Anal Good and the Paladin's Code

[Grushvak]

I fear that this will spawn an extremely heated debated, but I really want to hear opinions on this regardless of consequences.

A paladin is on an extremely important mission. It involves damsels in distress. He crosses the path of a small troup of kobolds.

Defying all expectations, the kobolds decide to surrender. They're the paladin's sworn enemies, and they're in no position to defend themselves.

What do?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Bring them with you on your quest. Clearly your god has rewarded you by providing allies.

[Chrono22]

Paladin codes vary from DM to DM. I find Rokugan's samurai code to be fitting in most respects.
Have these Kobolds committed crimes in the past? If the paladin does not know, he consults his phylactery of faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness).

[horseboy]

Depends on the tenets of the individual paladin's faith. Anything from a quick, merciful death to turning them into spear bearers could be acceptable.

[Xzeno]

Accept the surrender. Kolbolds are desperate creatures that do what they can to get by. If they choose to surrender and live, a paladin should let them.

[Worira]

I think the morally justified thing for the Paladin to do is to slaughter the defenseless kobolds that have surrendered, on the basis of their race alone.

[Mongoose87]

Turn them all into Pun-Puns that serve his god.

[Grushvak]

Ok, some more information: Paladin prays Bahamut, whose dogma strongly opposes chromatic dragons and advocates their extermination. Kobolds, as far as I know, are evil dragonblooded creatures.

[oxinabox]

Disarm then, make them agree to certain peace terms, and be on your way.

Yep, precisely correct.

check the aformentioned phylactery of faithfulness.
if keeping them prisoners would violate your code

If keeping them prisoner is an option, thats where the paladins 50 Masterwork manicles in a varienty of sizes *come in handy
Put one small and one tiny on each, then tie them all together.

*(and if he has the cash in a variety of materials, cold iron anyone? so mr giant mean my friend Addimate shackles)

eventually take them back to town,
and put them before the courts,

i'm sure they have commited crimes they're kobolds.

[Chrono22]

Ok, some more information: Paladin prays Bahamut, whose dogma strongly opposes chromatic dragons and advocates their extermination. Kobolds, as far as I know, are evil dragonblooded creatures.
Once again, he should confer with the phylactery of faithfulness. He simply takes no actions that would adversely effect his alignment or his standing with Bahamut.
Any other questions?

[Kosjsjach]

I think the morally justified thing for the Paladin to do is to slaughter the defenseless kobolds that have surrendered, on the basis of their race alone.

Your sarcasm was spread on a little thin; I was almost quite upset. :smallamused:
...You were being sarcastic, right? :smalleek:

On a different note, someone should put together an "Alternate Alignment Grid", with entries like "Chaotic Stupid" and "Anal Good", etc. What are some others?
(If this threatens to become a thread derailment, I'll start a new one.)

[Mongoose87]

i'm sure they have commited crimes they're kobolds.

That's the sort of attitude that'll get Deekin killed one day!

I won't even mention how it reflects IRL.

[Grushvak]

Disarm then, make them agree to certain peace terms, and be on your way.

Trusting migrating kobolds to not bring harm to human settlements and adventurers wherever they next end up sounds like it would be... really irresponsible.

We're working here from the assumption that kobolds = evil, yes. And, after all, isn't that how D&D works?

[Kosjsjach]

(...)
i'm sure they have commited crimes they're kobolds.

This bothers me. :smallmad:

[Grushvak]

Once again, he should confer with the phylactery of faithfulness. He simply takes no actions that would adversely effect his alignment or his standing with Bahamut.
Any other questions?

Yes: what is a phylamajig of faithfulthing?

[EndlessWrath]

Well..it depends.

Alignments aren't as restrictive as people think, and characters can take actions as long as they can justify the reason behind the action is morally correct.

Example: LG paladin is inside a Goblin barracks at night. The goblins are asleep. The paladin knows a few facts:
1) Too many goblins to just duke it out with. Goblins will win.
2) The goblins are a barbaric tribe who do nothing but slaughter women and children.
3) The paladin can (if he/she chose to) coup det grat all of the goblins 1 by 1 and suffer no casualties.
4) In the morning, the tribe of goblins will be sacrificing 30 humans to their god.

So, this way the paladin seems justified in killing these goblins. But he's still murdering people in their sleep without a chance to defend themselves.

Its a question of morality and personal choice and especially how you justify it. Your character will view the world in a specific way. Different from how other people do.

If you know that making these kobolds surrender will end the problem, then you do not have to resort to violence. Just because they're your hated race does not justify killing already surrendered enemies.

If you know as soon as you leave them they'll make new weapons and war more... then your slightly more justified in getting rid of them.. but the way i see it..as soon as kobold leader hit the surrender button, you got screwed.

Do you know if your character is conflicted about this? how much does he hate this race? did they do anything to him? You need to decide for your character how he feels, not "is it within the LG alignment." Alignments are more guidelines..besides everyone's human..unless...you know.. your a dwarf or elf.. :smallamused:

-Wrath

[TheOOB]

Killing a defenseless sentient is an evil act. Doing so would make the paladin lose their powers. The correct course of action is to disarm them and point them to the nearest temple that won't kill them on sight.

[Xzeno]

On the subject of disarming: While this seems ideal - they are now less inclined to hurt people - it has some downsides. A kobold cannot defend itself without a weapon. Thus, disarming and abandoning these kobolds could easily doom them. Kobolds aren't the only monsters in the world and they are far from the strongest.

[EndlessWrath]

Killing a defenseless sentient is an evil act. Doing so would make the paladin lose their powers. The correct course of action is to disarm them and point them to the nearest temple that won't kill them on sight.

2 things.
1)dont they have to be armed to be disarmed?
2) if they're armed they cant exactly be defenseless.

I say "don't accept their surrender?" or " warriors die but women and children live?" or "take them to closest city where they can be kept after without causing more trouble" or shake hands take weapons and leave them be.if they fight later its just one more reason to kill them
-Wrath

[Grushvak]

Bringing them back to town was out of the question, bringing them with us as prisoners carried too much of a risk.

Bringing them back as prisoners, anyway, was a death sentence. No better than killing them on the spot.

It was really, really strange having to take this decision. We ended up doing something else entirely, but I was wondering what people would think of this situation.

[Chrono22]

The phylactery of faithfulness is in the DMG/SRD and exists explicitly to prevent paladins from falling accidentally.
Look it up, it really is the answer to the vast majority of hypothetical alignment conflicts.

[Kylarra]

The phylactery of faithfulness is in the DMG/SRD and exists explicitly to prevent paladins from falling accidentally.
Look it up, it really is the answer to the vast majority of hypothetical alignment conflicts.it's very cheap too (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/WondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness).

[Grushvak]

it's very cheap too (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/WondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness).

I'll have to tell the Paladin about it. Doubt he'll be able to afford it any time before level 4 at least though. Low wealth campaign.

EDIT: We ended up handing over the kobolds to the centaurs who lived in this region, since it was their territory they were profaning. They killed them on the spot.

[Random832]

The phylactery of faithfulness is in the DMG/SRD and exists explicitly to prevent paladins from falling accidentally.
Look it up, it really is the answer to the vast majority of hypothetical alignment conflicts.

It's not the answer; it just forces the DM to be the one to answer it.

Which they already had to do to actually make the call on whether they fall or not if they do it.

[Milskidasith]

On a different note, someone should put together an "Alternate Alignment Grid", with entries like "Chaotic Stupid" and "Anal Good", etc. What are some others?
(If this threatens to become a thread derailment, I'll start a new one.)

Alternative Alignments:

LG becomes Anal Good. Not only must he follow the law, everybody around him must, on pain of death. The good probably just means there is a word about being nice in his code somewhere (that he breaks routinely).

NG becomes Stupid Good. No matter what his party members or even a direct representative of his Deity say, those hellspawn are just peaceful creatures trying to get by and shouldn't be harmed.

CG becomes Anarchic Good. All law and order represses freedom, and it must be destroyed at any cost. Even having a system for dividing loot in the party is too unlawful for this character, because freedom is more important than anything else (including reason.)

LN becomes Lawyerly Lawful: All loopholes in the law will be exploited, and/or all breaking of the law will be punished equally (with unjustified murder) no matter what it was. "Your life is forfeit, seven year old who spit into the sewage drain!"

TN becomes Obssessive Neutral. Even in the middle of battle, the ON character must keep the balance. This will notably never involve removing himself from the equation, but it will frequently involve fighting his "friends" as soon as they start winning a fight.

CN becomes Psychotic. C'thulhu radishalizes green bicycliclically within antimoney trombones.

LE becomes: REALLY MEAN Obsessive Neutral. Pretty much all the lawful's are like Paladins, except as you get further down they offer less justification for why they're so insane. At least with this character, he's honest about it (on his character sheet.)

NE becomes: Bastardly evil. This guy just commits needless acts of cruelty, but not out of nowhere.

CE becomes Stupid Evil. It was a great idea to burn the inn with my party still inside!

[Kylarra]

It's not the answer; it just forces the DM to be the one to answer it.

Which they already had to do to actually make the call on whether they fall or not if they do it.Well as you said, they were gonna have to make the call either way, it just gets announced beforehand rather than after the fact.

[Grushvak]

Well as you said, they were gonna have to make the call either way, it just gets announced beforehand rather than after the fact.

That's an awesme solution to what used to be perfectly subjective call that could completely screw over good roleplayers because of a small difference of perception with the DM.

Was that newin 3.5? I only recently switched over (I'm slow, I know) and I don't remember ever seeing this.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

The first time I played a Paladin, it was in Sunless Citadel.
My friends wanted to help the kobolds, but I would have no part in it.
However the vote was to help, so, I chose to stay behind and guard the keep in case the goblins came around.
While they were gone, I killed them. All of them, in one massive glorious Conanesque battle. I even rolled to kick one into the wall.
When they got back, I grabbed Meepo by his scaly little neck and hucked him over the nearest cliff.


Now, mine was sort of in character. There really is no reason for a Paly to be anal retentive, it generally causes them to fall on their own.
Take the kobolds as your new allies.

[Radiun]

i'm sure they have commited crimes they're kobolds.


Kobolds are all law-abiding creature.
Problem is human-laws aren't worth a tinker's cuss to Kobolds

[remoray]

The problem is, the paladin does not know the kobold's moral character.

The solution is, to devise a test to determine the kobold's moral character.

1) declare the kobolds to be your prisoners

2) disarm them and pile the weapons nearby

3) bind them (ineffectively) with rags, twine, their own shoelaces, etc

4) divest yourself of your arms and armour

5) announce that you are going to "sleep on it" and will decide their fate in the morning.

6) feign sleep

The kobolds now have a nigh-irresistable opportunity to betray you by breaking their bonds, retrieving their weapons and slitting your throat whilst you are (apparantly) asleep.

If they choose to betray you, execute them with a clear conscience.

If they choose to resist temptation, then they are likely to be trustworthy. Upgrade their status from prisoner to indentured servant and put them to work as carriers of loot or something similar.

remoray

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, you've got a number of possible options that fall within LG...however, accepting their surrender, then slaughtering them all is inherently dishonorable, and probably not terribly lawful.

See also, slaughtering a group of sleeping sentients because of race. Just because they are non humans, and might probably kill a bunch of humans is not sufficient reason to kill them all. It might possibly be lawful, but it's certainly not good.

[Khatoblepas]

The Paladin should definitely not kill the kobolds before Detecting Evil, consulting his Phylactery, and using his innate charisma to try and sway the kobolds. It's not just "Kill Kobolds", "Take As Slaves/Servants" or "Leave Alone". That's not thinking like a Paladin.

The Paladin will set aside his weapons, and talk to the kobolds. He will tell them of Bahamut, of all the good things that would come of following the Paladin's advice. He would show forgiveness, trust, and charity, because Good is not vengeful before it is compassionate.

He offers them a chance to better themselves, to rise out of their squalid little holes and become something awe-inspiring. To become as a dragon, rather than remaining in the shadow of everything else. Bahamut is a forgiving god, and is it not better to serve someone who would care about you rather than a god who breeds distrust and destruction out of bitterness? Would it not be better to elevate yourself to the level of dragons, to inspire awe and reverence at your deeds? To make an impact every single day of your life?

So they were born in the ground, lower than dirt. But even coal can be reborn as a diamond.

He will offer them a chance to start anew - to become one of Bahamut's children.

Am I making myself clear here? I thought Paladins were more than just guys who hack up evil. I was under the impression they redeemed people more often. Offering a kobold the chance to be a Dragonborn is something they'd probably snap up in an instant, if not for the acceptance that they will be a dragon, then for becoming something more than scavengers. Teach them responsibility, Paladin. It is your duty to.

[Starbuck_II]

The first time I played a Paladin, it was in Sunless Citadel.
My friends wanted to help the kobolds, but I would have no part in it.
However the vote was to help, so, I chose to stay behind and guard the keep in case the goblins came around.
While they were gone, I killed them. All of them, in one massive glorious Conanesque battle. I even rolled to kick one into the wall.
When they got back, I grabbed Meepo by his scaly little neck and hucked him over the nearest cliff.


Now, mine was sort of in character. There really is no reason for a Paly to be anal retentive, it generally causes them to fall on their own.
Take the kobolds as your new allies.

DM (Kobold): "This is madness. You're a Paladin"
You: "This is Sparta! (punt into well)"
DM (OOC) "Dude, what game are you playing?"



Am I making myself clear here? I thought Paladins were more than just guys who hack up evil. I was under the impression they redeemed people more often. Offering a kobold the chance to be a Dragonborn is something they'd probably snap up in an instant, if not for the acceptance that they will be a dragon, then for becoming something more than scavengers. Teach them responsibility, Paladin. It is your duty to.
No, Pallys have no ability to redeem. Clerics have atonement spell, but Pallys aren't expected by their features to do so.

One should a Cleric, but not a Pally. It would like expecting an Ant to lift your car instead of a Human. A little bit presumptious.

[kamikasei]

The OP makes it sound like a general question but subsequent posts show it to be a specific example from a game where many "well, if this then that, otherwise" questions are answered by the context of the setting, and in ways that may be surprising.

So it seems that in this setting, your race does determine your moral standing (at least if you're a kobold, and/or at least in the eyes of Bahamut and his paladins), and killing people on sight for being of a race that your community doesn't like is standard and viewed as unobjectionable.

...So why the hell did the kobolds surrender?

[Khatoblepas]

No, Pallys have no ability to redeem. Clerics have atonement spell, but Pallys aren't expected by their features to do so.

One should a Cleric, but not a Pally. It would like expecting an Ant to lift your car instead of a Human. A little bit presumptious.

I'm pretty sure there's more to redeeming someone than just casting a spell on them. It's a hard route, but shouldn't people be able to redeem someone without magical assistance? You know, through roleplaying? Someone's resolve being high enough that they inspire people to better themselves? It happens in real life, so I don't see why there should be a particular spell or class feature that redeems someone, and nothing else works. That's kinda... bad.

[SmartAlec]

...So why the hell did the kobolds surrender?

Perhaps because the Paladin asked them to and gave them terms before the fight began? Mine always do, to sentients at least.

In the case of sentient undead, evil outsiders and the like it tends to be more of a 'surrender and your end will be swift and merciful' rather than 'surrender and I'll see to it that you're well-treated', and no, it never works. But it's the principle of the thing. A Paladin lives to set an example, and should believe - at least to begin with - that the example is worth setting.

Oh, on the sleeping goblins: ignore them, rescue the humans and get out of there. Come back later with a larger force when they're all awake. Can't attack defenceless opponents, can't ignore people in trouble. Therefore, only one real choice. If the goblins wake up before you can get everyone to safety, be prepared to fight a suicidal delaying action.

[kamikasei]

Perhaps because the Paladin asked them to and gave them terms before the fight began? Mine always do, to sentients at least.

If the paladin's calling for surrender and offering terms, he should have some idea of what he's going to do if they accept. If his terms outline what the kobolds can expect from him, then he should honor them. If not, then we're still left with the question of why the kobolds would accept his call for them to surrender if they have every reason to think they're just getting a quick death out of it.

In any case, that's not the impression I got from the OP.

[Gamerlord]

I think that he should accept the kobold's surrender, but at a price:

They must surrender all equipment and supplies to him and/or his temple.
They must pledge their allegiance to their new king, Bahumut.
They must also swear to follow you to a temple where they may begin their servitude.

[Boci]

I think that he should accept the kobold's surrender, but at a price:

They must surrender all equipment and supplies to him and/or his temple.
They must pledge their allegiance to their new king, Bahumut.
They must also swear to follow you to a temple where they may begin their servitude.

Not to sure about the second one. Is forcing people to convert at sword point very paladinish? Renoucing their evil diety and going on a pilgramige to a temple of Bahumut I can accept.

[cenghiz]

They must also swear to follow you to a temple where they may begin their servitude.

The high priest smiled at the young acolyte. "Dreams are dreams, young child. Whether they're divine or just your mind playing games with you, it ta...."

He frowned, staring at the horizon, suddenly halting his speech. He exhaled sharply, rubbing at the back of his neck.

With another sigh he turned to the young acolyte, who's now watching the horizon with interest, though unable to see anything. (Older age=More wisdom=better spot checks)

"It is Yori again. He.. ehrm.. seems to have faced some more sentient beings and seems they decided to surrender." He narrowed his eyes, gaze scanning the horizon. "Ogres? It is ogres this time." He rolled his eyes turning to acolyte: "Please inform the quartermaster. Tell him just 'Yori, ogres this time.' He'll know what to do. Bahamut save us..."

The young acolyte rushed forward towards the stairs down the walls of the high and mighty temple, stiffling a chortle.

Note: This post's aim is only to make you smile, not to prove taking them to a temple for servitude is a bad idea. I just thought "God, if I were a high priest of Bahamut, what would I do when a high level paladin brought in 20 ogres along with their ogre-mage chief for servitude." and this came up.

[PhoenixRivers]

I fear that this will spawn an extremely heated debated, but I really want to hear opinions on this regardless of consequences.

A paladin is on an extremely important mission. It involves damsels in distress. He crosses the path of a small troup of kobolds.

Defying all expectations, the kobolds decide to surrender. They're the paladin's sworn enemies, and they're in no position to defend themselves.

What do?

In the case of surrendering foes, tis clearly best to proceed with caution and slay them. It is by this method that assassins will find their way to your midst, by relying on your great compassion for the maligned and weak.

[Philistine]

That's the sort of attitude that'll get Deekin killed one day!

I won't even mention how it reflects IRL.

This doesn't reflect real life in any way, shape or form, because real life doesn't have "Detect Evil" spells, nor does it have entire species of intelligent creatures who are "Usually LE." Unlike RL, the Paladin in this situation can actually determine with certainty which of the kobolds are Bad Guys; killing those is judicial execution rather than slaughtering the helpless, and falls under the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" clause of the Paladin Code of Conduct.

Seriously, don't Paladins get screwed over enough without turning the words "I surrender" into a super-powered automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card for every opponent in the book?

[AtwasAwamps]

EDIT: We ended up handing over the kobolds to the centaurs who lived in this region, since it was their territory they were profaning. They killed them on the spot.

This, I feel, was the appropriate solution. You respect their surrender, you respect the local law. Yes, it got them killed, but you did what you needed to do to ensure the safety of the surrounding land. Presumably you detected evil on them and knew you were delivering evil to death. Grats, you is a pallydin.

The Phylactery of Faith is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Come on! Part of the fun of playing a paladin is never being entirely sure if you will fall when doing what you think is the right thing. If I ever DM'd a game where the paladin wanted that, I would let him have it, and then have it NEVER HELP HIM EVER. (I'd give him the gold back eventually).

[kamikasei]

Unlike RL, the Paladin in this situation can actually determine with certainty which of the kobolds are Bad Guys; killing those is judicial execution rather than slaughtering the helpless

The paladin can determine which of the kobolds are evil-aligned. He can't determine which of them are actually guilty of anything in particular. Being evil is not a capital crime, at least not by default. (And again, if being evil or being a kobold are capital crimes in this setting why would the kobolds surrender?)


Seriously, don't Paladins get screwed over enough without turning the words "I surrender" into a super-powered automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card for every opponent in the book?

Dealing with surrendering foes is a thorny problem. If you're holding yourself to a high moral standard you have to be prepared to deal with it. That doesn't mean DMs should have NPCs surrendering when it makes no in-character sense for them to do so just to mess with the paladin, which is the impression I get as to what happened here.

[SmartAlec]

Trusting migrating kobolds to not bring harm to human settlements and adventurers wherever they next end up sounds like it would be... really irresponsible.

We're working here from the assumption that kobolds = evil, yes. And, after all, isn't that how D&D works?


In the case of surrendering foes, tis clearly best to proceed with caution and slay them. It is by this method that assassins will find their way to your midst, by relying on your great compassion for the maligned and weak.


This doesn't reflect real life in any way, shape or form, because real life doesn't have "Detect Evil" spells, nor does it have entire species of intelligent creatures who are "Usually LE." Unlike RL, the Paladin in this situation can actually determine with certainty which of the kobolds are Bad Guys; killing those is judicial execution rather than slaughtering the helpless, and falls under the "punish those who harm or threaten innocents" clause of the Paladin Code of Conduct.

Seriously, don't Paladins get screwed over enough without turning the words "I surrender" into a super-powered automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card for every opponent in the book?

That offering terms for surrender and trying to negotiate with foes opens up a whole world of problems is all quite true. But that's kind of the point of a code of honor, isn't it? Trying to hold yourself to standards and principles is difficult, insanely so. If it was easy, everyone'd do it. But the whole point of a Paladin is to prove that a being can live by those principles in order to inspire others to do the same, and if you step outside those principles in the name of convenience or expedience, then you undercut the point of being a Paladin.

In this case, I hate to say it, but just assuming that the Kobolds have committed crimes in the past, or will do in the future, is killing out of assumption, and convenience. It's killing to make your life easier. That's a dangerous moral stance to take. They could be Evil, yes; but they could also be cowardly and cautious enough to be too scared to even go near a settlement, and might never harm another sentient being for the rest of their lives. As long as that doubt remains, killing them is out of the question. If you can find something that points to them having done something that deserves the death penalty, then so be it, make it a quick death. If you can prove that they were on their way to do something that would deserve the death penalty, then make it clear that they shouldn't, and that if they do go ahead with it, then you'll catch up with them one day and kill them for it. If you can't prove either, then you're just going to have to sit down and work out some sort of compromise. Hopefully the kobolds will make things easy for you, by rejecting your terms and attempting to fight anyway. But if they don't, then all you can do is do your best to negotiate a solution - like agreeing to be escorted to the local centaurs, that was a good one - and hope they keep to it.

[Kylarra]

The Phylactery of Faith is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Come on! Part of the fun of playing a paladin is never being entirely sure if you will fall when doing what you think is the right thing. If I ever DM'd a game where the paladin wanted that, I would let him have it, and then have it NEVER HELP HIM EVER. (I'd give him the gold back eventually).Do you also give out weapons with enchantments that never work? I'm just curious.

"Here, have a +1 longsword, but it's actually worse than a MW longsword since it doesn't give you a +1 to hit or damage."

"Thank you for buying this wand of cure light wounds, little do you know it actually have 0 charges left"

"Thank you for paying 1k for Nystul's Magical Headband, it doesn't actually do anything, but I'm always happy to shaft you out of your WBL. What would you like to think it does today?"

[Ravens_cry]

Accept their surrender and let them go, showing mercy. But, swear to them on an oath to the gods that if they attack again, he will not be so merciful. Memorize their faces and make a good show of it.
Remind them part of your code is keeping your word.
Inquire if any wish to join you to aid you on your noble quest.

[Philistine]

If they're Evil, then they either have harmed or threatened innocents, or will harm or threaten innocents. That's what Evil means. As such, just because they've surrendered is no reason why the Paladin can't - or shouldn't - get on with the smitin'.

And again, this has no RL application or implication, because the game rules do not represent anything that exists in the real world.

[kamikasei]

"A bad person who has harmed others" and "eligible for judicial execution (your words)" are not the same thing.

And for the nth time, if it's perfectly okay for a paladin to execute a surrendering prisoner because they ping as evil, and an enemy can be assumed to know this and also to know that they would ping as evil (both reasonable assumptions), why would they surrender? It reeks of metagame paladin-screwing.

[Starbuck_II]

"A bad person who has harmed others" and "eligible for judicial execution (your words)" are not the same thing.

And for the nth time, if it's perfectly okay for a paladin to execute a surrendering prisoner because they ping as evil, and an enemy can be assumed to know this and also to know that they would ping as evil (both reasonable assumptions), why would they surrender? It reeks of metagame paladin-screwing.

How would the Kobold know they ping as evil? Not like they have Kobold Pallys in the tribe: association with evil and all.

[CorvidMP]

My Paladin of Kelvmor would likely just hurry them on to their next incarnation and/or eternal judgement death just isn't that big of a deal to him... :smallwink:

Though to be honest this is why i do away with the dnd alignment system when ever i can. I have degree and religous anthropology (if you ask how i wound up cop with that kind of degree i'll answer you simply they actually pay me, and getting in fist fights with bad guys endlessly amuses me almost as much as studying odd ball religous and cultural belief systems).

Most polytheistic and animist cultures and religous beliefs from history and in existance today are so far from the traditional judeo christian set up of the alignment axis of DnD. Nevermind the fact damn near every culture in every DnD world is chock full of cultures that practice a form of greek/roman polytheism that wasn't even practiced all that much by the greeks and romans (who had an ancestor worship thing going on that was way more central). Ugh....

Thankfully the losened use of alingment in 4e has made it easier for me to craft my highly animist worlds drawn on equal parts celtic myth, shinto cosmology, and a dash of Hindu caste system,polytheism, and reincarnation in the dominant empire. Where a paladin of the god of creation who is a loyal and good servant of the empire has no issues delivering a vicious corporal punishment to someone who dared marry outside of caste for example.

[snoopy13a]

Why would the kobalds and the Paladin be inclined to fight in the first place?

If the kobalds do not want to fight and they haven't committed any known crimes than the paladin should go on his way.

[Ravens_cry]

If they're Evil, then they either have harmed or threatened innocents, or will harm or threaten innocents. That's what Evil means. As such, just because they've surrendered is no reason why the Paladin can't - or shouldn't - get on with the smitin'.

And again, this has no RL application or implication, because the game rules do not represent anything that exists in the real world.
While the Kobolds are evil, evil can be redeemed. It's not like they are demons or devils where evil is in their very nature, at least no more then any other mindful creature on this world. A surrender is part of the Law of war, and if I feel they truly surrendering, (roll sense motive) and not just trying to take advantage of my mercy, I accept their surrender, as that would be merciful, which is good, and part of the rites of war, which is lawful. But if they break their oath, I shall not break mine. I shall fall upon them with all the fury of the God (blank) behind me. I am a Gods Blessed Paladin. I am the sword of a higher lord then all chieftains and princes. Do not force me to keep my word.
Lawful Good.
What is mercy without justice, and justice without mercy?

[SmartAlec]

If they're Evil, then they either have harmed or threatened innocents, or will harm or threaten innocents. That's what Evil means. As such, just because they've surrendered is no reason why the Paladin can't - or shouldn't - get on with the smitin'.

And again, this has no RL application or implication, because the game rules do not represent anything that exists in the real world.

I have to say this doesn't fit with my personal understanding of alignment. The way I understood it, you can have an evil person who actually hasn't done anything that deserves death - a nasty, spiteful type to be sure, who believes the world is a dog-eat-dog place, and possibly a remorseless petty criminal, but not a murderer or anything else that comes close. In the same way, you can have good people who are just pleasant, understanding folk who would more than likely aid a good cause but haven't had the opportunity; lawful folk who believe in and respect the laws, but don't actively enforce them; chaotic folk who feel that at the end of the day, the only people you can really rely on are you and yours, but don't make an effort to challenge authority over issues; and neutral folk who just want to go their own way and don't want any trouble.

[kamikasei]

How would the Kobold know they ping as evil? Not like they have Kobold Pallys in the tribe: association with evil and all.

They do have sorcerers, though of course a sorcerer is unlikely to spend a spell known on detect evil. But my point is more that it seems reasonable to assume that the kobolds would know that they can expect to be judged deserving of summary execution, if apparently virtually all kobolds who encounter the local communities get judged that way.

[CorvidMP]

Of course just to muddy the waters further what if Kobolds are incapable of honesty and honor in way us humans understand, i mean THEYAREN'T HUMAN, there reptile brains may not even be able to fathom the idea of loyalty, particularly outside of species and family boundaries.

They just don't comprehend why they should care why it upset the townsfolk that they killed and ate the children that wandered into their den, it was their den, and the kids weren't koblods of thier tribe leaving them in one of two possible categories -1-things we can kill and eat or -2- things we can't kill and eat and therefore fear. So of course they get killed and or eaten (though a particularly smart kobold leader might recognize the posibility of recrimination lump them into category 2 and let them go). Which could make redeeming them about as likely as convincing a wild tiger to go vegan, it may actually be biologically impossible for them to be good and law abiding.

[Ravens_cry]

We can both learn to speak the same language, I would say that is a fair sign our brains connect on a very basic level. It's not like they are mind flayers or other aberrations.

[Diamondeye]

Example: LG paladin is inside a Goblin barracks at night. The goblins are asleep. The paladin knows a few facts:
1) Too many goblins to just duke it out with. Goblins will win.
2) The goblins are a barbaric tribe who do nothing but slaughter women and children.
3) The paladin can (if he/she chose to) coup det grat all of the goblins 1 by 1 and suffer no casualties.
4) In the morning, the tribe of goblins will be sacrificing 30 humans to their god.

So, this way the paladin seems justified in killing these goblins. But he's still murdering people in their sleep without a chance to defend themselves.

The problem with this scenario is that goblins do not necessarily count as people nor does killing them in their sleep necessarily count as murder. The goblins are not helpless or defenseless; they're incompetant. How did the Paladin get in there in the first place? Snuck in? Then their guards are incompetant or were never posted. Killed the guards? Then they're not defenseless so much as their defense is ineffective.

This is like if a platoon of tanks gets knocked out while the crews are sleeping. It's not murder; its war and either they failed to keep one crew ready to fight or that crew failed to keep an adequate watch.

As for goblins being people, that depends a lot on the campaign world and how the goblins are handled. If goblins are basically just ugly green humans who are evil because they don't know any better and aren't very smart then yes, they're people in a moral sense. If, however, they are incapable (as a rule of thumb; outlier individuals can be handled case-by-case) of being anything OTHER than evil or aggressive as a race, then no, they are not morally people because they are incapable of grasping right and wrong.

The question the paladin should ask in this scenario is not "is it moral to slay the goblins?", but rather "is killing the goblins the most efficient method of saving the soon-to-be-sacrificed?" If yes, then he should kill them. If no, then he should pursue whatever course of action will be most effective in saving the victims.

Same thing with the kobolds. There is not enough information to answer. If I had to guess based on what's available I'd say either disarm them and send them on their way or re-arm them and agree to release them if they fight whatever I'm going to fight.

[PhoenixRivers]

In this case, I hate to say it, but just assuming that the Kobolds have committed crimes in the past, or will do in the future, is killing out of assumption, and convenience. It's killing to make your life easier. That's a dangerous moral stance to take. They could be Evil, yes; but they could also be cowardly and cautious enough to be too scared to even go near a settlement, and might never harm another sentient being for the rest of their lives. As long as that doubt remains, killing them is out of the question. If you can find something that points to them having done something that deserves the death penalty, then so be it, make it a quick death. If you can prove that they were on their way to do something that would deserve the death penalty, then make it clear that they shouldn't, and that if they do go ahead with it, then you'll catch up with them one day and kill them for it. If you can't prove either, then you're just going to have to sit down and work out some sort of compromise. Hopefully the kobolds will make things easy for you, by rejecting your terms and attempting to fight anyway. But if they don't, then all you can do is do your best to negotiate a solution - like agreeing to be escorted to the local centaurs, that was a good one - and hope they keep to it.

Oh, I'm just getting started...

In the event you encounter evil foes, who then surrender before you, before you may slay them, tis best to consider slaying them anyway. They are most likely intending escape or harm to you in your sleep, and should thus be destroyed.

When encountering farmers in your adventures, tis best to slay. What better a form for an enemy wizard to take than one so humble as to escape notice.

Upon meeting a frail blind man, it's vital to proceed with extreme caution. Many seek to deceive you, in order to gauge your strengths and return with an armed party. Indeed, the wisest course is likely to slay them.

The list goes on, but suffice it to say, it is nearly always prudent, wise, and good to slay those you encounter.

[Kish]

Trusting migrating kobolds to not bring harm to human settlements and adventurers wherever they next end up sounds like it would be... really irresponsible.

We're working here from the assumption that kobolds = evil, yes. And, after all, isn't that how D&D works?
This is 4ed, right?

Then no. Not even a little. Not unless every single elf and eladrin in the campaign world is good. Listed alignments are tendencies, not mandates.

In 3.xed, it's a little muddier, but still, no, not unless every single elf in the world is Chaotic Good. Kobolds are Usually Lawful Evil, I believe, so somewhere between 50% and 99% of the species are lawful evil. They're certainly not Always anything.

[Radiun]

Of course just to muddy the waters further what if Kobolds are incapable of honesty and honor in way us humans understand, i mean THEYAREN'T HUMAN, there reptile brains may not even be able to fathom the idea of loyalty, particularly outside of species and family boundaries.

You're coming off awfully high and mighty.

Especially considering Kobolds are "usually LE", and therefore can be expected to keep their word and respect laws, their own laws to be sure, but as a race, they are more honourable and loyal than humans, who are usually N.



They just don't comprehend why they should care why it upset the townsfolk that they killed and ate the children that wandered into their den, it was their den, and the kids weren't koblods of thier tribe leaving them in one of two possible categories -1-things we can kill and eat or -2- things we can't kill and eat and therefore fear. So of course they get killed and or eaten (though a particularly smart kobold leader might recognize the posibility of recrimination lump them into category 2 and let them go). Which could make redeeming them about as likely as convincing a wild tiger to go vegan, it may actually be biologically impossible for them to be good and law abiding.

Or, they just don't comprehend why the hairless monkey freaks keep intruding on their orderly society, especially considering Kobolds are an ancient, civilized, and unified people (unless there have been Kobold on Kobold wars I'm unaware of) whereas the monkey upstarts kill each other with alarming regularity and generate trash and refuse more rapidly than seems possible. Heck, the monkey people are so ashamed of themselves that they wear other creature's furs. they're truly madmen and psychopaths

[SmartAlec]

The problem with this scenario is that goblins do not necessarily count as people

My own personal litmus test for this sort of thing is, 'do they have a soul'? (Thus, evil undead and evil outsiders are fair game.)


This is like if a platoon of tanks gets knocked out while the crews are sleeping. It's not murder; its war and either they failed to keep one crew ready to fight or that crew failed to keep an adequate watch.

I think the codes of behaviour a Paladin has to keep to apply even in times of war. Possibly they're even stricter than usual, in fact, as war is exactly the kind of environment in which a man needs to keep to a personal code to avoid barbarism disgused as patriotism or prudence. If this means Paladins don't make particularly effective soldiers, then so be it.

Come to think of it, I don't think that there is ever a situation in which a Paladin's code ceases to apply. If there is, then the code is just a lie told in flowery language.


The list goes on, but suffice it to say, it is nearly always prudent, wise, and good to slay those you encounter.

I'm sure that it might well be prudent, it might even be wise and depending on the setting or the DM it could even be considered 'good', but I don't think these things could ever be considered (for lack of a better word) Paladinesque.

[ondonaflash]

So, this way the paladin seems justified in killing these goblins. But he's still murdering people in their sleep without a chance to defend themselves.

Bah! That's not wrong, that's tactically sound.

[CorvidMP]

We can both learn to speak the same language, I would say that is a fair sign our brains connect on a very basic level. It's not like they are mind flayers or other aberrations.

They're reptiles, and they decendants of inherently magical semi extra dimensional reptiles at that. Never mind the fact that there are a metirc ton of humans currently existing in your own reality have world views so far different than you own have work views so massively different than your own that it might make your brain leak out your ears to try and wrap your head around them, and world views exist inside the xact same brain structure (australian aborigines would be an excellent example modern example, or the ancient norse for a historical example).

And high an mighty? I didn't say that was the way it was for sure, I was just positing a possibly for the sake of arguement :P the basic idea of mental weirdness is still possible even if they're all rigidly lawful critters, even more so really. Cause what does a promise to those scaless monkey freaks really mean anyway? I mean its not even of dragon blood let alone a tribe member, and my loyalty is solely to tribe members i share blood with ect.

[Ravens_cry]

Bah! That's not wrong, that's tactically sound.
It might also be tactically sound to kill babies of some Viking analogue culture because they will most likely grow up into big Viking analogue marauders who will attack the town and it will take far less effort if you do it now, but it would still be morally reprehensible.

[PhoenixRivers]

I'm sure that it might well be prudent, it might even be wise and depending on the setting or the DM it could even be considered 'good', but I don't think these things could ever be considered (for lack of a better word) Paladinesque.

Of course it is! It's only good and right for the followers of virtue and right to strive to ensure that they not fall. After all, should they fall, it would mean less good and right in the world.

To this end, in a situation where saving the innocent would be at great risk to the holy warrior's life, he should be wary. Even if it were not a trap, which is entirely possible, one cannot discount the impact of trading an inept merchant's life for the life of a powerful follower of good. In such situations, the discerning warrior of light would stay his hand, and be seen as more worthy to his god, who values the wise management of his servants.

[Radiun]

And high an mighty? I didn't say that was the way it was for sure I was just positing a possibly for the sake of arguement :P
I said that's the way you're coming off, not the way you are.
Don't let the display picture trick you, I'm in no way upset :-P

But really, could I give up the chance to point out that human laws and civilizations are change much more frequently than other civilizations?
Depending on your setting, humans are the new comers. Kobolds were born alongside dragons, and haven't changed much in their zealaous worship of the big dragons.
Humans... have more gods than you can shake a stick at, for multitudes of ideals.
Kobolds have a few, but all are of the same ideal: Draconic

[infinitypanda]

Possibly they're even stricter than usual, in fact, as war is exactly the kind of environment in which a man needs to keep to a personal code to avoid barbarism disguised as patriotism or prudence.

Isn't that what most wars are?

[Ravens_cry]

They're reptiles, and they decendants of inherently magical semi extra dimensional reptiles at that. Never mind the fact that there are a metirc ton of humans currently existing in your own reality have world views so far different than you own have work views so massively different than your own that it might make your brain leak out your ears to try and wrap your head around them, and world views exist inside the xact same brain structure (australian aborigines would be an excellent example modern example, or the ancient norse for a historical example).
You just proved my own point. Even fellow humans can be hard to understand, but it is still wrong to kill them just because of this. Besides, they, the Kobolds, surrendered to me. They must have some form understanding of personhood outside the clan to take such a step.

[CorvidMP]

no worries Raidun :) Your point is well made, but my basic idea wasn't to nit pick lore :P I homebrew all my own worlds so I've allways been sketchy on the offical line.

What i was trying to point out was its a major fallacy to assume other cultures let alone other species think like you do.

[SmartAlec]

Isn't that what most wars are?

Often, yes. And that's why Paladins don't make good soldiers, as I said.


Of course it is! It's only good and right for the followers of virtue and right to strive to ensure that they not fall. After all, should they fall, it would mean less good and right in the world.

Dying, but dying having kept to the code, isn't necessarily a bad thing. It could even increase the net amount of good in the world, if you need to be numerical about it; one can't underestimate the effect of examples and martyrs. In any case, it comes with the territory; a moral code as tight as most Paladin's codes will get you killed eventually. I think a key point for playing a Paladin is to be ok with that.

[CorvidMP]

Isn't that what most wars are?

Well lets not forget that before christianity became a major force in europe the were a lot cultures, the norse being an exelent example, that were perfect happy to make war with no better pretense thatn to take stuff from people to weak to defend it or to avenge a percieved betrayal or territorial encroachment.
Not that christianity started all that excuse for war stuff either, rome was particuarly bad about this sort of thing later in their history. "Civlizing" already civilized people kinda became thier mo for a bit.

[Grushvak]

Clearing up a few points: it's 3.5, and I believe we forgot to Detect Evil. Ironically enough, since we're always detecting evil like madmen.

Also, I've created a monster with this thread.

[Leliel]

I fear that this will spawn an extremely heated debated, but I really want to hear opinions on this regardless of consequences.

A paladin is on an extremely important mission. It involves damsels in distress. He crosses the path of a small troup of kobolds.

Defying all expectations, the kobolds decide to surrender. They're the paladin's sworn enemies, and they're in no position to defend themselves.

What do?

There isn't a dilemma.

The lawful and good thing to do is accept their surrender, then bring them to the local church to confess their sins.

If they try to renege, then execute them.

[Ravens_cry]

Clearing up a few points: it's 3.5, and I believe we forgot to Detect Evil. Ironically enough, since we're always detecting evil like madmen.

Also, I've created a monster with this thread.
I think you knew that when you started it.
Even if they are evil, I, as a paladin, would still accept an honest surrender. I put those points in sense motive for a reason. And if I am high enough level, zone of truth.
And I will make sure they know that will keep my word as well.

[CorvidMP]

Also, I've created a monster with this thread.

Yeah asking complex moral questions involving alignments allways does that, its better than dead people and lightning for that, but not nearly as good as comparing 4e and 3.5, that crap will awaken cthulu in sunken ryleh.

[SurlySeraph]

Khatoblepas had a great post on the second post that's basically my perspective on this. Urge the kobolds to convert to Bahamut/good in general, then take them with you on the quest. If they're evil, at least you'll have them fighting evil, and with time may be able to fully redeem them. If they're non-evil, they're helping you out. Either way, you get a chance at redeeming them, a bit of backup for combat, and don't do anything seriously morally questionable like killing people who have surrendered.

[PhoenixRivers]

Dying, but dying having kept to the code, isn't necessarily a bad thing. It could even increase the net amount of good in the world, if you need to be numerical about it; one can't underestimate the effect of examples and martyrs. In any case, it comes with the territory; a moral code as tight as most Paladin's codes will get you killed eventually. I think a key point for playing a Paladin is to be ok with that.

At this point, I think it needs to be stressed that I garner much of my inspiration for this argument from Hackmaster, that lovely derivitive game, based on a spoof of D&D. More specifically, the code of the Knight-Errant, a pretty boy paladin type, with a major exception. Any act can be allowed, as long as it can be justified to be in the interest of the greater good.

Even when he has wronged, he can escape punishment through apology. In such cases, the wronged party must make a Save vs. Apology or forgive the transgression, wiping its blemish clean. It's like teflon, only better.

[Mike_G]

Well..it depends.


2) The goblins are a barbaric tribe who do nothing but slaughter women and children.


So long as the paladin isn't a woman or child, he should be safe then.

[Starbuck_II]

So long as the paladin isn't a woman or child, he should be safe then.

But we are all child[ren] of someone.

[ondonaflash]

No, Pallys have no ability to redeem. Clerics have atonement spell, but Pallys aren't expected by their features to do so.

One should a Cleric, but not a Pally. It would like expecting an Ant to lift your car instead of a Human. A little bit presumptious.

In my campaign I removed the burden of judgement from the Paladins' heads and decided that the Paladins aren't the judges, they are the punishers. They execute a pre-determined verdict.

[root9125]

Bah! That's not wrong, that's tactically sound.

The two are not, and have never been, mutually exclusive.

At least not in my campaigns.

[xPANCAKEx]

pretty sure its been suggested - but offer them a chance to redeam their past deeds with future actions (ie: ask them to join you)

[Barbarian MD]

I'll be honest: I only read half the thread. So if someone has already pointed this out, my apologies.

The most important thing to remember is: you don't have to accept surrender.

They do this all the time in the movies. Declare that you don't accept, tell them to pick up their weapon, and fight. They're not defenseless.

And second-most-important, there is a difference between an execution following a trial, and killing a defenseless creature who has surrendered. If a prisoner of war surrenders, you conduct a trial, find them guilty of murder or some equally-heinous crime, and then render judgement (execution).


In the situation with a bunch of sleeping kobolds, it is conceivable that you could knock them unconscious (instead of coup de grace), tie them all up, and then conduct a trial of sorts.

[Starbuck_II]

I'll be honest: I only read half the thread. So if someone has already pointed this out, my apologies.

The most important thing to remember is: you don't have to accept surrender.

They do this all the time in the movies. Declare that you don't accept, tell them to pick up their weapon, and fight. They're not defenseless.

No one did mention this.
Good plan.

[Tavar]

I'll be honest: I only read half the thread. So if someone has already pointed this out, my apologies.

The most important thing to remember is: you don't have to accept surrender.

They do this all the time in the movies. Declare that you don't accept, tell them to pick up their weapon, and fight. They're not defenseless.


No, you're just generating an excuse to kill them. You're still in the wrong.

[Barbarian MD]

I suppose it's important to know if they initiated a fight, or if they just saw a party of adventurers and said, "Please don't hurt us."

If they initiated a fight, then they have committed a crime. You don't have to accept their surrender. If they're dumb enough to pick up their weapon, they're fair game.

If you do accept their surrender, than my second point still stands--they can be judged and executed for their crimes.

[Random832]

If there was a fight, you also have to consider the question of who won initiative. If _you_ won initiative, then too bad for you, they were just defending themselves.

[SurlySeraph]

I suppose it's important to know if they initiated a fight, or if they just saw a party of adventurers and said, "Please don't hurt us."


He crosses the path of a small troup of kobolds.

Defying all expectations, the kobolds decide to surrender.

It's clearly the latter.

[Barbarian MD]

Initiative is a mechanic. D&D has an initiative order within a round, but conceptually, everything is happening at the same time during a round. So just because your sword hit before theirs did, it doesn't mean they weren't actively swinging it at the time.

EDIT: To Surly.
Is it? Surrendering seems to imply (to me at least) that a fight took place. I suppose it's up to the OP to tell us.

If the kobolds didn't initiate any kind of evil act, then there is absolutely no evidence of a crime to convict them of. Detect evil would certainly tell you what their nature is, but it's not proof of a crime. If that's the case, I would say that a paladin (and any lawful good character, for that matter), would be duty-bound to let them walk.

(EDIT: If they're coming home from a raid, and they have human heads on pikes, or bloody swords, or something, than detaining them would be in order, followed by an investigation and punishment.)

[Random832]

Initiative is a mechanic. D&D has an initiative order within a round, but conceptually, everything is happening at the same time during a round. So just because your sword hit before theirs did, it doesn't mean they weren't actively swinging it at the time.

Unfortunately for your argument, flat-footed is another D&D mechanic.

And if you got a surprise round on them, forget it.

My point is that there is ALWAYS an answer to the question of who started the fight, and it is NOT always the 'monsters'.

[Barbarian MD]

I would argue that a paladin isn't entitled to a surprise round.

(Now if they've got human heads on pikes, that's a different story...)

[horseboy]

Oh, I'm just getting started...

In the event you encounter evil foes, who then surrender before you, before you may slay them, tis best to consider slaying them anyway. They are most likely intending escape or harm to you in your sleep, and should thus be destroyed.

When encountering farmers in your adventures, tis best to slay. What better a form for an enemy wizard to take than one so humble as to escape notice.

Upon meeting a frail blind man, it's vital to proceed with extreme caution. Many seek to deceive you, in order to gauge your strengths and return with an armed party. Indeed, the wisest course is likely to slay them.

The list goes on, but suffice it to say, it is nearly always prudent, wise, and good to slay those you encounter.Sounds to me like you've played 2nd edition.
It might also be tactically sound to kill babies of some Viking analogue culture because they will most likely grow up into big Viking analogue marauders who will attack the town and it will take far less effort if you do it now, but it would still be morally reprehensible.That depends on how you kill them. Targeting babies is bad, babies as collateral damage, not nearly so.

But no, you can't really give the kobolds a trial. After all, they're not part of your society so your laws do not apply to them. Unless you know which culture they've affected then no one (including a temple) holds jurisdiction over them.

Your best bet would be to separate out the Evil members, smite them, then maybe give the remainders some spare rations and send them on their way. (Pretty much like that boardroom scene in Dogma) After all you don't get upgraded from evil to Evil just because you cheated on your taxes and you're not going to have any statical probability of altering a sociopath's behavior without modern pharmaceuticals or D&D's equivalent, magic.

[SmartAlec]

I would argue that a paladin isn't entitled to a surprise round.

Could always use the surprise round to ask them to surrender.

[PhoenixRivers]

In all seriousness, Paladins are absolutely entitled to a surprise round. Were I in their shoes, I'd likely use it to ready an action, in case of the first sign of aggression.

Good. Not. Stupid.

[horseboy]

Yes, Plus Good, not Doormat.

[Solaris]

The first time I played a Paladin, it was in Sunless Citadel.
My friends wanted to help the kobolds, but I would have no part in it.
However the vote was to help, so, I chose to stay behind and guard the keep in case the goblins came around.
While they were gone, I killed them. All of them, in one massive glorious Conanesque battle. I even rolled to kick one into the wall.
When they got back, I grabbed Meepo by his scaly little neck and hucked him over the nearest cliff.


Now, mine was sort of in character. There really is no reason for a Paly to be anal retentive, it generally causes them to fall on their own.
Take the kobolds as your new allies.

Excellent! Good for the Good God!


The Paladin should definitely not kill the kobolds before Detecting Evil, consulting his Phylactery, and using his innate charisma to try and sway the kobolds. It's not just "Kill Kobolds", "Take As Slaves/Servants" or "Leave Alone". That's not thinking like a Paladin.

The Paladin will set aside his weapons, and talk to the kobolds. He will tell them of Bahamut, of all the good things that would come of following the Paladin's advice. He would show forgiveness, trust, and charity, because Good is not vengeful before it is compassionate.

He offers them a chance to better themselves, to rise out of their squalid little holes and become something awe-inspiring. To become as a dragon, rather than remaining in the shadow of everything else. Bahamut is a forgiving god, and is it not better to serve someone who would care about you rather than a god who breeds distrust and destruction out of bitterness? Would it not be better to elevate yourself to the level of dragons, to inspire awe and reverence at your deeds? To make an impact every single day of your life?

So they were born in the ground, lower than dirt. But even coal can be reborn as a diamond.

He will offer them a chance to start anew - to become one of Bahamut's children.

Am I making myself clear here? I thought Paladins were more than just guys who hack up evil. I was under the impression they redeemed people more often. Offering a kobold the chance to be a Dragonborn is something they'd probably snap up in an instant, if not for the acceptance that they will be a dragon, then for becoming something more than scavengers. Teach them responsibility, Paladin. It is your duty to.

What? No, blasphemy! Heretic! Moose, we need your Conaladin over here because this guy's spinning lies and whispering falsehoods. We need to burn him to purify the soul.

[Jothki]

If the paladin did something wrong, it was when he swore to oppose all of koboldom regardless of the circumstances, not right now. Since there is no simple way that the cause of good can be immediately advanced by leaving them alive, he should abide by his oath and slaughter them.

[Xzeno]

The problem is, the paladin does not know the kobold's moral character.

The solution is, to devise a test to determine the kobold's moral character.[...]

If they choose to betray you, execute them with a clear conscience.

If they choose to resist temptation, then they are likely to be trustworthy. Upgrade their status from prisoner to indentured servant and put them to work as carriers of loot or something similar.

To know how to deal with your enemies, you must know how they think. A kobold is not in a position to take risks such as not killing its captors. The kobold has been captured by a creature that opposes it both alignment-wise and naturally. If the kobold tries to flee, it could be killed the next day by the very same foe. If it stays, it could be killed as easily as not. In such a case, would killing - even killing a paladin - be evil? Whether or not this kobold is naturally evil doesn't matter: It is desperate creature in an equally desperate situation. What would you do?

[chiasaur11]

To know how to deal with your enemies, you must know how they think. A kolbold is not in a position to take risks such as not killing its captors. The kolbold has been captured by a creature that opposes it both alignment-wise and naturally. If the kolbold tries to flee, it could be killed the next day by the very same foe. If it stays, it could be killed as easily as not. In such a case, would killing - even killing a paladin - be evil? Whether or not this kolbold is naturally evil doesn't matter: It is desperate creature in an equally desperate situation. What would you do?

It is evil even when just grabbing your gear and booking it would get the job done equally well. The paladin has no real reason to go looking for them specifically, and if they head in the opposite direction, they're gone.

[Tiki Snakes]

Few points; Generally Kobolds will serve any Dragon that can stand having them fawning all over the place and getting all excited about getting to hang out. This includes Good Dragons as well as Evil.

They are technically Evil, but really are more strongly lawful, and take very good care of their own.

I would personally say that simply bringing them into the whole Bahamut thing would indeed be the way to go. Make them swear to serve you for a year and a day or so, as Acolytes. The religion is appropriately Draconic in nature, so I would expect the little fellows to soon embrace it (and probably quickly become hilariously, annoyingly excited about the whole thing, expecially if they aren't all killed off days later in the first combat encounter the paladin stumbles into.)

As for general 'but they're Kobolds!' Paranoia, that is what sense motive is for, whilst they are swearing to your terms.

Note - They should be made to do simple duties and spend a lot of time watching your example, maybe lifting and carrying or fortifying your campsites rather than serving as volunteer trapspringing devices or being forced to fight for you, obviously.

[Xzeno]

It is evil even when just grabbing your gear and booking it would get the job done equally well. The paladin has no real reason to go looking for them specifically, and if they head in the opposite direction, they're gone.

But the paladin may go on to kill their friends or family. Besides, they could take the paladin's stuff, which could be vital to their survival.

[Kuma]

...When they got back, I grabbed Meepo by his scaly little neck and hucked him over the nearest cliff.


NOOO! not Meepo! *cries* he was my favorite pet kobold.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, Plus Good, not Doormat.
But. Still. Good. If they offer a surrender, an honest surrender, there is a mechanic to know if someone's lying or not, I let them go on their way, unless they have shown obvious signs of having committed an atrocity, pikes on heads and such. Only then, and only then would I deny a surrender. They have forfeited that right with the lives they took.
If they have shown signs of recent theft, such as a pig with a brand from a near by town, I would accept the surrender and herd them back to the nearest village or farm to return it. Then I let turn them over to the justice of the people of that town or farm.

[Diamondeye]

I think the codes of behaviour a Paladin has to keep to apply even in times of war. Possibly they're even stricter than usual, in fact, as war is exactly the kind of environment in which a man needs to keep to a personal code to avoid barbarism disgused as patriotism or prudence. If this means Paladins don't make particularly effective soldiers, then so be it.

Come to think of it, I don't think that there is ever a situation in which a Paladin's code ceases to apply. If there is, then the code is just a lie told in flowery language.

While that's true, the fact of the matter is that killing an enemy in war, even one who has no idea you are there, is not "murder". Murder is unlawful killing, and its lawful to kill enemies in war.

We put strictures called the "law of war" on this IRL, but such laws of war may not exist in the paladin's world or might be very different.

[Dixieboy]

But. Still. Good. If they offer a surrender, an honest surrender, there is a mechanic to know if someone's lying or not, I let them go on their way, unless they have shown obvious signs of having committed an atrocity, pikes on heads and such. Only then, and only then would I deny a surrender. They have forfeited that right with the lives they took.
If they have shown signs of recent theft, such as a pig with a brand from a near by town, I would accept the surrender and herd them back to the nearest village or farm to return it. Then I let turn them over to the justice of the people of that town or farm.

What if that meant lynching? :smallredface:

[Ravens_cry]

What if that meant lynching? :smallredface:
If I see signs that that is how it will turn out, I will do my best to prevent it, putting the Kobolds under my own protection if necessary. They may be thieves, but they don't deserve death. If that means I got me a herd of Kobolds on my hands so be it. If that means I must part with some gold, so also be it.
I am the Sword of Justice, and the Hand of Mercy. These crimes do not deserve death, especially with the items returned.

[Golden-Esque]

I fear that this will spawn an extremely heated debated, but I really want to hear opinions on this regardless of consequences.

A paladin is on an extremely important mission. It involves damsels in distress. He crosses the path of a small troup of kobolds.

Defying all expectations, the kobolds decide to surrender. They're the paladin's sworn enemies, and they're in no position to defend themselves.

What do?

I am assuming your Paladin is Lawful Good (other Variants do exist, after all).

First thing to consider; does the Paladin's faith abhor Kolbolds? If kolbolds are the favored enemy of the Paladin's god, he or she may have taken their oath to "destroy the god's enemies."

Also, did the kolbolds attack first, or did the paladins' party ambush them, assuming they'd wish to fight. I am assuming that the paladin ran into said kolbolds, and they immediately surrended.

Seeing as the Paladin was apparently not attacked, the kolbolds were in no position to defend themselves, and they laid down their arms, I would consider it an Evil attack to kill the kolbolds, even if they were the Paladin's sword enemy. Good creatures value life above all else, and no truly Good being takes life without just cause. Also, it could be considered against the unspoken laws of war to harm civilians.

In short, in my personal opinion (which is all alignment tends to come down to; opinion), it would be a grave infringement on any Good Paladin's Code of Conduct to kill those Kolbolds.

If the Paladin is Chaotic Neutral; I'd say probably not, especially if their God's mortal enemy is the kolbold's God.

If the Paladin is Lawful Neutral; I'd say probably, referencing what I said early about the unspoken laws of war (such as respecting parleys).

If the Paladin is Evil, probably not, though a Lawful Deity may (doubtedly) have an issue with it.

[Avilan the Grey]

What troubles me here with a lot of comments is the "If they ping as evil then kill them" thing. If it is not okay to do that to random NPCs in cities ("What did you do with the barmaid?" "Oh she pinged as evil, so I smited her") why is it ok to do it anywhere else?

Of course from a technical standpoint it's "Who's the DM and how do he run the world". If in his world all lizardlikes are soulless and coldblooded killers that eat human babies, then sure, killing surrendering foes might be a valid idea. Although to me that would indicate "Evil" rather than "evil", meaning the kobolds would have to be some kind of actual demons. To me, killing every evil foe you meet, regarding of circumstance, would be grounds for Falling, while killing Evil foes (like demons) is not, since they are unable to redeem, ever.

[Ravens_cry]

That epitomizes Lawful Stupid. Killing it because it Pings.:smallfurious:

[Avilan the Grey]

That epitomizes Lawful Stupid. Killing it because it Pings.:smallfurious:

Exactly. And killing surrendering foes without pinging is even worse, obviously. No matter what race they belong to (A complicated plot might contain twists like the Neutral "monster" race who's land have been invaded and now wage a guerrilla warfare towards the human or Elf population. Of course the humans giving the adventure party their quest neglects to to tell that little fact when complaining about the ruthless army of evil beings harassing the town).

[Starbuck_II]

Of course from a technical standpoint it's "Who's the DM and how do he run the world". If in his world all lizardlikes are soulless and coldblooded killers that eat human babies, then sure, killing surrendering foes might be a valid idea. Although to me that would indicate "Evil" rather than "evil", meaning the kobolds would have to be some kind of actual demons. To me, killing every evil foe you meet, regarding of circumstance, would be grounds for Falling, while killing Evil foes (like demons) is not, since they are unable to redeem, ever.

False, WotC had a redeemed Succebus Paladin. Yes, contemplate that. Demon who was redeemed.

[Ravens_cry]

False, WotC had a redeemed Succebus Paladin. Yes, contemplate that. Demon who was redeemed.
I am pretty sure magic was involved. More specifically, the cursed item, Helm of Opposite Alignment. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment)
So they weren't so much redeemed as mind raped into being good.

[chiasaur11]

Of course, as with all Paladin dilemmas, simply asking "What would Captain Carrot do?" is a good starting place. (Just remember diplomacy is one of your class skills for a reason).

[Tavar]

I am pretty sure magic was involved. More specifically, the cursed item, Helm of Opposite Alignment. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#helmofOppositeAlignment)
So they weren't so much redeemed as mind raped into being good.
Nope, Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) truly wanted to be redeemed, and thus was.

[horseboy]

But. Still. Good. If they offer a surrender, an honest surrender, there is a mechanic to know if someone's lying or not, And unfortunately the paladin lacks enough character resources to be able to reliably tell if someone is lying, plus have enough knowledge about kobolds (Cross classed after all) and the scriptures to make an educated decision. Let alone being able to swim in his shinny plate, set his companion's broken bone (not that that ever happens in D&D), and seeing the little buggers coming. As far as many paladin's would know they're deceitful, cruel, bastards that 7 out of the 10 are pinging Evil.


let them go on their way, unless they have shown obvious signs of having committed an atrocity, pikes on heads and such. Only then, and only then would I deny a surrender. They have forfeited that right with the lives they took.They're pinging Evil, you don't ping Evil for not tipping. Asking me to believe that a clearly Evil being is being "honest" without clear evident that they're actually being honest, like laying down their weapons immediately seeing me- pfft and even then I'm going to still not believe them, there's going to have to be a whole lot of groveling and boot licking. If you want to be a doormat then that's fine, but realize you're being a doormat because you've chosen to be a doormat, not because you're good.

[SmartAlec]

Nope, Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) truly wanted to be redeemed, and thus was.

According to this, she could never become comfortably good no matter how much she wanted to be, because she was evil by nature, and would eventually lapse back into evil if she stopped fighting it. That's not actually redemption - the word 'redemption' in the theological sense means being freed from the burden of sin, and that was something she couldn't achieve.

If anything, this article makes it clear that fiends cannot be truly redeemed, no matter how hard they try.

[quiet1mi]

Reading over the Paladin again... they do not get their power from a deity... they are the alignment LAWFUL GOOD that is where their power comes from...

Ask yourself, What would be the good thing to do... You favor nonviolence over violence.

How do you accomplish this... the Lawful way... be consistent, be honorable, keep your word...

End result... they have surrendered... bind their hands, take/sunder their weapons... their life is your responsibility. Lead by Example... you do not need to preach your ideals merely exemplify them.

[horseboy]

What troubles me here with a lot of comments is the "If they ping as evil then kill them" thing. If it is not okay to do that to random NPCs in cities ("What did you do with the barmaid?" "Oh she pinged as evil, so I smited her") why is it ok to do it anywhere else?
Because there's laws inside of city walls. Outside there's not. No jurisdiction. And two yeah, if the barmaid pings Evil I'm leaving to grab the watch. You've got someone pinging Evil in a prime poisoning/diseasing positions. Just like you can't work in retail with theft on your record, you ping evil you don't need to be a barmaid. Letting Evil people run around not under supervision is every bit as socially irresponsible as not monitoring civilians who own howitzers.

[SmartAlec]

Because there's laws inside of city walls. Outside there's not. No jurisdiction.

Granted, there may be no law and order out there, but I always thought one of the reasons that Paladins exist is to bring some law and order to the places that don't have any. Lead by example, and all that.

[Tavar]

According to this, she could never become comfortably good no matter how much she wanted to be, because she was evil by nature, and would eventually lapse back into evil if she stopped fighting it. That's not actually redemption - the word 'redemption' in the theological sense means being freed from the burden of sin, and that was something she couldn't achieve.

If anything, this article makes it clear that fiends cannot be truly redeemed, no matter how hard they try.

No, they don't. Read the section about making her a villain again: it says that if you really want to use her as a villain, here's how she would look, not that she obviously would.

[SmartAlec]

No, they don't. Read the section about making her a villain again: it says that if you really want to use her as a villain, here's how she would look, not that she obviously would.

No, this is in the introductory blurb for the character as a paladin.


Eludecia knows that she can never purge herself completely of her evil nature without magical aid, but for now, she shuns such help because she is determined to "make it on her own." Thus, she must fight each and every day to avoid slipping back into her evil ways.

Bolding for emphasis.

[horseboy]

Granted, there may be no law and order out there, but I always thought one of the reasons that Paladins exist is to bring some law and order to the places that don't have any. Lead by example, and all that.

Except that they hold no jurisdiction out there. That's one of the chief problems with the mix-and-match nature of the alignment system's post modern westernized view of "good" and the mid-evil authoritarian monarchy setting. For pally's you really need to pick one or the other.

[PhoenixRivers]

Let's compare these 2 shopkeepers:

Shopkeeper 1: Ned


Ned has never been what one would call a 'pious man'. He works at a small bakery off of the farmer's square. He's seen people come and go for years, make their fortunes, and leave town. Leaving's been his dream for years. He hates this town. Everything about it. The dirt farmers that come in to sell their crops. He hears them trying to extort money from the store's owner, and loathes their greed. He loathes the clergy, with their promises to uplift the worthy. The worthy are never those that toil from day to day, keeping the town alive. He especially loathes the travellers. Drifters, strangers, they come in, intent on gaining the town's hard earned money, either through swindle or through sword.

Now, Ned's no fool, nor is he violent. But he has a game. Every traveller, he tries to provision with the oldest foods, the ones that go bad first. He secretly hopes that it will mean that one less traveller is coming back to steal money from this town that could elevate it above the hovel that it is, or at least, could pay for his ticket to the city.

Shopkeeper 2: Arnold

Arnold runs the meat market near Ned's bakery off the farmer's square. Arnold, also, is not an upstanding citizen, but he does keep up appearances. He offers fair prices to the farmers who come in to sell livestock. He provides quality meats, salted, cured, top notch, at reasonable prices.

He also harbors an alley entrance to the Domino gang, a ruthless band of extortionists, murderers, and assassins. His market launders blood money, and occasionally, one of the Domino's 'contracts' ends up in the meat.

Why? Oh, the money's good, and business never closes shop when you'ree a front... But Arnold likes what he does. He likes who he deals with. He even goes so far as to cheerfully inquire of travellers about their missions, to give the Domino gang's contacts a bit of heads up.

Both of these people ping as evil. The first harbors a lifestyle of small evil acts with ill intent towards those he deals with. The second? Much more serious.

Both appear exactly the same under a paladins detect ray. Does Ned deserve smiting? It's easy to see that Arnold does.

Offering no quarter, accepting no surrender, well... It fails to distinguish between minor evil, evil born of cowardice, fear, helplessness... Evil that can be uplifted, corrected... And the kind that actively seeks to promote evil.

[SmartAlec]

Except that they hold no jurisdiction out there. That's one of the chief problems with the mix-and-match nature of the alignment system's post modern westernized view of "good" and the mid-evil authoritarian monarchy setting. For pally's you really need to pick one or the other.

I was under the impression that a Paladin's 'jurisdiction' would be divinely or philosophically granted, and thus it could apply more or less everywhere on that world. They are walking justice dispensers.

[horseboy]

Let's compare these 2 shopkeepers:

Shopkeeper 1: Ned

Ned should not ping Evil as he's not Evil. Hell, he's not even evil. He's a neutral.

I was under the impression that a Paladin's 'jurisdiction' would be divinely or philosophically granted, and thus it could apply more or less everywhere on that world. They are walking justice dispensers.

That's part of the monarchy structure. You rule because God says you should. Therefore it's okay for you to smite a heretic simply because they're a heretic. That flies in the face of what post modern "good" would allow.

[Ravens_cry]

And unfortunately the paladin lacks enough character resources to be able to reliably tell if someone is lying, plus have enough knowledge about kobolds (Cross classed after all) and the scriptures to make an educated decision. Let alone being able to swim in his shinny plate, set his companion's broken bone (not that that ever happens in D&D), and seeing the little buggers coming. As far as many paladin's would know they're deceitful, cruel, bastards that 7 out of the 10 are pinging Evil.

If they are his sworn enemy, he probably knows what kobolds are on sight, just from seen them and having people who did the book learning for it or are more experienced, said "That's a kobold" And no one takes Heal except maybe a dedicated healer, like a cleric. And swimming? wWalk along the bottom, and not make swim checks at all till you need to get out. A friend can lower a weighted knotted rope when you get to the edge. In deeper water, the spells water walking or water breathing or freedom of movement will get you by. In actual D&D your a team, and a team is likely to have an arcanist of some sort. No need for a skill there. So that's three not very needful skills for a paladin. Since Charisma is so necessary for the paladin and (in 3.5) wisdom is needed for the spells, a paladin would be downright foolish to not take those two synergistic skills. And if he is at 8th or 9th level or more, he can take the spell zone of truth. So yes, a paladin is likely to have the character resources to know if someone is lying or not. They don't have too, but a wizard could have 18 strength and 11 intelligence. Technically they are a wizard, that doesn't mean it is likely.


They're pinging Evil, you don't ping Evil for not tipping. Asking me to believe that a clearly Evil being is being "honest" without clear evident that they're actually being honest, like laying down their weapons immediately seeing me- pfft and even then I'm going to still not believe them, there's going to have to be a whole lot of groveling and boot licking. If you want to be a doormat then that's fine, but realize you're being a doormat because you've chosen to be a doormat, not because you're good.
They surrendered. That was in the OP. Good shows mercy. Good respects and protects other life. Unless they have shown signs of having done evil recently, (heads on pike, obviously stolen goods) to do otherwise is just racist. Fantastic racism, but still racism. You are judging them based on the common conceptions, accurate or otherwise, of their people. Have they done wrong in the past? They would have have to detect evil, but who hasn't done wrongs? Was it many petty evils or was it the slaughter of a village? You don't know. All you know, right now, is that some detect evil and they are Kobolds.
Again, they have surrendered. By the lawful Rites of war and honour and by the compassion of good, if they haven't shown themselves to have done anything Evil recently, letting them go is both lawful and good, the epitome of the paladins code of justice and mercy. Degrading demands for grovelling and boot licking are neutral at best.
You say I am a doormat, I say you need to learn something about Good.

[PhoenixRivers]

Ned should not ping Evil as he's not Evil. Hell, he's not even evil. He's a neutral.
Ned actively wishes the death of others, without justification through deed. He does it for reasons he justifies, but he acts actively to hinder and hassle others, to the point that he considers trying to inconvenience others a "game", and seeks the death of others in this "game".

While it's not a radical act, it is a repeated one, manifesting with every outsider that comes in.

[horseboy]

Ned actively wishes the death of others, without justification through deed. He does it for reasons he justifies, but he acts actively to hinder and hassle others, to the point that he considers trying to inconvenience others a "game", and seeks the death of others in this "game".

While it's not a radical act, it is a repeated one, manifesting with every outsider that comes in.I wish my boss would die a horrible AIDS related death involving fire. That doesn't stop me from being an otherwise good person. He's selling old food to people that have to strain water through their teeth to keep from swallowing the algae growing in it and weevil infested hardtack. I fail to see how that's evil.


If they are his sworn enemy, he probably knows what kobolds are on sight, just from seen them and having people who did the book learning for it or are more experienced, said "That's a kobold" And no one takes Heal except maybe a dedicated healer, like a cleric. And swimming? wWalk along the bottom, and not make swim checks at all till you need to get out. A friend can lower a weighted knotted rope when you get to the edge. In deeper water, the spells water walking or water breathing or freedom of movement will get you by. In actual D&D your a team, and a team is likely to have an arcanist of some sort. No need for a skill there. So that's three not very needful skills for a paladin. He knows beans about anything about kobolds that needs a higher than 10 DC (like a slight minority aren't actually evil) unless he's put skill points in knowledge dungeneering or are they knowledge nature? As to the rest of it, you've got to live to the levels where water walking and water breathing and freedom of movement are available. That means you're going to need some climb, swim balance and all those other "worthless" skills Because thanks to general "shenanigans" the cleric's down and if nobody can stabilize them well, everyone in the party should have two points and a healer's kit in case they're the last one up. There's still Knowledge Religion for him to know the deeper mysteries of their faith. Then as you point out they've got a decent wisdom bonus, being able to not go:
"Ambush!"
"What?"
*THUNK*
"Ah crap." can be very handy.


Since Charisma is so necessary for the paladin and (in 3.5) wisdom is needed for the spells, a paladin would be downright foolish to not take those two synergistic skills. And if he is at 8th or 9th level or more, he can take the spell zone of truth. So yes, a paladin is likely to have the character resources to know if someone is lying or not. They don't have too, but a wizard could have 18 strength and 11 intelligence. Technically they are a wizard, that doesn't mean it is likely.It also means that if he does that's his one trick and only really available if play starts at around level 7 or 8.


They surrendered. That was in the OP. Good shows mercy. Good respects and protects other life. Unless they have shown signs of having done evil recently, (heads on pike, obviously stolen goods) to do otherwise is just racist. Fantastic racism, but still racism. You are judging them based on the common conceptions, accurate or otherwise, of their people. Have they done wrong in the past? They would have have to detect evil, but who hasn't done wrongs? Was it many petty evils or was it the slaughter of a village? You don't know. All you know, right now, is that some detect evil and they are Kobolds. So what if it's racism? It's accurate. They must have done wrongs in the past otherwise they wouldn't ping Evil.

Again, they have surrendered. By the lawful Rites of war and honour and by the compassion of good, if they haven't shown themselves to have done anything Evil recently, letting them go is both lawful and good, the epitome of the paladins code of justice and mercy. Degrading demands for grovelling and boot licking are neutral at best.
You say I am a doormat, I say you need to learn something about Good.No. Letting Evil go is stupid. You had your chance to stop Evil, but you refused to, now your Uncle Ben is dead. Congratulations his death is on your hands.

[Ravens_cry]

I guess we should slaughter that Bartender who waters his ale and beats his wife? Or that murderer who is struggling to reform, but hasn't done enough good yet to Ping as Neutral? Or that petty thief who steals from middle class merchants, not taking enough that they can't put food on the table, but enough that it hurts.
Not knowing their life story, knowing only they Ping, is enough of a reason to kill?

[PhoenixRivers]

I wish my boss would die a horrible AIDS related death involving fire. That doesn't stop me from being an otherwise good person. He's selling old food to people that have to strain water through their teeth to keep from swallowing the algae growing in it and weevil infested hardtack. I fail to see how that's evil.
If your wishes manifest in action, then those actions are evil. If those actions extended to pretty much everyone? It's hard to be an "otherwise good person" when your only exception is that "I hate everyone and wish that everyone I don't know died a horrible death from starvation."

Deliberately selling defective/old product to people, not advertising it as such, and misleading them for profit?

You and I see the world through differently tinted glasses, it seems.

[horseboy]

I guess we should slaughter that Bartender who waters his ale and beats his wife? Or that murderer who is struggling to reform, but hasn't done enough good yet to Ping as Neutral? Or that petty thief who steals from middle class merchants, not taking enough that they can't put food on the table, but enough that it hurts.
Not knowing their life story, knowing only they Ping, is enough of a reason to kill?
So long as he doesn't violate the Rule of Thumb, then he can beat his wife all day long and still be Lawful and not Evil. He is not violating the law and is behaving in a what would be considered "good" for a non-Westernized Post Modern Society way.
"Murderers struggling to reform" are so rare that they exist pretty much only as DM fiat, badly written character back story or Paladin trap.
In many cultures through out the world death was a perfectly "lawful" and "good" punishment for theft. Well, the lucky ones were executed, the rest died from disease after having their hands chopped off.

If your wishes manifest in action, then those actions are evil. If those actions extended to pretty much everyone? It's hard to be an "otherwise good person" when your only exception is that "I hate everyone and wish that everyone I don't know died a horrible death from starvation."

Deliberately selling defective/old product to people, not advertising it as such, and misleading them for profit?

You and I see the world through differently tinted glasses, it seems.Yeah, I've been in retail for 10 years. I've wished death on many an irate customer and know never to grab the milk at the front of the fridge.

[PhoenixRivers]

Yeah, I've been in retail for 10 years. I've wished death on many an irate customer and know never to grab the milk at the front of the fridge.

As have I. The difference?

I don't consider myself a good person. I know what I consider moral. I know that what goes on in retail... isn't.

[Jayngfet]

So long as he doesn't violate the Rule of Thumb, then he can beat his wife all day long and still be Lawful and not Evil. He is not violating the law and is behaving in a what would be considered "good" for a non-Westernized Post Modern Society way.

Of course that's LAWFUL, not good. You're still hurting someone supposedly weaker than you, and even though it was/is common it wasn't always ACCEPTED, it was behind closed doors and when it got out it was known to have negative consequences.

[horseboy]

As have I. The difference?

I don't consider myself a good person. I know what I consider moral. I know that what goes on in retail... isn't.
Pretty much. If you take "normal" policies as neutral, the people that actively lie about products as evil and the ones that actually do things right as good rather than expecting "good" practices to be neutral nonexistant saints that go out of business rather than make a profit as good and everybody else as evil things work out a whole lot better all around.
Of course that's LAWFUL, not good. You're still hurting someone supposedly weaker than you, and even though it was/is common it wasn't always ACCEPTED, it was behind closed doors and when it got out it was known to have negative consequences.

That's where intent and the class/caste of the beaten comes in and it does get muddled, course even then it's not necessarily evil, let alone Evil. Again one of the big problems in mixing multiple sociological systems.

[PhoenixRivers]

Pretty much. If you take "normal" policies as neutral, the people that actively lie about products as evil and the ones that actually do things right as good rather than expecting "good" practices to be neutral nonexistant saints that go out of business rather than make a profit as good and everybody else as evil things work out a whole lot better all around.

I generally view:
Active interest in helping others - Good
Brokers a fair deal, but doesn't direct a customer elsewhere, even if it would better serve the customer - Neutral
Misrepresent, deceive, manipulate, or trick the customer into believing false things, and using questionable practices to garner a sale - Evil.

Now. Hourly are generally neutral. Commission? generally evil.
Good? Generally rare.

[horseboy]

Now. Hourly are generally neutral. Commission? generally evil.
Good? Generally rare.
Eau, commission. Yeah, there's a reason why everyone considers used car salesmen only slightly less slimy than lawyers. :smallamused:

[PhoenixRivers]

Eau, commission. Yeah, there's a reason why everyone considers used car salesmen only slightly less slimy than lawyers. :smallamused:

And I, sir, am commission. I <3 warranty plans, and unnecessary add-ons to orders. "It's all standard, sir." True, I do include it standard on all my sales. That's not to say it's mandatory, and I certainly don't make that public.

Those who research can walk out with a fair deal. But every customer that walks in is a paycheck, and I can't hate my paychecks. Nor can I refrain from attempting to make it the biggest check I can. My family's more important than saving you $40 because you don't need the deluxe model. If you don't know what you need? Well, I'm not going to tell you, even if I do.

[horseboy]

Oh that takes me back. I was so brutally honest with customers that Circuit City had to stick me in the warehouse.
Hey, those RPP's do come in handy. My MP3 player went kaput. Still need to call them and have it replaced, though.

[PhoenixRivers]

Oh that takes me back. I was so brutally honest with customers that Circuit City had to stick me in the warehouse.
Hey, those RPP's do come in handy. My MP3 player went kaput. Still need to call them and have it replaced, though.

Yes, but what they don't tell you is that insurance is betting on failure. And it's priced so that the house always wins. Every so often, a couple people will be glad they had it. The vast majority? Pay for nothing.

There's a reason that major companies push RPP's more than they push the merchandise. Money for nothing. :smallamused:

[horseboy]

Oh yeah, which is why ultimately you only really buy it for consoles and refurbished stuff, like my MP3 player. (After all, it's already broken once). :smallamused:
What were we talking about again?

[PhoenixRivers]

Oh yeah, which is why ultimately you only really buy it for consoles and refurbished stuff, like my MP3 player. (After all, it's already broken once). :smallamused:
What were we talking about again?

The evil inherent in manipulating or deceiving others out of malice or a sense of personal gain.

[hamishspence]

According to this, she could never become comfortably good no matter how much she wanted to be, because she was evil by nature, and would eventually lapse back into evil if she stopped fighting it. That's not actually redemption - the word 'redemption' in the theological sense means being freed from the burden of sin, and that was something she couldn't achieve.

If anything, this article makes it clear that fiends cannot be truly redeemed, no matter how hard they try.

If she dies "still a paladin" having conquered her evil tendencies all the way from her ceasing to be "evil aligned"and so, merely having the Evil subtype, to death, I suspect most DMs would rule her soul goes to the Upper Planes.

(though, as an extraplanar outsider, she can't be resurrected without powerful magic, since her soul dissipates into the plane rapidly.)

She's not the only example of a non-evil Demon- the PLanescape Torment character Fall-From-Grace is another.

And Expedition to the Demonweb Pits has the Cambions, a race of demons with a trace of human blood (they are Extraplanar Outsiders with the Evil and Chaotic subtypes, native to the Abyss, so they still count as Demons) who have as much as 10% of their number be non-evil or Good in alignment.

[Shademan]

so wait, a angel can fall and become wholly evil but a demon can't be wholly redeemed?

[hamishspence]

Depends what you mean by "wholly redeemed"

My view is that, regardless of subtypes, a creature's alignment determines where its soul goes after death (Extraplanar Outsiders have a soul, it just dissipates unusually rapidly after death, according to Complete Divine)

Angels and other celestials exist who have changed their alignment while retaining their subtypes. In Elder Evils, one such angel is the chief agent of the obyrith lord Sertrous.

Such an angel, I believe, would not automatically ascend to the celestial planes merely because of its subtype.

Similarly, a demon who has become "an agent of good" to the extent mentioned, should not have its soul condemned merely because of its subtypes.

Special note- Savage Species has rules for removing alignment subtypes- creatures can survive their removal.

so a Demon stripped of the Chaotic and Evil subtypes would still be alive, but it would no longer be "a creature of chaos and evil"

You could rule that the Upper Planes automatically cast the ritual for free on "redeemed demons" at the moment of death, freeing their souls to ascend.

[SmartAlec]

That's part of the monarchy structure. You rule because God says you should. Therefore it's okay for you to smite a heretic simply because they're a heretic. That flies in the face of what post modern "good" would allow.

I don't think there's a contradiction. Most D&D settings that feature Paladins are very much an idealised version of a medieval world that fits with modern-day conceptions of good.


No. Letting Evil go is stupid. You had your chance to stop Evil, but you refused to, now your Uncle Ben is dead. Congratulations his death is on your hands.

Bit of an awkward example, given that Peter Parker failed to stop someone in the midst of committing a crime, rather than someone walking along the street. Everyone's saying, if the Paladin is in that situation, then sure, fight and stop them.

Besides, I don't think you have to have done evil in order to ping evil. If you're brought up in an evil society and taught that the world is a school of hard knocks and that you need to look out for Number One all the time and take what you can, and you've seen examples of evil done and have come to understand that this is how things should be, you can still be a mean-minded sunovawitch with an Evil outlook. Alignment isn't just what you do.

[hamishspence]

True- sort of.

Fiendish Codex 2- you have to have done some evil to ping as evil- but it doesn't have to be a lot.

Lawful Evil societies are built around encouraging the "bully" ethos- raising children in such a way as to put heavy social pressure on them to do bullying.

And even coming of age ceremonies that require them to do something like this.

The "bullying evil" mindset, is a common form. Yet such a "mean-minded bully" might be fairly harmless, and certainly not deserving of death.

[Starbuck_II]

Let's compare these 2 shopkeepers:

Shopkeeper 1: Ned

Neutral. He cares only about family (he has none) and friends (he has none).
That is pure neutral.


Shopkeeper 2: Arnold

Evil. He fosters and helps those who do evil.



Both of these people ping as evil. The first harbors a lifestyle of small evil acts with ill intent towards those he deals with. The second? Much more serious.

Can you be more open about what Ned does is evil. Souds neutral to not care about others (and it is). He doesn't offer good foods, but then that is dishonest not evil.

Now Bartender Abe who beats his wife is evil. Even if he blames the sauce: then stop using it!

[kamikasei]

Neutral. He cares only about family (he has none) and friends (he has none).
That is pure neutral.
...
Can you be more open about what Ned does is evil. Souds neutral to not care about others (and it is). He doesn't offer good foods, but then that is dishonest not evil.

I think if all he did was loathe everything, he'd be neutral. What makes him evil is that he's deliberately trying to harm others. I'm not sure how bad PhoenixRivers intended the harm to be - does he want travelers to discover the food they bought has gone bad and say "ugh, never going back there again", or to get food poisoning and die (or starve after running out of provisions in the middle of the desert)? My impression was the latter, but I may be reading more in to it than was intended. However, assuming I'm correct then it seems clear to me that that's an evil, not neutral, action - essentially, trying to untraceably poison people - though it might not be considered sufficient to tip Ned over into an evil alignment.

[CorvidMP]

All this thread is doing for me is reinforcing why I play with out the alignment system.
It really is in adequate for describing how basically anyone acts really, save for a tiny select few story arch types, before we even start looking at cultures outisde our own.

[SmartAlec]

so wait, a angel can fall and become wholly evil but a demon can't be wholly redeemed?

Pretty much, yeah. Think of these moral forces in terms of relationships: Good'll let you go and hope you come back, but Evil's the possessive and domineering type. It gets its' hooks in and doesn't let go.

For mortals it's damn tricky to get free, but for fiends - who are literally made of evil - it's impossible. Redeeming a fiend is like trying to consecrate an area of the Lower Planes in the name of Good; it's just not going to stick.

[Vorpal Soda]

Ultimately, you really have to ask the GM how monster races are being handled in the setting, in order to make the right call. Otherwise you'll most likely have interpreted the setting differently to the GM.

Granted, if all Kobolds are evil and attack the players on sight, then this isn't as important, but if situations like the one the OP mentioned arise, then you need to know if Kobolds are:
1) All universally evil and need to be killed on sight.
2) All nasty enough to be evil aligned, but don't actually deserve killing on sight.
3) Not actually evil without exception.

The Lawful Good course of action will depend on this, and assuming one option when the DM is running the setting with a different one (And probably an option I didn't think of) is a quick way to lose Paladinhood.

You'd also have to ask how evil someone has to be to show up as evil, as some see it as meaning "kill this person now", and some see it as "you should be suspicious about this person", both of which merit completely different responses.

[hamishspence]

Quintessenial Paladin 2 outlined 3 types:

Evil Everywhere: 1/3 of population are evil. You should be mildly suspicious if you detect it, but investigation is not absolutely required.

Evil is Rare: Most of the population are Neutral. You should be very suspicious if you Detect the presence of Evil, and you should investigate, but you still may not smite without more evidence of wrongdoing than this.

Evil is Supernatural: Serial killers and mass-murderers do not detect as evil- unless, they are doing it on the orders of fiends, or as part of the worship of fiends or evil gods. You may attack it upon detection.

So, normally, Smite On Sight should lead to Falls.

[Starbuck_II]

Quintessenial Paladin 2 outlined 3 types:

Evil Everywhere: 1/3 of population are evil. You should be mildly suspicious if you detect it, but investigation is not absolutely required.

Evil is Rare: Most of the population are Neutral. You should be very suspicious if you Detect the presence of Evil, and you should investigate, but you still may not smite without more evidence of wrongdoing than this.

Evil is Supernatural: Serial killers and mass-murderers do not detect as evil- unless, they are doing it on the orders of fiends, or as part of the worship of fiends or evil gods. You may attack it upon detection.

So, normally, Smite On Sight should lead to Falls.

Smiting evil never leads to falls. It can lead to jail or captial punishment as you just killed someone in town, but never a fall.

[kamikasei]

Smiting evil never leads to falls. It can lead to jail or captial punishment as you just killed someone in town, but never a fall.

Why isn't killing someone with no cause beyond "but he was evil!" an evil act punishable by a fall?

[hamishspence]

BoED: You must have Just Cause, and Good Intentions, and not kill non-combatants such as, for example, orc children.

Being evil is not Just Cause alone, because, a person can be evil yet not deserving of death.

Fiendish Codex 2- Murder is a Corrupt act.

Arguably, if you kill someone "because they detect as evil" that's murder if you haven't any other evidence of wrongdoing.

This applies to both "Evil Everywhere" (which is the most consistant with core D&D, since according to the PHB "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral") and "Evil is Rare".

[ericgrau]

I fear that this will spawn an extremely heated debated, but I really want to hear opinions on this regardless of consequences.

A paladin is on an extremely important mission. It involves damsels in distress. He crosses the path of a small troup of kobolds.

Defying all expectations, the kobolds decide to surrender. They're the paladin's sworn enemies, and they're in no position to defend themselves.

What do?
Captures them all and brings them into the custody of the local authorities? I'm really not seeing a problem here.

If you don't have time and bringing them along would be a hindrance, then you tie them up and either send 1 party member to bring them back to town or just hide them somewhere and hope for the best. Unless assuring their capture is worth more to you than the damsel. Then you bring them into custody.

And yes, the town should comply with imprisoning them just like anyone else, given proper evidence, witnesses, etc.:

Most evil humanoids, however, are typically protected by the same laws that protect all the citizens of the city. Having an evil alignment is not a crime (except in some severely theocratic cities, perhaps, with the magical power to back up the law); only evil deeds are against the law. Even when adventurers encounter an evildoer in the act of perpetrating some heinous evil upon the populace of the city, the law tends to frown on the sort of vigilante justice that leaves the evildoer dead or otherwise unable to testify at a trial.

[Starbuck_II]

Why isn't killing someone with no cause beyond "but he was evil!" an evil act punishable by a fall?

He was evil is a cause. Look the PHB says, "Alhandra shows evil no mercy" she is the classical view of WotC vision for pally (and she never fell).
So I see it as showing mercy to let evil live. Killing them is showing no mecy.

Thus WotC says I shouldn't fall.

They may retcon the rules with the latter books, but Core says otherwise.

[hamishspence]

"Showing no mercy" is not an excuse for murder, but for imposing maximum, legal sentences.

In novelizations, Alhandra actually points out, that Detect Evil is of no use whatsoever for determining whether a person is "the guilty party" or not, and that killing people based solely on the result of a Detect, is wrong.

[kamikasei]

He was evil is a cause.

In your view, not shared by myself or many others in this thread, and by no means unambiguously supported in the rules.


They may retcon the rules with the latter books, but Core says otherwise.

Core is far from a clear-cut and straightforward guide to alignment. WotC contradict themselves left, right and centre throughout the publication history of 3.5, but the basic argument over whether being evil necessarily means you're automatically worthy of summary execution comes directly from the definitions found in core.

Taking a statement that a paladin "shows evil no mercy" to mean that she reflexively murders everyone she encounters who pings her evildar is an extraordinarily weak argument that can only seem convincing if you already accept the premise.

[hamishspence]

the closest thing to a consensus on alignment, is that, in general, evil doesn't mean "deserves death"

Eberron Campaign setting, Heroes of Horror, BoVD, BoED, Fiendish Codex 2 Champions of Ruin, Champions of Valor, Exemplars of Evil, all stress that there is such a thing as "evil but not deserving of slaying."

Mercy is generally shown as a virtue rather than a vice.

Imagine a Radardin Judge:

(bailiffs hustle 11 year old boy into court)

Radardin: "What's he accused of?"
Bailiff: "Vandalism"
Radardin: scanscanscan
Radardin: "He's evil- he must have done worse things in his life, even if I don't know what they are. Hang him."

It's not too hard to see where this leads.

[woodenbandman]

You know in my campaign I'd punish a paladin for indecision and not a whole lot else. As long as your heart's in the right place, you own up to what you did, and are a reasonable human being, you qualify for being a paladin in my eyes. Consequences of silly decisions are entirely your fault, and you should own up to them, but once you do that you'll probably become a better paladin and if not, well, what can I do?

The kobolds: Well, kobolds are notorious in core DnD for killing travelers, but then again they usually kill only tresspassers, right? Realistically, if a perceived enemy surrendered to me, I'd disarm them, interrogate them, have them stand trial (which I guess could be substituted for a quick communion with my deity), and carry out whatever sentence is appropriate, probably jail time.

If we're in a town, tie them up and toss 'em to the cops, provided that justice will be served and they won't be unduly punished.

[Starbuck_II]

Imagine a Radardin Judge:

(bailiffs hustle 11 year old boy into court)

Radardin: "What's he accused of?"
Bailiff: "Vandalism"
Radardin: scanscanscan
Radardin: "He's evil- he must have done worse things in his life, even if I don't know what they are. Hang him."

It's not too hard to see where this leads.

I kind of agree. The boy is evil. He couldn't be evil just by doing vandalism. He must have tortured puppies or kittens.
Unless properly redeemed he will stay evil.
A Pally can't associate with him to redeem him.

A Cleric could, but then we are talking about Pallys not how awesome Clerics get off.

Now hanging is a little extreme, but he is past age of accountablility ( age 8). So he has chosen his path. I said a Pally can kill evil not that they must kill each they find.
He will never fall for choosing to kill evil, but doesn't mean he must kill each one he finds (no matter the consequences). THey are allowed to have Int.

I'm still worried you have a 11 year old with actual evil alignment in the example. What deeds did he do?

By the way, I don't see being as jerk as evil. There are many who do. Which is one of the problems with these discussions.
Too many people water down what evil is.

[kamikasei]

Now hanging is a little extreme, but he is past age of accountablility ( age 8). So he has chosen his path. I said a Pally can kill evil not that they must kill each they find.
He will never fall for choosing to kill evil, but doesn't mean he must kill each one he finds (no matter the consequences).

So while a paladin is not compelled to murder every messed up kid over the age of eight (where are you getting that number from?) he comes across, he's perfectly entitled to do so? Killing a puppy carries a death sentence now?


By the way, I don't see being as jerk as evil. There are many who do. Which is one of the problems with these discussions.

I would say the problem is more precisely that you present your idea of what it takes to be evil as if it were unquestionably correct. If you were saying "by my standard of what it takes to make a person evil, any evil person deserves death" you'd meet less objection. (You'd still meet plenty, since the idea that merely knowing that someone did a real bad thing at least once means you're entitled to kill them is in itself objectionable.)

[SmartAlec]

Paladins aren't just good, but are lawful good. That would tend to include the belief that the interests of good are served by principles like 'innocent until proven guilty', and that a Paladin is serving good just as well by upholding those principles as he or she would be in slaying evil.

[Starbuck_II]

What? Are we playing Modern Pallys now?
Back then you were guilty till proven innocent. Innocent till proven guilty was a very modern thing in last 300 or more years.

[Draco Dracul]

Paladins aren't just good, but are lawful good. That would tend to include the belief that the interests of good are served by principles like 'innocent until proven guilty', and that a Paladin is serving good just as well by upholding those principles as he or she would be in slaying evil.

I would argue that it would reasonable for a country to make "being Evil" a crime, not necessarily a capital crime but a least an arrestable offense.

[Agrippa]

Paladins aren't just good, but are lawful good. That would tend to include the belief that the interests of good are served by principles like 'innocent until proven guilty', and that a Paladin is serving good just as well by upholding those principles as he or she would be in slaying evil.

Actually the Lawful part entails the belief that the needs of the many out way the needs of the few. This would on occasion allow more readily for use of martial law or suspension of some civil liberties.

[SmartAlec]

What? Are we playing Modern Pallys now?
Back then you were guilty till proven innocent. Innocent till proven guilty was a very modern thing in last 300 or more years.

Back when in where? In Faerun? Greyhawk? Sigil?

[kamikasei]

What? Are we playing Modern Pallys now?
Back then you were guilty till proven innocent. Innocent till proven guilty was a very modern thing in last 300 or more years.

"Back then"? Back in the real historical time period that D&D so accurately models? I don't know if we're playing "modern pallys" but I was working under the assumption that we were at least playing 3.5 edition D&D, which does indeed graft some highly anachronistic notions about morality and ethics on to its quasi-medieval setting.

I think we can safely declare this discussion past the point where anything worthwhile is likely to result...

[lord_khaine]

Pretty much, yeah. Think of these moral forces in terms of relationships: Good'll let you go and hope you come back, but Evil's the possessive and domineering type. It gets its' hooks in and doesn't let go.

For mortals it's damn tricky to get free, but for fiends - who are literally made of evil - it's impossible. Redeeming a fiend is like trying to consecrate an area of the Lower Planes in the name of Good; it's just not going to stick.


Wrong, its insanely unlikely, but not impossible.

[Jayabalard]

Back then you were guilty till proven innocent. Innocent till proven guilty was a very modern thing in last 300 or more years.Arguing anything in D&D based on "Back then" is kind of absurd...

besides, the idea of presumption of innocence is much older than 300 years... Maimonides (twelfth-century legal theorist) argued for it, and the idea also appears in the Old Testament (Exodus and Genesis)

[Choco]

It is pointless to argue about guilt. It all depends on what the Paladin's god would do/how it looks at this sorta thing. If the god would smite evil on sight/detection because it knows that given the chance and low probability of negative consequences the individual would commit evil, then no crimes need to be proven to justify the smiting, though the paladin will likely have issues with the local authorities after that. If the god would be more restrained and require proof of a crime before dishing out punishment, then no, killing something just cause it detects as evil would not be OK.

[Jayngfet]

What? Are we playing Modern Pallys now?
Back then you were guilty till proven innocent. Innocent till proven guilty was a very modern thing in last 300 or more years.

Except, y'know, you miss the entire POINT of paladins. The book of exalted deeds says that even if you're civilization, based on a real one or no, has something considered unjust, you don't and shouldn't have to go along with it.




And don't you dare bring up "unrealistic", in a game where vampires, space aliens, and magical pixies are assumed to exist.

[kamikasei]

It all depends on what the Paladin's god would do/how it looks at this sorta thing.

A paladin's god might have specific requirements that restrict him more than just the need to do good, demanding that he do or not do certain things which have nothing to do with good, and barring him from certain actions which are nonetheless entirely acceptable for a simply good character. However, by default paladins are empowered by the abstract forces of law and good directly, not by the god they worship, and so they cannot commit evil acts just because their god is okay with it.

[hamishspence]

According to Dragon Magazine summary of the Paladin, paladins can associate with those who are evil on a limited basis as long as their sole intention is to redeem them.

According to BoED, any Exalted character may make limited alliances with an evil faction against a greater threat- as long as they do not condone evil acts committed during the period of alliance.

For "evil 11 year olds who haven't done anything to deserve death yet" Peter Wiggin from Ender's Game is a textbook example.

[Grushvak]

Threads about alignment in D&D always end like this, don't they?

[hamishspence]

Often. Sometimes they go for a long time with no undiplomatic behaviour by the various sides- which can mean interesting and convoluted discussion.

"what does it take to qualify as Evil" is a tricky question, but as mentioned, even using Core you can make a case that a large portion of Evil people are "only jerks" on the grounds that humans do not tend toward Neutral.

[Jayabalard]

For "evil 11 year olds who haven't done anything to deserve death yet" Peter Wiggin from Ender's Game is a textbook example.I'm not so convinced on the "haven't done anything to deserve death yet" part.

[hamishspence]

He hasn't killed anyone. Threatened to kill, but didn't actually do it.

Depending on your views on cruelty to animals, Peter's acts in book one don't fit the "bad enough that killing him in retribution would be just" either.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

You know what I, as a DM, ask of everyone of my players whom plays a paladin? I tell them to write out their moral code of conduct. And if I deem it reasonable, he/she/they is/are expected to act by it 'lest they fall.
It works ever so well for the players, and keeps confusion out of the DM's corner.

[Shademan]

don't some of you forget that a lv1 commoner have such a weak aura that he won't even light up on a detect evil?

[hamishspence]

rules don't say that in PHB- even a level 1 or 1 HD creature will detect- though faintly.

[kamikasei]

rules don't say that in PHB- even a level 1 or 1 HD creature will detect- though faintly.

Indeed, an evil level 1 commoner detects at the same strength as an evil level 10 wizard (barring any [Evil] spell effects he may have on).

This may be a case of people interpreting "Evil creature" to mean one with the [Evil] subtype rather than the Evil alignment, though.

[Starbuck_II]

don't some of you forget that a lv1 commoner have such a weak aura that he won't even light up on a detect evil?

Only in Pathfinder does low HD not show up.

[hamishspence]

Indeed, an evil level 1 commoner detects at the same strength as an evil level 10 wizard (barring any [Evil] spell effects he may have on).

This may be a case of people interpreting "Evil creature" to mean one with the [Evil] subtype rather than the Evil alignment, though.

Given the extreme rarity of non-outsiders with the Evil subtype, this would be... odd.

Interesting note- since it says "evil outsider" rather than "outsider with the Evil subtype" (though it clarifies in MM that if a creature has the Evil subtype, it will always detect as evil regardless of alignment) this means that:

An evil outsider, even one who is Native, will flare up strongly on the Detect-O-Meter.

A 10th level Aasimar who has just crossed the line into evil, despite being "no more evil" than a 10th level evil human, will detect very strongly.

Odd.

[Tyndmyr]

You know what I, as a DM, ask of everyone of my players whom plays a paladin? I tell them to write out their moral code of conduct. And if I deem it reasonable, he/she/they is/are expected to act by it 'lest they fall.
It works ever so well for the players, and keeps confusion out of the DM's corner.

Hmm, I like this, and will do this exact thing in the future. The whole "paladin's code" thing has definitely been a source of grief for me in the past...

[PhoenixRivers]

You know what I, as a DM, ask of everyone of my players whom plays a paladin? I tell them to write out their moral code of conduct. And if I deem it reasonable, he/she/they is/are expected to act by it 'lest they fall.
It works ever so well for the players, and keeps confusion out of the DM's corner.

I can't do that. My players like legalese too much, and would find a way to put a loophole in it.