they get to burn, and that's good. And if they're good, they go to the Seven Heavens, which is good. And if they're neutral, they can live in wherever, which is neutral. I can't believe this is even an issue. Why would you even consider taking away the paladin's powers? The age of multi-page paladin flamethrowing debates is over. This thread should die.
WCH 12-02-05, 01:31 AM	So kill everyone, let the gods sort it out? Yeah, that's a Good aligned statement... Your logic works just as well with humans, you realise? "I didn't murder the priest, I helped him get to heaven!"
Always-Late 12-02-05, 01:36 AM	Please, please, please tell me you saw the sarcasm.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-02-05, 01:52 AM	Oh god no... the thread that killed my faith in the goodness and intellegence of humanity! Now you've come back to finish the job!?
WCH 12-02-05, 02:14 AM	Please, please, please tell me you saw the sarcasm.Saw it, but wasn't really sure. Sarcasm is ridiculously hard to adequately show in a forum setting.
Cantankerous 12-02-05, 02:27 AM	Thus there is the safe way to show sarcasm. *sarcasm* Think of that little thing there as your sarcasm condom. Especially with a name like Always Late, you should appreciate the need for condoms. *snitty* ;) Isshia
SnowbearK 12-02-05, 05:03 AM	Oh god no... the thread that killed my faith in the goodness and intellegence of humanity! Now you've come back to finish the job!? No, that pretty seemed to be the whole point of the thread to begin with, to destroy all hope for humanity, one fwagile wittle mind at a time. :D
Gemmalah 12-02-05, 07:18 AM	In my opinion if all the other hobgoblins are dead(killed by PCs I assume) and the children are locked in a room with limited supply of food, would they not just die of starvation. I have heard this is a truely horrible way to die. If there is no near chance of rescue they could be killed out of mercy. A slit to the throat is surely less painful in the long term. If the palidin burnt them or used any method to kill them that would result in alot of pain then I would use it against them. One of the three strikes and your out buisiness. Would the babies make useful fighters in a nearby town. If they are raised in an orphanage and taught good ways (unless you believe all monsters are evil from birth) they could become a productive part of a society. Also whats this with the fighters 'cleaning up'. My little brother was a palidin for a while and he told me that as a palidin he would never knowingly allow for this to happen. Once or twice the charactor would be fooled but more than that unless the palidin has an inteligence score of 2 he should have a guess to whats going on. This however makes travelling with a palidin very difficult. Personally i'd just not allow people to play palidins. Or have a set of rules set out to be applied to any occasion. Like commandments from the palidin god. So there are no arguements like this. It could be part of the house rules.
Derrigan 12-02-05, 08:48 AM	As anyone can tell, "the best solution is not to play." The only thing I can add to this delicate situation is to avoid it entirely. The BBEG hobgob hears the wailings of the children in the back. Realizing that there were survivors, Capt. Picklepuss offers the PC's their lives since they spared the kids. The PCs know that they have met the enemy, and that their compassion saved their lives that day. P.S. Can anyone tell I'm a child of the eighties?
ThatGuyThere 12-02-05, 09:24 AM	Wow. I'm wading into the middle of this. I'm a braver (or dumber...) man than I thought. In my own heavy-RP games, this issue has come up several times. The answer has varied each time, and it essentially comes down to an eternal debate: Nature - they're born evil, and will be evil - versus Nurture - they're evil because they're exposed to a culture that demands evil from them to survive. In my games, I alternate which is true. Orcs, in general, are "born evil" - they are the Foul Spawn of Gruumsh, imbued with a spiteful piece of his hate. They don't truly have "free will" as the other races know it - they are bound to serve. Dragons, likewise, aren't truly "free" either. Even good Dragons had / have no other choice - They're born "Good", and even if exposed only to Evil, would rise above it. That's a nice, quick, easy solution - "they might just be children, but they will, eventually, be 100% Pure Evil." On the other hand, some races - Hobgoblins, say - might not be Evil to the core. They tend to be evil - that is, to manipulate, to be cruel, to be selfish, to be hard-hearted - but that's because "the world made them that way"; that is, they were exposed to an Evil culture, and became Evil to survive within it. They're not beyond redemption - and certainly, when they're children, are just as "uncommitted" as human children, and equally unable to pass moral judgements. Raised by loving human parents, they can be Good. Which makes things much messier - how much responsibility do the characters have to make sure they're "raised well"? Do the local Clergy run an "adopt-a-monster" service to help li'll beasties in situations like this? HOWEVER, both of the above points are incidental to what's really at the heart of the issue, here: Are *these, specific* little goobers Evil? Or Neutral? Is killing them a Good act? Is it an Evil act? And would the Church - and / or the Diety invovled - condone the death of children? As to the moral compass of the youngsters... See above. Nature, or nurture? As to the goodness, or vileness (evilness?) of their deaths... ....well, were they Evil? Neutral? 'Cuz if they're Evil, it's not bad to kill 'em. If they're Neutral (or, have mercy, Good...), well, then not so much. Would the church condone genocide? I would say, "What god does the Cleric / Paladin follow?" is a very important question. If they children were Orcs, I'd say neither Moradin, nor Larethan would disagree that they have to die. Could they be good? Probably, under the teachings of those Gods, no. They're Orcs, after all, and Orcs are evil. Racist? Sure, maybe - by our sensibilities. But this is D&D, and in many D&D worlds, Orcs are homicial psychopaths, attacking those much stronger and "nobler" than themselves under very debatable motives and often with little chance of personal victory or gain. If these young'uns are allowed to mature, they'll very likely do the same. Besides (again, in most D&D worlds) Gruumsh and Larethan (and Gruumsh and Moradin) have a bit of history. If they grow up, they're probably going to develop a taste for Dwarf / Elf flesh - a decidedly evil act (particularly to Moradin and / or Larethan, as appropriate). Pelor, on the other hand, seems like a pretty forgiving, loving, nurturing guy - er, God. He and Elonna, and probably Obad-Hai and Yondalla, and some others - would probably say that the children deserve to have the chance to "prove themselves", one way or the other. It'd be the character's responsibility to grant them that chance, for good or for ill. You killed their Mom and Dad, and maybe they weren't great parents, but that's neither here nor there. They deserve parents, and until you can find others, the ball's in your court. So is it evil? Is it good? Hell, damned if I know.
Futuredevguy 12-02-05, 09:46 AM	It may be true, but recall your job as a DM is to teach people the game... I hate this mis-conception. :mad: No, your JOB as a DM is to orchestrate a game. It is a CHOICE as a experienced gamer to teach people the game.
Futuredevguy 12-02-05, 09:50 AM	But by burning him alive? Its the kind of thing he would do, and one has to appreciate the subtle irony, but these are supposed to be good people. Whats the difference between burning them alive with normal fire and killing them with a fireball or flame strike or any of magical fire spell? :confused:
Futuredevguy 12-02-05, 10:00 AM	They fight to oppose evil, and as long as they believed that the creatures in question are or would soon become evil, then killing them is a good act. The method with which this is accomlished is of secondary importance. So According to You... If a paladin beleives that the LAWFUL GOOD priest is ABOUT to be possesed by a CE deamon he can then KILL that priest before the Deamon possess him na dnot suffer for his actions? :confused:
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-02-05, 11:28 AM	Whats the difference between burning them alive with normal fire and killing them with a fireball or flame strike or any of magical fire spell? :confused: There isn't any! You don't burn them with anything. Nothing, not at all. No fireball, not flamestrike, no flame blade, no tindertwigs. You. Don't. Burn. the Kids. How can not immolating minors not be an option?
pres_man 12-02-05, 02:38 PM	Whats the difference between burning them alive with normal fire and killing them with a fireball or flame strike or any of magical fire spell? :confused: The amount of damage that can be inflicted at a single moment. Read the last two rows. (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=243)
Futuredevguy 12-02-05, 02:47 PM	There isn't any! You don't burn them with anything. Nothing, not at all. No fireball, not flamestrike, no flame blade, no tindertwigs. You. Don't. Burn. the Kids. How can not immolating minors not be an option? By the minors being evil from conception to death, that’s how. If they are not inherently evil then it is never an option. While in RL this is an absolute NON-issue. Burning kids to death = Evil. In all cultures there is the innate understanding that minors have to be taught right from wrong, good from evil etc... The age of when someone is expected to be able to judge for themselves and make their own choices based on those judgments (to be good or evil) varies around this world and we have trouble determining the point when a person is considered a minor or not. J In a GAME world environment where a race of beings is known to be inherently evil then killing their offspring through any means would have as much social/moral/emotional implications/ramifications as killing a disease carrying insect/vermin has in the REAL WORLD - NONE For those circumstances where the RACE in question is known to have evil inclinations/leanings then all due diligence (DETECT EVIL) must be taken to determine if the being in question is evil or not. If the being (adult/baby/child) has been determined in an absolute way to be EVIL then it's punishment for being so must be in direct correlation to the evil it has committed. If the being (adult/baby/child) has been determined to be NON-Evil then it is a benefit to many (as well as the being) to assist that being in not becoming evil and removing it from the source of evil influence. The point of my original post was that you seemed to be making a differentiation (one type of burning was MORE right then another).
jasper 12-02-05, 04:34 PM	I hate this mis-conception. :mad: No, your JOB as a DM is to orchestrate a game. It is a CHOICE as a experienced gamer to teach people the game. And teach if you want players. Or are you the type I met in the Army. Guy, Table Tennis jasper? Jasper, I never played Guy here how serve, only let bounce one time on your side of net. (guy then beats 21 to 0) Gee you rotten at this game. Sorry as ref you either teach or have no players. :rolleyes:
Futuredevguy 12-02-05, 05:59 PM	And teach if you want players. Or are you the type I met in the Army. Guy, Table Tennis jasper? Jasper, I never played Guy here how serve, only let bounce one time on your side of net. (guy then beats 21 to 0) Gee you rotten at this game. Sorry as ref you either teach or have no players. :rolleyes: Again, No As ref you do not have to teach or have no players. :rolleyes: I personally feel it is the responsability of who ever set up the gaming group to teach new players. Why do you feel it is up to the DM to teach the new players? :confused:
Koji 12-02-05, 06:42 PM	There's a better way than a hard and fast rule. This is a subject of much debate, and there's really no way to say whether the action is good or evil without someone disagreeing. If anything, it's more of a law/chaos decision ("These things are a threat and must be stopped," or "Every living creature has free will!"), but even that's debatable. A chaotic character might kill them for fun (well a chaotic evil character anyway) and a lawful one might decide that they deserve a chance to prove themselves. That said, look at their justification for doing it. In my campaign, Thien, a chaotic neutral ranger, was faced with the "Baby monster" decision. The group had been sent by a druid to clear some evil kobolds out of his grove. Thien's decision was to impassively kill the baby kobolds because that was the job he'd been given. The "because" is very important. Were this something like necromancy or torture, the "because" wouldn't matter because those things are so ridiculously evil. Thien, however, was treading iffy ground but expressed his character's resolve. My decision? In this case it was a lawful neutral action because he held to his word and followed orders to the letter. However, at the same time our lawful neutral cleric argued against killing them because they deserved a chance to prove themselves. What happened? Thein ignored him because he didn't care for the cleric's opinion and shot the kobolds dead. So I wrote in the margin of my DM notes that Thien had commited a fairly lawful act, but it wasn't a threat to his alignment unless he continued down that path. But it sounds like your players' justification is petty revenge. Killing someone's children because you're mad at them is pretty damn evil. I'd file that under a fairly chaotic evil act, and strip the paladin of his powers unless he atoned. If he starts whining, tell him if he'd killed them out of a sense of duty it would have been fine.
Always-Late 12-02-05, 06:50 PM	How the hell is killing babies because you were hired to any better than killing babies for revenge?
Phrennzy 12-02-05, 06:59 PM	How the hell is killing babies because you were hired to any better than killing babies for revenge? You get paid, duh. ;)
Ogmug 12-02-05, 07:07 PM	By the minors being evil from conception to death, that’s how. If they are not inherently evil then it is never an option. While in RL this is an absolute NON-issue. Burning kids to death = Evil. In all cultures there is the innate understanding that minors have to be taught right from wrong, good from evil etc... The age of when someone is expected to be able to judge for themselves and make their own choices based on those judgments (to be good or evil) varies around this world and we have trouble determining the point when a person is considered a minor or not. J In a GAME world environment where a race of beings is known to be inherently evil then killing their offspring through any means would have as much social/moral/emotional implications/ramifications as killing a disease carrying insect/vermin has in the REAL WORLD - NONE For those circumstances where the RACE in question is known to have evil inclinations/leanings then all due diligence (DETECT EVIL) must be taken to determine if the being in question is evil or not. If the being (adult/baby/child) has been determined in an absolute way to be EVIL then it's punishment for being so must be in direct correlation to the evil it has committed. If the being (adult/baby/child) has been determined to be NON-Evil then it is a benefit to many (as well as the being) to assist that being in not becoming evil and removing it from the source of evil influence. The point of my original post was that you seemed to be making a differentiation (one type of burning was MORE right then another). The concept of original sin is not one that fits with D&D. Please see PHB page 104, right above the table. It talks about how alignments, especially "usually" ones are not set in stone per race. It even gives an example of how an orc (usually chaotic evil) raised by humans would not necessarily turn out that way. Just as a human (usually nuetral) raised by orcs would more than likely turn out evil. Burning of any non-combatant by a paladin, condoning it, or even doing nothing about it, is a blatant act of evil. Using vengeance is considered evil in some books. It is also dishonorable. If you paladin has not discussed a code of conduct with you, you should use the default one in the books, and as such, he is in beyond gross violation of that code.
Cantankerous 12-03-05, 01:34 AM	No. Whether a creature is inherently evil or not, whether it might be a demon in disguise or not. whether a Detect Evil caste on it gives the caster head aches from it's intensity or not, killing it without need is NOT showing respect for life, but the complete opposite. It is Evil to kill without need, period. Try this one: Your character, a Paladin, is walking the streets of Braschun, a town he has never been in before when he spots a man walking towards him dressed in rich robes all done in a motiff that depicts the enslavement of angelic looking beings and when checked (Detect Evil ability), radiates a strong amount of Evil. By the "if it's evil, you can kill it" theory, ye olde Paladin can whip out his sword and start hacking away, yes? Of course the man might well be a citizen. He might well be the town's protector. He may be an ambassador from an evil statelet that has finally been convinced to stop the long, generations long state of war between Braschun and itself. Or he might just be in town to buy his wife a birthday present. Evil people do those kinds of things too. So, is it ok to kill this guy for walking down the street? If not, why is it ANY more justifiable to kill an infant from a race that is "usaually lawful evil"? Isshia
Elthbert 12-03-05, 01:39 AM	The concept of original sin is not one that fits with D&D. Please see PHB page 104, right above the table. It talks about how alignments, especially "usually" ones are not set in stone per race. It even gives an example of how an orc (usually chaotic evil) raised by humans would not necessarily turn out that way. Just as a human (usually nuetral) raised by orcs would more than likely turn out evil. Burning of any non-combatant by a paladin, condoning it, or even doing nothing about it, is a blatant act of evil. Using vengeance is considered evil in some books. It is also dishonorable. If you paladin has not discussed a code of conduct with you, you should use the default one in the books, and as such, he is in beyond gross violation of that code. actually i would say that is almost exactly the concept of origional sin. Monster races tend torwards evil they are drawn to it, butthey are not without a will so there being drawn to evil combines with there choice for evilto make then predominatly evil. Sounds exactly like origional sin to me. Notthat Christian doctrine is really proper discussion for a D&D site.
WCH 12-03-05, 01:45 AM	By the "if it's evil, you can kill it" theory, ye olde Paladin can whip out his sword and start hacking away, yes? "If it's evil, you can kill it, unless it's Cthulhu in which case we're all screwed."
Ogmug 12-03-05, 01:49 AM	actually i would say that is almost exactly the concept of origional sin. Monster races tend torwards evil they are drawn to it, butthey are not without a will so there being drawn to evil combines with there choice for evilto make then predominatly evil. Sounds exactly like origional sin to me. Notthat Christian doctrine is really proper discussion for a D&D site. Original sin is the fact that everyone is born with sin. IN this case, it would be considered that every orc is born evil. This however is not the case. Please read the page referred before trying to comment about how a creatures are born with the alignment of thier race.
Elthbert 12-03-05, 01:55 AM	Original sin is the fact that everyone is born with sin. IN this case, it would be considered that every orc is born evil. This however is not the case. Please read the page referred before trying to comment about how a creatures are born with the alignment of thier race. I didn't say creatures were born with the alignment of there race I said they were born with the tendency to their alignment. And thank you one thing I got quite well in my years ar the seminary was an understanding of Original sin, By all of it's major proponant From St. Augustine on. Please actually read the post your responding to. Agian I said they were born with a tendency but have awill to chose evil or not, most of them choose the alignment that their race tends to but by an act of will they can break the draw of evil.
Ogmug 12-03-05, 02:13 AM	please. read the phb. they are not born with any tendancy. the society has a tendancy, but the individuals are not "born" with the tendancy unless the entry has ALWAYs in it. (monster manual, glossary) Always : Creature is born with the alignment Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creaures have the given alignement. It then cites cultural influences or legacy (both of these are not instinctual or hereditary) IE :nuture Often: a plurality has this alignment. ONLY always has the statement that a creature is born with it. Original "evil" in this case does not exist for these creatures.
Callista 12-03-05, 02:28 AM	Kinda like the child of an alcoholic being more likely to be an alcoholic themselves?
Koji 12-03-05, 04:17 AM	How the hell is killing babies because you were hired to any better than killing babies for revenge? Ask a soldier. The vietnam vets involved in the destruction of peasant villages came back a little scarred, but they weren't sporting devil horns. They didn't kill for pleasure, they were just doing their jobs. And those were humans. These aren't baby humans, and whether or not they're inherently evil is a non-issue from the point of a character. Alignment is not a real and tangible thing, but monstrous races are a plague on humanity and as far as the character is concerned, these things are probably going to grow up to be bloodthirsty monsters like their parents. If they were baby humans, you'd have to be pretty twisted to want to kill them on the suspicion that they'd grow up to be murderers, but these are monsters--they're categorically evil (or at least at odds with humans) and as far as anyone is concerned, they will follow in their parents' footsteps. Remember, the PCs probably haven't got the luxury of higher education, and basic human rights didn't historically come into public acceptance until after the 1500s. There was never a civil rights movement. They don't have people on TV telling them that all life holds equal merit. If you're going to argue that the way someone is raised should be the primary factor in the way they should be perceived by others, then the same must be true for the players.
Callista 12-03-05, 04:56 AM	I think the majority of people would say that what was done in Vietnam, by both sides, *was* evil; and that was just done because they were "at odds with" us. In fact, I would not be surprised if, under D&D terms, Vietnam might have been called an Evil-aligned country, with "often evil" inhabitants. It only takes 60% Evil or so, after all. (I'm starting to worry the same about my own country; but enough with the politics. *sigh*) Anyway, normal PCs, being a product of their society, might easily kill baby hobgoblins (or whatever). I wouldn't be surprised if your average true neutral fighter did so. I don't think his alignment would drop right away, or at least probably not, depending on how good his RP was. ("Die, you little bastard!" as opposed to "Ooh, can I kill the babies?" stupidity.) It's still an evil act, though; and if he makes a habit of it, it'll draw him towards evil, whether he knows it's evil or not (Remember, many Evil-aligned people have no idea they are Evil). But I wouldn't be surprised--if he's been raised with the idea that hobgoblins are as bad as rabid dogs, then he might easily kill their children without having a second thought. Really, I'd like to see a well-role-played "product of an ignorant society" character. Just once. Rather than some idiot who thinks it's cool to play chaotic "neutral" and kill babies for the heck of it. The D&D world is neither our modern world nor our medieval world. It's some sort of strange hybrid of the two, and it has dynamics all its own. With Good and Evil being tangible, real forces, and people like Paladins and Clerics able to tell the difference through divine insight (i.e., Detect spells), the morality of that world would be closer to today's than that of medieval times. When you can cast a spell--there are several that are designed to give people advice about what their deity wants them to do--and figure out that, no, Pelor really doesn't want you to kill that baby hobgoblin, or no, you really shouldn't attack him just because he's an orc; then, among the more well-educated and especially the clergy, things like prejudice and many kinds of injustice due to it would begin to be known for the evil they were, if one was willing to face that fact. (Many would not be.) Of course, I doubt the common people and less educated PC classes would know much different; because ignorance and illiteracy, being only a little better in most campaign worlds than they were in medieval times, would not allow the average person to understand the fine points of ethics. This would change, of course, as a PC began gaining levels and knowledge; and of course, PCs are usually literate, giving them an advantage already. Atrocities like killing children would occur; and I would not be surprised to see the previously mentioned true neutral fighter committing them, based on his idea that other races are subhuman. However, it remains an evil act; and people who know better (the educated, in general, especially clerics and paladins) are still penalized for it. Your campaign world may vary.
Cantankerous 12-03-05, 05:24 AM	Ask a soldier. The vietnam vets involved in the destruction of peasant villages came back a little scarred, but they weren't sporting devil horns. They didn't kill for pleasure, they were just doing their jobs. And those were humans. These aren't baby humans, and whether or not they're inherently evil is a non-issue from the point of a character. Alignment is not a real and tangible thing, but monstrous races are a plague on humanity and as far as the character is concerned, these things are probably going to grow up to be bloodthirsty monsters like their parents. If they were baby humans, you'd have to be pretty twisted to want to kill them on the suspicion that they'd grow up to be murderers, but these are monsters--they're categorically evil (or at least at odds with humans) and as far as anyone is concerned, they will follow in their parents' footsteps. Remember, the PCs probably haven't got the luxury of higher education, and basic human rights didn't historically come into public acceptance until after the 1500s. There was never a civil rights movement. They don't have people on TV telling them that all life holds equal merit. If you're going to argue that the way someone is raised should be the primary factor in the way they should be perceived by others, then the same must be true for the players. Unreal. Most serial killers don't sprout devils horns either, but it doesn't keep them from being sub-human. Isshia (USMC 79-82)
Millennium 12-03-05, 09:18 AM	The paladin should certainly Fall if he goes along with this. The cleric might even find himself expelled from his order. These are not fiends, mystically tied to a particular alignment from the time they're born; they're hobgoblins. Of course, the PCs have already broken into their home and murdered their families, so the young do have a good reason for wanting revenge when they grow up, should they choose to try and take it. As for the argument about the D&D time period being less enlightened than our own, those arguments are irrelevant when morality is an aspect of the universe just as real as chemistry or physics, and that morality requires mercy in order to be considered truly Good. It may mean that few truly Good societies exist, but that's not all that different from the actual Middle Ages upon which many D&D campaigns are built anyway. When you look at ancient times through a modern moral lens, things don't look all that pretty.
HalasterAteMyHamster 12-03-05, 09:49 AM	It's against the Paladin code. Killing non-combatants, even evil ones, means a loss of powers. Clerics don't have the same RAW issue, but I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason for his god to keep him hooked up after pulling something like this. As for the DD, he wouldn't get any penalty. However, pop goes his alignment, down to LN. In fact, I'd do it for each of them. Yes, it's a serious gameplay penalty, but you're not supposed to recover easily from mass-murdering children.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-03-05, 12:13 PM	"It's amazing how fast 'respect for the dignity of sentient life' falls by the wayside the moment one finds a flimsy pretext to kill sentients without retribution" - Jessamyn the Peacable (my friend's cleric character) So... how far does the 'they're at odds with us' go? Does that justify the hobgoblins doing the exact same thing? It never ceases to amaze me how some people (http://www.ledgermaincomics.com/comics/main/comic035.htm) play 'good' characters (http://www.ledgermaincomics.com/comics/main/comic010.htm)
Andrew_980 12-03-05, 02:10 PM	They wanted to kill the children as an act of revenge, not a "mercy killing", not a "remove future threat", just to get back at the one that killed his allies. For that there should be no atonement. Another major issue, define "respect for dignity of life" it could be destroy that wich is destructive (monsters), refusal to kill ever, hatred of all that "mock life" (undead, constructs), or giving a "dignified death" to the suffering. It can be as simple "being kind" or as extreme as genocide (kill all undead). It is the first line of offense for those who decide an act is evil, yet woefully undefined and vague enough to render any act "against the dignity of life" with a little effort.
Elthbert 12-03-05, 03:13 PM	please. read the phb. they are not born with any tendancy. the society has a tendancy, but the individuals are not "born" with the tendancy unless the entry has ALWAYs in it. (monster manual, glossary) Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creaures have the given alignement. It then cites cultural influences or legacy (both of these are not instinctual or hereditary) IE :nuture ONLY always has the statement that a creature is born with it. Original "evil" in this case does not exist for these creatures. I like how you didn't quote this because it certianly is hereditary "This may be due to strong cultural influances, or it may be a legacy of the races origion. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian." It is the legacy of their origin that my friend is hereditary if anything is. Your hair color, eye color skin color is all a legacy of your origion SO is an elves alignment or an orcs. They are drawn to there alignment because that is thier nature given to them at their creation. Can they overcome that nature sure, but it is still the tendency of the race as a whole.
Ogmug 12-03-05, 08:02 PM	I like how you didn't quote this because it certianly is hereditary "This may be due to strong cultural influances, or it may be a legacy of the races origion. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian." It is the legacy of their origin that my friend is hereditary if anything is. Your hair color, eye color skin color is all a legacy of your origion SO is an elves alignment or an orcs. They are drawn to there alignment because that is thier nature given to them at their creation. Can they overcome that nature sure, but it is still the tendency of the race as a whole. Actually, if you had read my quote, you woudl have seen that I did state legacy. What this tells me is that you DIDN'T read a) my post, and b) the book. I have highlighted the part for you, to make it easier on you. Also where do you get that Eye color, hair color, etc is a legacy! It is hereditary, but that does not make it a legacy. :rolleyes: lease. read the phb. they are not born with any tendancy. the society has a tendancy, but the individuals are not "born" with the tendancy unless the entry has ALWAYs in it. (monster manual, glossary) Always : Creature is born with the alignment Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creaures have the given alignement. It then cites cultural influences or legacy (both of these are not instinctual or hereditary) IE :nuture Often: a plurality has this alignment. ONLY always has the statement that a creature is born with it. Original "evil" in this case does not exist for these creatures. Now, Hereditary in the sense I am using it above, and as how i read it does not include the following: # Transmitted or capable of being transmitted genetically from parent to offspring: a hereditary disease. # 1. Appearing in or characteristic of successive generations. 2. Derived from or fostered by one's ancestors: a hereditary prejudice. but does include the following: # Law. 1. Descending from an ancestor to a legal heir; passing down by inheritance. 2. Having title or possession through inheritance. and more specifically: # Ancestral; traditional: their hereditary home. See Synonyms at innate. # Of or relating to heredity or inheritance. Legacy in this case is not a "born" type thing. It is an inheritance. Just as being part of a democracy is the legacy that the american forefathers left people who reside in america. IT is not something that is "hereditary" in the sense that it is a part of thier being. Elves are chaotic good, because it is there legacy left to them from Correllon. Does that mean all elves are born that way? Then if that were the case, all elves that are not chaotic good had to choose after they became adults. This isn't how things are done in societies normally however. Main Entry: leg·a·cy Pronunciation: 'le-g&-sE Function: noun Inflected Form: plural -cies Etymology: Medieval Latin legatio, from Latin legare to bequeath : a gift of property by will; specifically : a gift of personal property by will : BEQUEST —see also ADEMPTION —compare DEVISE leg·a·cy Audio pronunciation of "legacy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lg-s) n. pl. leg·a·cies 1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of religious freedom NOTE the definitions. A legacy is something that has to be "handed" down. Be it property, or an ideal. It requires "handing" it to the person (in the case of religion/alignment, it would require teaching).
Elthbert 12-04-05, 08:00 PM	Actually, if you had read my quote, you woudl have seen that I did state legacy. What this tells me is that you DIDN'T read a) my post, and b) the book. I have highlighted the part for you, to make it easier on you. Also where do you get that Eye color, hair color, etc is a legacy! It is hereditary, but that does not make it a legacy. :rolleyes: Now, Hereditary in the sense I am using it above, and as how i read it does not include the following: # Transmitted or capable of being transmitted genetically from parent to offspring: a hereditary disease. # 1. Appearing in or characteristic of successive generations. 2. Derived from or fostered by one's ancestors: a hereditary prejudice. but does include the following: # Law. 1. Descending from an ancestor to a legal heir; passing down by inheritance. 2. Having title or possession through inheritance. and more specifically: # Ancestral; traditional: their hereditary home. See Synonyms at innate. # Of or relating to heredity or inheritance. Legacy in this case is not a "born" type thing. It is an inheritance. Just as being part of a democracy is the legacy that the american forefathers left people who reside in america. IT is not something that is "hereditary" in the sense that it is a part of thier being. Elves are chaotic good, because it is there legacy left to them from Correllon. Does that mean all elves are born that way? Then if that were the case, all elves that are not chaotic good had to choose after they became adults. This isn't how things are done in societies normally however. Main Entry: leg·a·cy Pronunciation: 'le-g&-sE Function: noun Inflected Form: plural -cies Etymology: Medieval Latin legatio, from Latin legare to bequeath : a gift of property by will; specifically : a gift of personal property by will : BEQUEST —see also ADEMPTION —compare DEVISE leg·a·cy Audio pronunciation of "legacy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lg-s) n. pl. leg·a·cies 1. Money or property bequeathed to another by will. 2. Something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past: a legacy of religious freedom NOTE the definitions. A legacy is something that has to be "handed" down. Be it property, or an ideal. It requires "handing" it to the person (in the case of religion/alignment, it would require teaching). First I did read your quote you said legacy and failed to continue with the quote. I called you to task for that and you don't like it, well that doesn't mean you didn't do it, you intentionally leftthe part of the citation that didn't support your position out. It is a classic BSing tactic. The fact that you simply dismiss multiple defenitions of the word Heredetary is meaningful as is the factthat you do not understand the very defenition of legacy to which you appeal. Handed-down does not as you appear to think require teaching or an act of will, since you have brought in formal definitions lets look at handed-down: handed-down adj : having been passed along from generation to generation; "among Biblical critics a tralatitious interpretation is one received by expositor from expositor" [syn: tralatitious emphasis mine of course. It is anything passed along from generation to generation, and yes your hair color and eye color are quite properly called the legacy of your heritage. And actually it would not mean that all elves that where not( CG) had chosen not to be by their various acts of will after they had reached adulthood simply the age of reason-- whatever that might happen to be for elves-- Common Law and Most Christian traditions have typically set it at 7 for humans inthe real world but for elves it might be 30 it depends how elves age in your campaign. Regardless acting in a non chaotic good manner would be the result of making choices which where contrary to the norm for their culture, contrary to the pull of their nature, contrary to the nature of their race. You may choose not to accept that but your reading is not supported by the rules, that is your interpretation of the rules.