Paladin vs Goblin Babies

[Beandip]

Is it rightful for a Paladin of Abadar to slay innocent goblin babies and children? What kind of morals must he face? Can they be redeemed? Specifically, I put two baby goblins and two children goblins playing in the nursery at Thistletop per the option given to the DM's in Rise of the Runelords.

Is everything kosher with him doing the slaying?

[Draconi Redfir]

unless they are spesifically doing something evil right that moment then i'd assume no, Pluss if they're playing with human children, i think it'd be safe to assume they're going to be rised good anyways.

[Barsoom]

Is it rightful for a Paladin of Abadar to slay innocent goblin babies and children? What kind of morals must he face? Can they be redeemed? Specifically, I put two baby goblins and two children goblins playing in the nursery at Thistletop per the option given to the DM's in Rise of the Runelords.

Is everything kosher with him doing the slaying?The answer is within the question. If they are innocent, then by definition it can't possibly be rightful to slay them. He should fall immediately.

[Talderas]

Absolutely not. Goblins are not a creature that is "Always Evil". The blind slaughtering of any creature that is not "Always Evil" should illicit a fall for the paladin unless he is aware of some evil actions by the creature.

[Silvanoshei]

As with any force getting abilities from deity or gods, it comes down to what your god would want you to do.

Abadar is known for his patient nature... doing something rash like killing before they even are known to do harm would piss him off and make you lose your paladinhood.

[Scow2]

Innocent goblin babies/children, no. But where are you going to find any child/baby that's innocent? Anyone who's tried to raise kids can tell you they're Neutral Evil. :smalltongue:

As with any force getting abilities from deity or gods, it comes down to what your god would want you to do.
But a Paladin's abilities DON'T come from Deities or Gods. They come from the primal source of Good. Gods are the "Crazy Uncles" of a Paladin's powers, not the "Fathers" of said powers. The only classes that get their powers directly from their deities are Clerics and Inquisitors.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Is it rightful for a Paladin of Abadar to slay innocent goblin babies and children?

Keyword innocent. Is it rightful for a Paladin to slay innocent X? No. It doesn't matter what X is. The innocent part excludes the righteousness of slaying it.


But a Paladin's abilities DON'T come from Deities or Gods. They come from the primal source of Good. Gods are the "Crazy Uncles" of a Paladin's powers, not the "Fathers" of said powers. The only classes that get their powers directly from their deities are Clerics and Inquisitors. Wrong, Paladin's get there abilities from the same place as all divine casters. Some settings require worshiping a deity, some don't.

[Barsoom]

As with any force getting abilities from deity or gods, it comes down to what your god would want you to do.That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to read the rules.

If a paladin ceases to adhere to the causes of law and good, commits a heinously evil act, or otherwise violates their personal code of conduct, their divine gifts cease to function.
As you can see, the "but my god might approve!" clause does not come into play at all. And I'm not aware of any universe in which slaughtering innocent babies does not qualify as a "heinously evil act".

[dascarletm]

OOOH! Another paladin morality question? Let me hop on!

No.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Absolutely not. A paladin that slew those children would fall hard enough to leave a crater.

You can only smite-on-sight with fiends and other creatures listed as -always- evil.

Even amongst the always evil creatures children are given no small amount of latitude except for fiends and dragons; the former of whom are literally made of evil and the latter of whom have some sort of racial memory thing that has them evil, sapient, and extremely dangerous from the moment they hatch.

[RFLS]

Is it rightful for a Paladin of Abadar to slay innocent goblin babies and children? What kind of morals must he face? Can they be redeemed? Specifically, I put two baby goblins and two children goblins playing in the nursery at Thistletop per the option given to the DM's in Rise of the Runelords.

Is everything kosher with him doing the slaying?

What...I don't even...I think you meant this text to be blue. Here's your question in a summed-up format:


Hey guys, is it good for someone to murder innocent babies and children?

Short of massive cultural differences, I don't even understand why this was a question. Infanticide is easily one of two or three of the most heinous crimes possible.

[RFLS]

Wrong, Paladin's get there abilities from the same place as all divine casters. Some settings require worshiping a deity, some don't.

We're just ignoring that this is the only relevant chunk of rules in the Paladin entry?


Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

[Blightedmarsh]

Paladin losses: seriously he barely breaks tier five. You put him up against a swarm of tiny humanoids its a class inappropriate encounter.

In all seriousness its going to end up bad for those kids one way or another. They end up eaten, executed by some yokel sheriff or raised all vengeful. Spited by a paladin is probably the most merciful thing that can happen and in the long run is just saving time.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Paladin losses: seriously he barely breaks tier five. You put him up against a swarm of tiny humanoids its a class inappropriate encounter.

In all seriousness its going to end up bad for those kids one way or another. They end up eaten, executed by some yokel sheriff or raised all vengeful. Spited by a paladin is probably the most merciful thing that can happen and in the long run is just saving time.

While there's probably some truth in that, it's not the paladin's place to make that call. If he's really concerned about showing those little goblinoids mercy then he needs to do something constructive to help them. This isn't required, of course, but mercy-killing them simply isn't on the table at all.

[Lord Vukodlak]

We're just ignoring that this is the only relevant chunk of rules in the Paladin entry?

He made the claim that a paladin's abilities don't come from gods. That is false its dependent on setting just like clerics. Generally speaking for a deity to grant paladin spells the god needs to be a paladin him/her self but that doesn't change the fact that the statement.

But a Paladin's abilities DON'T come from Deities or Gods.
Is inaccurate.

[dascarletm]

He made the claim that a paladin's abilities don't come from gods. That is false its dependent on setting just like clerics. Generally speaking for a deity to grant paladin spells the god needs to be a paladin him/her self but that doesn't change the fact that the statement.

Is inaccurate.

We already know what setting we are in due to the fact the paladin's deity of choice was listed. Which i think is a pathfinder setting?

[Kalirren]

Yep. Abadar is a Golarion deity.

Abadar makes it even worse, really. There plenty of reasons why murdering the kids wouldn't be okay that have already been given. But being a Paladin of Abadar in particular makes it extra-crystal-clear because goblin society is in large part -Lawful-. Abadar is the god of civilization, opposed to wilderness. He -approves- of Lawful societies.

Even a Lawful Evil Cleric of Abadar would need to atone if he killed those kids, instead of ensuring that they would receive a proper upbringing.

[Theoboldi]

In all seriousness its going to end up bad for those kids one way or another. They end up eaten, executed by some yokel sheriff or raised all vengeful. Spited by a paladin is probably the most merciful thing that can happen and in the long run is just saving time.

:smalleek:

I'm not quite sure how to comment on that. Forcibly 'mercikilling' someone is not something you should recommend as the moral thing that a paragon of virtue and righteousness should do. In fact, please don't suggest that it is a moral thing at all. I'm honestly struggling here to avoid making some real-world comparisons.

Anyway, killing children is a pretty big no-no, no matter who you are. If that paladin isn't one of slaughter or tyranny, he should fall with enough force to leave a crater the size of belgium.

[Kelb_Panthera]

For the ridiculous paladins must worship a god thing;

That's Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance only. In -every- other campaign setting paladins can, and often do, operate independently of the gods.

Unless an OP specifies one of those campaign settings we default to the rules in the PHB which say no god is necessary.

[Rabidmuskrat]

If the paladin kills them himself, he would probably fall, same if he gave orders to that effect. On the other hand, if he just leaves them they will probably die of starvation anyway. I still wouldn't let him do a mercy killing, but it may be a sufficiently grey area that he could turn his back and let his party either kill them or not.

Unless you are the type of dm that decides that Paladin = Above and Beyond the call of duty. In which case he must 'adopt' the children and make sure they receive a good (and a Good) upbringing. They might still turn out evil, spiteful little buggers, now with the potential for class levels, but at least the paladin did everything he could.

[Silvanoshei]

For the ridiculous paladins must worship a god thing;

That's Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance only. In -every- other campaign setting paladins can, and often do, operate independently of the gods.

Unless an OP specifies one of those campaign settings we default to the rules in the PHB which say no god is necessary.

It's a holy warrior man... who goes to church and must pay an amount of service to each church he/she runs into. Gaining powers of spells and abilities from said gods, like clerics.

It's a staple, I would find it weird to have a Fighter running around killing people then using "Holy" powers to benefit himself because no god would punish him.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Is it rightful for a Paladin of Abadar to slay innocent goblin babies and children? What kind of morals must he face? Can they be redeemed? Specifically, I put two baby goblins and two children goblins playing in the nursery at Thistletop per the option given to the DM's in Rise of the Runelords.

Is everything kosher with him doing the slaying?

The correct answer is that you track down the module's writer and dope slap them for using such a hackneyed, unoriginal cliche (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/The_Orc_Baby_Dilemma).

For you, the DM, I would strongly advise you to keep in mind that shoehorning arbitrary binary moral choices solely to mess with the Paladin is a total **** move. Whatever they decide to do, let them be creative in resolving the problem.

That said, if a Paladin of mine killed a child (that wasn't secretly Asmodeus or something), he would be out the holy door so fast you'd swear he was under a haste spell.

[Rabidmuskrat]

:smalleek:

I'm not quite sure how to comment on that. Forcibly 'mercikilling' someone is not something you should recommend as the moral thing that a paragon of virtue and righteousness should do. In fact, please don't suggest that it is a moral thing at all. I'm honestly struggling here to avoid making some real-world comparisons.

Anyway, killing children is a pretty big no-no, no matter who you are. If that paladin isn't one of slaughter or tyranny, he should fall with enough force to leave a crater the size of belgium.

No! That is the trap everyone falls into! You cannot make 'real world' comparisons because that is only forcing your (our) concept of morality into a different world. Our morality is a product of the world we live in, at least to a certain degree. DnD morality would be a product of the DnD world, at least to a certain degree, so forget trying to fit our laws and ethics in.

Evil is a tangible force in the DnD world that exists independently of actions. Their morality would take this into account.

[Blightedmarsh]

While there's probably some truth in that, it's not the paladin's place to make that call. If he's really concerned about showing those little goblinoids mercy then he needs to do something constructive to help them. This isn't required, of course, but mercy-killing them simply isn't on the table at all.

If not his place then whose? If the forces of good wanted mindless drones who will do what is told without question or hesitation then they would use golems almost exclusively. They don't; they're not even particularly known for gratuitous use of mind rape.

I put is to you that the forces of good use being capable of understanding the rules and braking them because that is precisely what they need. They need minds capable of thinking outside the box; capable of getting to grips with complex moral problems and resolving them decisively without self destructing.

Him doing "something constructive" for those children would involve endangering others; it would involve committing his time and effort away from the eternal fight. If he is resolved to spare them then the best thing he could do is to "pass the buck"; hand off the problem to someone more qualified and return to his calling. Anything more than that could be viewed as dereliction of duty and a violation of his oaths.

[Gullintanni]

A lawful good paladin happening across a cluster of infants from a well known, predominantly evil species, would probably be best served by capturing the children and placing them in foster care with his church.

This would:

1) Neutralize a potential evil prior to it becoming a threat.
2) Ensure the survival, and proper upbringing of the infants.
3) Serve as an act of mercy.
4) Preserve a societal ban on the murder of non-threatening, defenseless entities.

[Theoboldi]

No! That is the trap everyone falls into! You cannot make 'real world' comparisons because that is only forcing your (our) concept of morality into a different world. Our morality is a product of the world we live in, at least to a certain degree. DnD morality would be a product of the DnD world, at least to a certain degree, so forget trying to fit our laws and ethics in.

Evil is a tangible force in the DnD world that exists independently of actions. Their morality would take this into account.

What does that have to do with forcibly mercikilling someone (children, of an explitly not always evil species, in this case)? I'm perfectly fine with smiting fiends and dragons on sight. Or was that supposed to be blue? :smallconfused:

[JellyPooga]

This is a real non-question here.

A Paladin killing innocents is a grade-A gravity inducing action.

I'm rather fond of the idea suggested by Rabidmuskrat of adopting them and raising them to be Good as the appropriate action! I might just use that for my next character; an aging Paladin with two young Goblin squires would be awesome.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It depends entirely on the setting. As the dm you can have your Paladins be shining paragons of goodness and mercy and kittens and rainbows. :smallwink:

You can also have your world populated by fanatic zealots empowered by a divine mandate to destroy everything that their church considers "wrong" "unholy" or "Evil".
Fanatics sometimes do bad stuff in the name of "Good".

Just because it is considered abhorrent in our society does not mean that it's the same in your campaign world.
To a Paladin and his god it might be perfectly good and just to "cleanse the world of their taint before it festers".

[Blightedmarsh]

A lawful good paladin happening across a cluster of infants from a well known, predominantly evil species, would probably be best served by capturing the children and placing them in foster care with his church.

This would:

1) Neutralize a potential evil prior to it becoming a threat.
2) Ensure the survival, and proper upbringing of the infants.
3) Serve as an act of mercy.
4) Preserve a societal ban on the murder of non-threatening, defenseless entities.

That has got to be a plot hook for an adventure. The BBEG wants to do the same to the good community because A) it worked out so well for him and B) turnabout is fair play.

Alternately you could use it as a back story for an adventurer or even an entire party.

[Kalirren]

It depends entirely on the setting. As the dm you can have your Paladins be shining paragons of goodness and mercy and kittens and rainbows. :smallwink:

You can also have your world populated by fanatic zealots empowered by a divine mandate to destroy everything that their church considers "wrong" "unholy" or "Evil".
Fanatics sometimes do bad stuff in the name of "Good".

Just because it is considered abhorrent in our society does not mean that it's the same in your campaign world.
To a Paladin and his god it might be perfectly good and just to "cleanse the world of their taint before it festers".

The setting is known. This isn't just a Paladin. It's a Paladin of Abadar. Abadar is the God of Golarion credited with guiding the advancement of the demihuman races towards the point where they could establish civilized societies of their own.

For any servant of Abadar to do anything other than arrange for these goblin youths to be put in foster care goes against the work of Abadar himself.

[RFLS]

It's a holy warrior man... who goes to church and must pay an amount of service to each church he/she runs into. Gaining powers of spells and abilities from said gods, like clerics.

It's a staple, I would find it weird to have a Fighter running around killing people then using "Holy" powers to benefit himself because no god would punish him.

[citation needed]

No, really. Go and find me anything in the core rules that implies that paladins are the servants of deities. I'll wait here.

[Rabidmuskrat]

Just because it is considered abhorrent in our society does not mean that it's the same in your campaign world.
To a Paladin and his god it might be perfectly good and just to "cleanse the world of their taint before it festers".

There is my point.

But I still say killing kids in cold blood is a bit much. All I'm saying is that it is closer to the thin line of being okay than most people here are saying. The DnD world is brutal. Its morality should reflect that.

[Barsoom]

It depends entirely on the setting. As the dm you can have your Paladins be shining paragons of goodness and mercy and kittens and rainbows. :smallwink:

You can also have your world populated by fanatic zealots empowered by a divine mandate to destroy everything that their church considers "wrong" "unholy" or "Evil".
Fanatics sometimes do bad stuff in the name of "Good".

Just because it is considered abhorrent in our society does not mean that it's the same in your campaign world.
To a Paladin and his god it might be perfectly good and just to "cleanse the world of their taint before it festers".
Translation: go ahead and ignore the rules for Paladin's Code as specified in the Player's Handbook. Make your own homebrewed class that's sort-of-like-a-Paladin-but-can-ignore-the-Paladin's-Code. To add to the confusion, call that class "Paladin".

[Theoboldi]

There is my point.

But I still say killing kids in cold blood is a bit much. All I'm saying is that it is closer to the thin line of being okay than most people here are saying. The DnD world is brutal. Its morality should reflect that.

I was talking about vanilla paladins, who have to be good and hold up to higher standards than others. Blightedmarsh insisting that the right thing for such a paladin to do is slaughtering children makes me very uncomfortable, and I suppose you can understand why.

Besides, I remember the BoED (or the BoVD) explicitly calling out murder as an evil act, and even though that book doesn't have very deep insight on morality, it is a voice of authority on the morality of your average D&D world.

[JellyPooga]

The DnD world is brutal. Its morality should reflect that.

No argument from me on this, but Paladins are supposed to greater than the norm; the shining beacon that others should aspire to, the paragon of all that is holy and good. A lawful good Fighter could well kill innocents as an expedient way to increase the ambient level of Good-ness in the local area and maintain that he is acting in a lawful good manner, but a Paladin should be considering more than just the expedient, through to that which would provide the perfect example of his ideals.

[Barsoom]

There is my point.

But I still say killing kids in cold blood is a bit much. All I'm saying is that it is closer to the thin line of being okay than most people here are saying. The DnD world is brutal. Its morality should reflect that.
Not close at all. The Paladin's code requires that he, and I quote, "protect the innocent". As specified by the OP, the goblin children were innocent. By killing them, he definitely failed to protect them. It's really a binary pass/fail test. There's no grey area here.

There might be some leeway for a grey area if it was a Lawful Good Fighter, for example, but not for a Paladin. Because for a Paladin, "protect the innocent" is actually spelled out in his code.

[Gullintanni]

That has got to be a plot hook for an adventure. The BBEG wants to do the same to the good community because A) it worked out so well for him and B) turnabout is fair play.

Alternately you could use it as a back story for an adventurer or even an entire party.

Agreed. I think it'd make a great plot-hook. It'd also be a great backstory for a party of good goblin adventurers to thwart an evil goblin BBEG. :smalltongue:

[Rubik]

A quibble:


Besides, I remember the BoED (or the BoVD) explicitly calling out murder as an evil act, and even though that book doesn't have very deep insight on morality, it is a voice of authority on the morality of your average D&D world.BoVD/BoED notwithstanding, the actual definition of murder is technically a function of Law. Murder is unlawful, not inherently Good or Evil. The celestially sanctioned killing of fiendish Overlord Death von EvilRapeKill, ruler of Eviltopia, is murder, even if he is actually an aspect of Orcus himself.


Murder (Noun)
1. The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Whether the Books of Questionable Morality agree or not is beside the point, honestly.

[Gullintanni]

Not close at all. The Paladin's code requires that he, and I quote, "protect the innocent". As specified by the OP, the goblin children were innocent. By killing them, he definitely failed to protect them. It's really a binary pass/fail test. There's no grey area here.


A paladin's code of conduct also requires that they act with honor and respect legitimate authority. If their church, or monarch passes laws prohibiting murder, then slaying a defenseless opponent, innocent or not, violates both aspects of the code.

Their behavior would be both dishonorable and illegal.

[Man on Fire]

Is it rightful for a Paladin of Abadar to slay innocent goblin babies and children? What kind of morals must he face? Can they be redeemed? Specifically, I put two baby goblins and two children goblins playing in the nursery at Thistletop per the option given to the DM's in Rise of the Runelords.

Is everything kosher with him doing the slaying?

Don't do that (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/03/08/counter-monkey-the-prisoner-dilemma/)

Seriously, don't. It's the easiest way to break the party, make them fight each other, walk away, or at best spend hours arguing over the issue.

Also, the idea that any race is "ALWAYS Chaotic Evil" or any other aligment was the single worst thing put in any edition of D&D. It's horrible and you shouldn't support it. A baby is a baby, it's not evil by nature and paladin who kills it is a horrible prick that deserves his god to personally slap him in the face.

[Snails]

The Paladin class has this ability called Detect Evil for a reason. Employing it here to make the decision would not be the most morally inspired choice, but it should avoid brain dead stupid results.

No, I do not advocate killing just because someone pings evil as a standard practice. In fact, I have a Paladin PC that almost never uses Detect Evil, because other factors prove more important. But at least the evil-o-meter should prevent most unnecessary Falls; by the letter of the law, creatures that ping evil are not innocent.

The more practical answer, unless the module writer is purposefully trying to be annoying, is it is usually easy enough to "persuade" the last few adult goblins that minding the children somewhere far away is a fair price for being allowed to live.

[Gullintanni]

Also, the idea that any race is "ALWAYS Chaotic Evil" or any other aligment was the single worst thing put in any edition of D&D. It's horrible and you shouldn't support it. A baby is a baby, it's not evil by nature and paladin who kills it is a horrible prick that deserves his god to personally slap him in the face.

Doubly true considering goblin alignment is "Usually Neutral Evil".


The Paladin class has this ability called Detect Evil for a reason. Employing it here to make the decision would not be the most morally inspired choice, but it should avoid brain dead stupid results.


This raises an interesting question. What alignment does an infant have? If an infant has not yet reached a pseudo-sentient level of intelligence (and we're talking newborns), then shouldn't such a creature default to Neutral alignment?

There's no RAW for this AFAIK, but a worthy thought to ponder. Unless the module writer set out that the baby goblins were indeed Neutral Evil. In which case, I'd probably have to alter that bit of the module.

[Theoboldi]

A quibble:

BoVD/BoED notwithstanding, the actual definition of murder is technically a function of Law. Murder is unlawful, not inherently Good or Evil. Killing the fiendish Overlord Death von EvilRapeKill, ruler of Eviltopia, is murder, even if he is a Lawful Evil Baatezu.



Whether the Books of Questionable Morality agree or not is beside the point, honestly.

Are you honestly trying to prove your point by citing dictionary definitions? To some people, that is a sign that the thread is already dead. :smalltongue:
Though you can have that one. Murder being always evil was not really the point I was trying to make anyway.

[Rubik]

Don't do that (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/03/08/counter-monkey-the-prisoner-dilemma/)

Seriously, don't. It's the easiest way to break the party, make them fight each other, walk away, or at best spend hours arguing over the issue.

Also, the idea that any race is "ALWAYS Chaotic Evil" or any other aligment was the single worst thing put in any edition of D&D. It's horrible and you shouldn't support it. A baby is a baby, it's not evil by nature and paladin who kills it is a horrible prick that deserves his god to personally slap him in the face.I agree with all of this, with one small proviso. Fiends are inherently evil. They're literally made of it. The fact that such things can be redeemed is utterly ridiculous, and should not happen without literal divine intervention, in which case, the race of the creature in question should change to something not made of elemental evil.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I agree with all of this, with one small proviso. Fiends are inherently evil. They're literally made of it. The fact that such things can be redeemed is utterly ridiculous, and should not happen without literal divine intervention, in which case, the race of the creature in question should change to something not made of elemental evil.

Well, yes, but only if you do this both ways. Fallen angels do not exist.

[Blightedmarsh]

I was talking about vanilla paladins, who have to be good and hold up to higher standards than others. Blightedmarsh insisting that the right thing for such a paladin to do is slaughtering children makes me very uncomfortable, and I suppose you can understand why

All I am saying is that good does not equal nice. If the forces of good could utterly annihilate the forces of evil they would; at any cost.

The nice and mercy does not come from good; it comes from the self same humanity that brings about hate and anger. Would the paladin be stricken by the forces of good for killing those children? Possibly. Not because he committed an evil act; rather because he brought the forces of good into disrepute.

Would he be cast out as a human being then? Again possibly but not because he has fallen as a human being. It would not be because he failed as a human being but because people don't like to be reminded just how monstrous humans can be. People are people and monsters are monsters; if we aren't "better" than them then what gives us the right to slaughter them, take all their land and feel righteous about it?

[sleepyphoenixx]

I agree with all of this, with one small proviso. Fiends are inherently evil. They're literally made of it. The fact that such things can be redeemed is utterly ridiculous, and should not happen without literal divine intervention, in which case, the race of the creature in question should change to something not made of elemental evil.

As Outsiders with the [Evil] subtype fiends can not be redeemed. That's RAW.

[Theoboldi]

All I am saying is that good does not equal nice. If the forces of good could utterly annihilate the forces of evil they would; at any cost.

The nice and mercy does not come from good; it comes from the self same humanity that brings about hate and anger. Would the paladin be stricken by the forces of good for killing those children? Possibly. Not because he committed an evil act; rather because he brought the forces of good into disrepute.

Would he be cast out as a human being then? Again possibly but not because he has fallen as a human being. It would not be because he failed as a human being but because people don't like to be reminded just how monstrous humans can be. People are people and monsters are monsters; if we aren't "better" than them then what gives us the right to slaughter them, take all their land and feel righteous about it?

So you are saying paladins should be allowed to behave like monsters? Paladins, who are supposed to present a higher standard, who are supposed to be paragons of virtue and righteousness?
That's all I could read from what you just posted. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[Barsoom]

All I am saying is that good does not equal nice. <snip> A viable opinion. Or, we could actually crack open a PHB and read the Paladin's code. That'd work too.

[Urpriest]

The Paladin doesn't fall because the Paladin doesn't do this in the first place. When a player does something ridiculous and out of character you turn to them and ask if they really meant to do that, and make sure they fully understand the situation. Generally this is sufficient to get them to not do something out of character like that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's a holy warrior man... who goes to church and must pay an amount of service to each church he/she runs into. Gaining powers of spells and abilities from said gods, like clerics.

It's a staple, I would find it weird to have a Fighter running around killing people then using "Holy" powers to benefit himself because no god would punish him.Clerics don't have to have gods by default either. They, and paladins, gain power through their faith in what they believe is right and worthy of religious-level reverence. Even churches aren't a factor in the classes themselves, though a support network for the eternal struggles between good, evil, law, and chaos are definitely beneficial.


If not his place then whose? If the forces of good wanted mindless drones who will do what is told without question or hesitation then they would use golems almost exclusively. They don't; they're not even particularly known for gratuitous use of mind rape.Whose place is it to decide that those children should be mercy-killed, according to cosmic good? Noone's. Cosmic good would demand of -anyone- that they do the best they can for those children or leave them the hell alone. The reality of the fact that not everyone ascribes to the tenets of cosmic good is what puts truth in your previous statement.


I put is to you that the forces of good use being capable of understanding the rules and breaking them because that is precisely what they need. They need minds capable of thinking outside the box; capable of getting to grips with complex moral problems and resolving them decisively without self destructing.No. They need thinking creatures capable of learning and adapting and who can act in the spirit of the tenets of good when what is the correct moral choice is difficult to determine. (and in the cases of gods and devils, some source of inherent power that only mortal souls generate.)


Him doing "something constructive" for those children would involve endangering others; it would involve committing his time and effort away from the eternal fight. If he is resolved to spare them then the best thing he could do is to "pass the buck"; hand off the problem to someone more qualified and return to his calling. Anything more than that could be viewed as dereliction of duty and a violation of his oaths.

Not at all. Not acting is never an aligned act. It is by definition a non-act. Moreover, a paladin isn't expected to be doing battle with the forces of evil every waking moment. It is his primary, driving motivation, but he's expected to uphold or even exemplify the tenets of cosmic good; one of which is mercy which BoED defines as "giving quarter to enemies quarter who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme,"

How does killing children who are inarguably your prisoners qualify as showing them compassion or kindness in the vein of respect for life taken to a logical extreme?

Simply put, it doesn't. Especially given the entry on violence and the necessity of proper discrimination in that violence two pages later. Bringing hope is also a majorly good act. Showing the goblin children that they can grow up and lead happy lives without pillaging and murder, an option their parents chose to ignore beit from choice or ignorance, is a far greater act of good than any other option the paladin in this scenario has. A paladin would be expected, but not required, at the very least to either escort the children to a place such as a church or a goblin villiage at peace with its neighbors to be properly cared for.

[Man on Fire]

As Outsiders with the [Evil] subtype fiends can not be redeemed. That's RAW.

Didn't stopped WOTC from creating Succubus Paladin


I agree with all of this, with one small proviso. Fiends are inherently evil. They're literally made of it. The fact that such things can be redeemed is utterly ridiculous, and should not happen without literal divine intervention, in which case, the race of the creature in question should change to something not made of elemental evil.

I disagree for simple reason - Anti Anti Christ (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiAntiChrist) is vaild character concept and some people really enjoy playing characters like Hellboy or Daimon Hellstorm. Or like Spawn, who is normal guy bonded with a demon.

In case of demons and devils Evil is more that they're, as you said, MADE of evil. But that doesn't mean they cannot be good at heart.

[sleepyphoenixx]

What Paladins are supposed to be and what they are is not necessarily the same thing. History is rife with examples of how the view of what is good can shift over time.

That said, standard D&D assumes a world where monsters are evil, heroes are good and just, princesses are pretty and wizards are blasters.
Some people prefer a different setting but that's what the creators of D&D had in mind.

If you're gonna play a Paladin it's probably a good idea to talk to your dm about "The Code" before it comes up ingame.

[Krobar]

In my game that paladin would fall with the first sword strike. And the rest of the party would probably kill him before he had a chance to atone.


Whatever they may turn into in the future, right now they're innocent children.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As Outsiders with the [Evil] subtype fiends can not be redeemed. That's RAW.

No. It's a fool's errand to try, as there's something akin to a .000001% chance of success, but by RAW even creatures with the evil subtype can choose to act in accordance with any of the nine alignments precepts and have that alignment, so long as they're sapient (int 3 or higher). Fiends just continue to count as evil for magic regardless of their actual alignment because they're literally made of concentrated cosmic evil.

It's this latter fact and the absurdly slim chance of redemption that makes them okay to smite-on-sight. Good is merciful, not stupid.

[Snails]

This raises an interesting question. What alignment does an infant have? If an infant has not yet reached a pseudo-sentient level of intelligence (and we're talking newborns), then shouldn't such a creature default to Neutral alignment?

Being a fantasy world with peculiar metaphysics, there is not an unambiguously correct answer.

Employing Detect Evil punts this ball back to the DM to worry over. Anything that pings as evil is not innocent, by the letter of the RAW.

[Snails]

Whatever they may turn into in the future, right now they're innocent children.

The DM gets to decide that, once the Paladin employs Detect Evil.

[Barsoom]

The DM gets to decide that, once the Paladin employs Detect Evil.

It seems like the DM already decided that, given the OP's use of the word "innocent".

[sleepyphoenixx]

No. It's a fool's errand to try, as there's something akin to a .000001% chance of success, but by RAW even creatures with the evil subtype can choose to act in accordance with any of the nine alignments precepts and have that alignment, so long as they're sapient (int 3 or higher). Fiends just continue to count as evil for magic regardless of their actual alignment because they're literally made of concentrated cosmic evil.

It's this latter fact and the absurdly slim chance of redemption that makes them okay to smite-on-sight. Good is merciful, not stupid.

From BoED P.29

Outsiders with the Evil subtype are immune to redemption
in this manner

[Krobar]

The DM gets to decide that, once the Paladin employs Detect Evil.

As in every other case, the DM decides everything that happens to the characters.

And in my game, that Paladin would fall. Even if I said "they detect as evil" because he simply shouldn't kill children for thought crimes.

[Gullintanni]

Anti Anti Christ (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiAntiChrist)

I just lost half an hour of my life because you linked that thrice cursed website. I hope you're happy. :smalltongue:

[Spuddles]

It depends entirely on the setting. As the dm you can have your Paladins be shining paragons of goodness and mercy and kittens and rainbows. :smallwink:

You can also have your world populated by fanatic zealots empowered by a divine mandate to destroy everything that their church considers "wrong" "unholy" or "Evil".
Fanatics sometimes do bad stuff in the name of "Good".

Just because it is considered abhorrent in our society does not mean that it's the same in your campaign world.
To a Paladin and his god it might be perfectly good and just to "cleanse the world of their taint before it festers".

Ok.
And if you are playing D&D, with the rules therein, which the OP presumably is, seeing how they're playing in a published setting, the paladin falls. His god might condone it, but the paladin still loses his powers. A church obsessed with cleansing taint that doesn't care about innocents is an Evil church. They can call themselves whatever they like. In the D&D rules, they are Evil, capital E.


There is my point.

But I still say killing kids in cold blood is a bit much. All I'm saying is that it is closer to the thin line of being okay than most people here are saying. The DnD world is brutal. Its morality should reflect that.

It's morality is in the Player's Handbook. It's pretty clear that slaying innocents is an evil act. In fact, D&D has a very modern sense of morality. Despite being "brutal", D&D's ethical set seems to have been put together by humanists.


A quibble:

BoVD/BoED notwithstanding, the actual definition of murder is technically a function of Law. Murder is unlawful, not inherently Good or Evil. The celestially sanctioned killing of fiendish Overlord Death von EvilRapeKill, ruler of Eviltopia, is murder, even if he is actually an aspect of Orcus himself.

Your semantics are still bad.

Murder is unlawful AND premeditated, as this precludes manslaughter (unlawful, accidental), and self defense (unlawful, intentional, but not premeditated).

EvilRapeKill was judged by a Celestial court; his execution was lawful. And since he's fiendish, it wasn't even a homocide.


As Outsiders with the [Evil] subtype fiends can not be redeemed. That's RAW.

Except where they can be, via prestige class or spell.

[Blightedmarsh]

So you are saying paladins should be allowed to behave like monsters? Paladins, who are supposed to present a higher standard, who are supposed to be paragons of virtue and righteousness?
That's all I could read from what you just posted. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

What I am saying is that higher standard is often a double standard; one not truly compatible with what it means to be human. What I am trying to say is that the paladin should be allowed to act like a human and isn't being permitted to.

A shining beacon may seem all nice and pretty but the reality is that it is untouchable; unapproachable and all too easily tarnished. The cause of righteousness is better served with a more down to earth aproch. Flawed human beings doing what they think is best inspite of their mistakes.

I honestly think there is a difference between "right" and "good"...but perhaps that's just the lawful evil in me talking.



Not at all. Not acting is never an aligned act. It is by definition a non-act. Moreover, a paladin isn't expected to be doing battle with the forces of evil every waking moment. It is his primary, driving motivation, but he's expected to uphold or even exemplify the tenets of cosmic good; one of which is mercy which BoED defines as "giving quarter to enemies quarter who surrender and treating criminals and prisoners with compassion and even kindness. It is, in effect, the good doctrine of respect for life taken to its logical extreme,"

What I am trying to say is that a paladin is a kind of fighter; a crusader for good. That is what the resources invested in his training where meant for. He could go off and do basket weaving "for great justice" but that would be a waste of his talents when the average commoner could do just as well if not better.

The efficient thing is to delegate the task of guidance and child rearing to one better suited and more able. This frees up the paladin to focus on the business he is more able to. When engaged in the war between good and evil waste of fighting potential should be kept at an absolute minimum. Perhaps good does not behave in this way; which may go some way to explaining why they have yet to win.

[Hiro Protagonest]

As Outsiders with the [Evil] subtype fiends can not be redeemed. That's RAW.

No. RAW says that "Always Evil" means that 99/100 are evil.

[JellyPooga]

The efficient thing

Being a Paladin isn't about being efficient. It's about following a Code that you've sworn your life to. It may be efficient, or expedient, even more Good to break that Code, but whatever the reason, if you break the Code, you fall. You can atone at a later date (there's even rules for it! :smallwink: ), but the failure to observe the Code in that one instance means you hit the deck face-first.

[Mr.Bookworm]

From BoED P.29

Quoting part of a text and leaving out everything that refutes your argument is incredibly disingenuous, man.

The full text is a section on how you can convert an evil creature through Diplomacy checks if you're holding them captive. It says nothing about whether fiends can be redeemed in the grander sense, only that it can't happen through that specific type of conversion.

[Theoboldi]

What I am saying is that higher standard is often a double standard; one not truly compatible with what it means to be human. What I am trying to say is that the paladin should be allowed to act like a human and isn't being permitted to.

A shining beacon may seem all nice and pretty but the reality is that it is untouchable; unapproachable and all too easily tarnished. The cause of righteousness is better served with a more down to earth aproch. Flawed human beings doing what they think is best inspite of their mistakes.

I honestly think there is a difference between "right" and "good"...but perhaps that's just the lawful evil in me talking.


This is a complete non-sequitor. What does any of this have to do with killing children because it is the most convinient and efficient way to ensure that they never grow up to threaten peope and the fact that a paladin should fall for it, since he himself has sworn to try and be that unapproachable shining beacon when he became a paladin?

[Spuddles]

The most efficient solution would be to kill everybody.

[Barsoom]

What I am trying to say is that a paladin is a kind of fighter The entirety of this post refers to some class you have homebrewed in your head and are eager to share with us [and it's nice], but it sure as heck has nothing to do with the Paladin class as described in the PHB.

[Snails]

As in every other case, the DM decides everything that happens to the characters.

And in my game, that Paladin would fall. Even if I said "they detect as evil" because he simply shouldn't kill children for thought crimes.

That would you choosing to create houserules, which is your prerogative as a DM. But pretending your houserules are not houserules does not buttress your argument.

It is the metaphysical nature of D&D universes that moral innocence can sometimes be disproven by a simple magical effect. It is not a "thought crime" here; it is a provable fact. Note that by the RAW many "not innocent" persons probably do not ping as evil, so showing up on evil-radar means something.

You, as a DM, could easily give fair warning about the ambiguity. "While they are obviously not nice cuddly babies, even at their tender age, they show only the tiniest hint of taint from evil."

[Renegade Paladin]

All I am saying is that good does not equal nice.
You're right as far as that goes. It doesn't. But not nice doesn't equal blood-soaked wanton murderer, either. The paladin doesn't have to be kind to anybody, but he must protect the innocent and seek justice. If that means turning goblin children over to the clergy of Abadar, so be it. Raising a child is a lot of work, but as the progenitor of civilization, it is a part of Abadar's work, and in any case slaughtering children is a direct violation of the paladin's code in about six different ways. This doesn't mean the paladin must take permanent responsibility for the children, but seeing them to safety and a civilized upbringing is his duty, whether he's nice about it or not.

[Kudaku]

I just figured I'd drop in here and point out that the Paladin's Detect Evil class feature would be of no use in this particular circumstance unless the goblin babies in question have more than 5 racial HD. For a creature that is not a cleric, paladin, undead, or outsider you need at least 5 HD before you ping on a detect evil spell, which is what the PF paladin's ability is specifically called out as emulating.

As for Kalirren arguing that goblin societies are largely lawful... Erm... Are you actually familiar with Pathfinder goblins? They are extremely different from the 3.5 version. Based on what I've read in Goblins of Golarion and We Be Goblins I'd argue that goblins society is extremely Chaotic and fairly Evil.

Abadar... I do agree that Abadar would frown on killing innocents, regardless of race. Most likely I can see him favoring an option such as an orphanage, if one is available. However, I'm not sure how he feels about, say, slavery? Slavery in Golarion is specifically and repeatedly called out as "not evil" as long as the slave is not treated badly - many countries actually have well-defined rules and laws in place to ensure the rights of slaves.

I can imagine a paladin of Abadar (based on the country he is in and the origin of the paladin) first ensuring that they go to a good master and then selling goblin children into slavery. If they behave and work hard they earn the possibility to free themselves and become free citizens, contributing to civilization as a whole. On the other hand, if they rebel or act up, they'll languish and most likely die.

[Quorothorn]

This topic just keeps on coming up, I notice. And runs to three pages long even though the answer to the topic question is pretty clearly "no, it is not rightful". By RAW, by the setting-specifics, by sheer "common sense", all no.


All I am saying is that good does not equal nice. If the forces of good could utterly annihilate the forces of evil they would; at any cost.

I would say that the fact that the "forces of Good" would NOT annihilate the forces of Evil "at any cost" (emphasis added) is WHY they are the forces of Good, instead of Evil.

[jindra34]

Wow... Comically most people failed seem to have lost track of the fact that the goblin kids started in an orphanage in a city... So unless the city is really screwed up (at which point there will be major issues and the kids should not have been amongst the first dead) it was essentially an already resolved problem by almost any stretch of the definition of 'good'. So yes falling seems rather appropriate.

[Renegade Paladin]

Wow... Comically most people failed seem to have lost track of the fact that the goblin kids started in an orphanage in a city... So unless the city is really screwed up (at which point there will be major issues and the kids should not have been amongst the first dead) it was essentially an already resolved problem by almost any stretch of the definition of 'good'. So yes falling seems rather appropriate.
Oh, wow. I'm going to run Rise of the Runelords in the near future, but I hadn't read the adventure yet; I'd assumed Thistletop was some goblin town. If it's a civilized city and not a combat encounter, then not only should the paladin fall, he should be tried and hanged for murder.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wow... Comically most people failed seem to have lost track of the fact that the goblin kids started in an orphanage in a city... So unless the city is really screwed up (at which point there will be major issues and the kids should not have been amongst the first dead) it was essentially an already resolved problem by almost any stretch of the definition of 'good'. So yes falling seems rather appropriate.

Uh, he said he put them there, not that he found them there.

[JellyPooga]

...not only should the paladin fall, he should be tried and hanged for murder.

I'm not familiar with the adventure at all, myself, so I'll gladly second this emotion unless there's some other factor at work. Paladin is still going to fall, either way.

[Kudaku]

Wow... Comically most people failed seem to have lost track of the fact that the goblin kids started in an orphanage in a city... So unless the city is really screwed up (at which point there will be major issues and the kids should not have been amongst the first dead) it was essentially an already resolved problem by almost any stretch of the definition of 'good'. So yes falling seems rather appropriate.

Comically you seem to have missed a few elements yourself :smalltongue:

The OP mentioned he, as a GM, decided to place goblin babies in the "nursery" in Thistletop. Thistletop is a goblin stronghold in Varisia - the "nursery" he is essentially a holding pen for goblin children.

Specifically the room description is as follows: The walls of this room are lined with small wooden cages. Inside each cage is a dirty mound of straw.

I'll throw in the room details provided for GMs as well, but I'll spoiler this for length and in case someone here is very sensitive regarding minor spoilers for the first part of RotRL

Horrifyingly, this is the Thistletop nursery. Most goblin tribes have equally reprehensible methods of raising children—very few tribes actually coddle and protect their young, since the theory is that such activity only results in adult goblins who can’t defend themselves. Goblin wisdom instead supports methods like these cages, where fast-growing goblin babies and children are raised like animals on daily regimens of raw meat and abuse so they grow up properly mean and strong.

[jindra34]

Oh, wow. I'm going to run Rise of the Runelords in the near future, but I hadn't read the adventure yet; I'd assumed Thistletop was some goblin town. If it's a civilized city and not a combat encounter, then not only should the paladin fall, he should be tried and hanged for murder.

I haven't actually read the adventure either, but a city is a very different place from an outpost, fort, or other military fortification. Which means that even if it was a goblin city, and even if goblins were at the time enemies, murdering everyone in a goblin city is still not kosher, because a city can have differing ideas and not every might support the ruling agenda.

And Jade Dragon: The DM placed them there. Not a player. So the placement was out of game, from an in game perspective they were always there.

[Kudaku]

I haven't actually read the adventure either, but a city is a very different place from an outpost, fort, or other military fortification. Which means that even if it was a goblin city, and even if goblins were at the time enemies, murdering everyone in a goblin city is still not kosher, because a city can have differing ideas and not every might support the ruling agenda.

Where have you all gotten this idea that Thistletop is a city? I'm reading through the thread and I can't find it anywhere. Again, Thistletop is a goblin fort - it houses one tribe of approximately twenty to thirty goblins.

[Coidzor]

Abadar, eh? I think it'd be more in keeping with his ethics to sell them into slavery than to kill them anyway, and I don't think that's generally kosher for paladins either.


Oh, wow. I'm going to run Rise of the Runelords in the near future, but I hadn't read the adventure yet; I'd assumed Thistletop was some goblin town. If it's a civilized city and not a combat encounter, then not only should the paladin fall, he should be tried and hanged for murder.

This is Pathfinder, mind you. I believe their goblins are specifically called out as being incapable of living in peaceful situations on their own. They may or may not have racial insanity, but they definitely have cultural insanity making the idea of a peaceful goblin settlement impossible and the idea of them managing a village, let alone a town unthinkable.

Now if this was the GM's own setting, there'd be a bit more leeway, but since it's an Adventure Path set in Golarion...

[Kudaku]

Abadar, eh? I think it'd be more in keeping with his ethics to sell them into slavery than to kill them anyway, and I don't think that's generally kosher for paladins either.

Interestingly, that would actually depend on the country the paladin in question is in. Slavery in itself is not an evil act in Golarion - it depends on how the slaves are treated.

However from what we know the paladin is on the western coast of Varisia, where slavery is sliding from "frowned upon" to "illegal" depending on how close you get to Magnimar.

[Coidzor]

Interestingly, that would actually depend on the country the paladin in question is in. Slavery in itself is not an evil act in Golarion - it depends on how the slaves are treated.

However from what we know the paladin is on the western coast of Varisia, where slavery is sliding from "frowned upon" to "illegal" depending on how close you get to Magnimar.

Ulfen are basically viking expies, Ulfen thralldom maybe? That'd conveniently see them away on a ship so that one didn't have to deal with Magnimar... Also, that seems like the best thing to do by them aside from just adopting them anyway, but I can't remember what Ulfen attitudes towards goblins are.

[Snails]

I just figured I'd drop in here and point out that the Paladin's Detect Evil class feature would be of no use in this particular circumstance unless the goblin babies in question have more than 5 racial HD. For a creature that is not a cleric, paladin, undead, or outsider you need at least 5 HD before you ping on a detect evil spell, which is what the PF paladin's ability is specifically called out as emulating.

In 3.5, you just ping as an aura of power Faint (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm).

[Scow2]

The paladin cannot kill innocent children. However, not all children are innocent (Example: Gnolls). Goblins are usually Neutral Evil. Not often Neutral Evil. Which means that a strong majority of the race is evil. Goblins are not lawful, either. In fact, they tend to be more chaotic than lawful. In fact, going back to the inspirational stories, all Goblins are children. I find D&D's stripping of their supernatural origin and procreation (Read: Kidnapping/luring other children away). A goblin is a child who's mischief has turned to malice. Hobgoblins are men and women who's sociopolitical mindset is based on Enlightenment Thinker Thomas Hobbes' philosophy. Bugbears are the 'adult' version of that larveal fungus that grows on locker-room floor and later matures into Schoolyard Bullies. Goblins are a blight on civilization.

It's probably in his best interest, when dealing with the domestic end of Evil societies, to scatter them to the winds alive. "Children and noncombatants, flee this place, and turn from Evil."

On the subject of Murder: The definition of Murder relevent to Paladins is "To kill with malicious intent"

On the subject of Divine Power: Gods are not the source of a Paladin's power. Even in the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, Paladins draw their power from Primordeal Good. They just tend to rely on the judgement of Dieties because those tend to be older, wiser, and more in tune with the actual nature of Good- but if, say, Pelor turns out to be the Burning Hate, the Paladin can and will reject him without losing his powers, because he answers to an even higher power.

On the subject of Paladins being Unnatural - that's an "Argument to nature" Fallacy. Redcloak's right: Paladins aren't natural things. Fortunately for Paladins, they are Paragons of Good, not tree-hugging hippy druids or rangers (However, the "Respect for Life" deal usually has them trying to preserve the forests as well). Nature tends toward Neutrality in Alignment, and Paladins come from the far, FAR end of the alignment spectrum, being every bit as unnatural as a Blackguard. The difference is that he is an exemplar of Good.

And, as humans are not even often, much less usually Lawful Good, a Paladin is not to emphasize his humanity either. The only thing that makes a Paladin close to relatable is empathy, respect for life, and compassion being the primary features of Good.

[Rubik]

Your semantics are still bad.

Murder is unlawful AND premeditated, as this precludes manslaughter (unlawful, accidental), and self defense (unlawful, intentional, but not premeditated).

EvilRapeKill was judged by a Celestial court; his execution was lawful. And since he's fiendish, it wasn't even a homocide.No mention was made of a celestial court; unless the executor in question beheld the trial and von EvilRapeKill was given the chance to defend himself, the trial holds no water. Plus, it assuredly holds no jurisdiction in Eviltopia to begin with, and so qualifies as murder (as going after someone to kill them is, by definition, premeditated).

It's both against the law and premeditated, and so counts as murder regardless of how Good (with a capital G) it might be. The very definition of the word "murder" combined with WotC's description of it as being an unmitigatedly evil act, means that whatever celestials are involved in this murder are inspiring others to commit Evil, which is an Evil act in itself. As a result, whatever paladin they commanded this of would fall for committing it, and I'm sure EvilRapeKill will laugh at this fact when he manages to resurrect himself (assuming he's successfully murdered to begin with).

[Kudaku]

Ulfen are basically viking expies, Ulfen thralldom maybe? That'd conveniently see them away on a ship so that one didn't have to deal with Magnimar... Also, that seems like the best thing to do by them aside from just adopting them anyway, but I can't remember what Ulfen attitudes towards goblins are.

That could work, as could putting them on a ship or caravan to Molthune. I can't recall anything in particular regarding Ulfen and goblins, but like you said, Ulfen are essentially saga-vikings - they're big on honor, dependability, bravery, and so on. Goblins on the other hand are sneaky backstabbing cowardly pyromaniac bastards... Might not be the best fit.

From what I can tell this is a Pathfinder campaign - Let's keep WOTC's definitions and rulings on good and evil out of this. They differ markedly and at times wildly from Pathfinder's rulings and definitions.

[Scow2]

No mention was made of a celestial court; unless the executor in question beheld the trial and von EvilRapeKill was given the chance to defend himself, the trial holds no water. Plus, it assuredly holds no jurisdiction in Eviltopia to begin with, and so qualifies as murder (as going after someone to kill them is, by definition, premeditated).

It's both against the law and premeditated, and so counts as murder regardless of how Good (with a capital G) it might be. The very definition of the word "murder" combined with WotC's description of it as being an unmitigatedly evil act, means that whatever celestials are involved in this murder are inspiring others to commit Evil, which is an Evil act in itself. As a result, whatever paladin they commanded this of would fall for committing it, and I'm sure EvilRapeKill will laugh at this fact when he manages to resurrect himself (assuming he's successfully murdered to begin with).
The confusion here is because murder has two definitions, depending on whether it's viewed from the Law/Chaos axis or Good/Evil one.

You're trying to use the "Law/Chaos" axis definition: Premeditated, illegal killing of someone.

The Good/Evil definition is "Killing with malicious intent." (Most heroes kill without malicious intent - it's a means to an end. Vengeance is not always malcious either, if it's Vengeance for a Just Cause, such as Inigo Montoya killing Count Ruegan.)

[Magni's Hammer]

In Pathfinder, goblins are more like malicious, hateful faeries or rabid animals. 3.5 goblins were just small humanoids that were good at sneaking and had a very primitive civilization; Pathfinder goblins, though they are natural creatures, are more mockeries of civilized beings. They love to torment small animals and their own children, are fascinated with arson, and become vicious when bored. At least that's what I remember from the Monster Manual and Bestiary, respectively.

If a bunch of adventurers found a goblin nursery in 3.5, the infants would behave like any human infant. But from the Pathfinder Bestiary's description, I would imagine the little horrors to start throwing themselves against the bars of their cages, howling and snapping their teeth at the sight of adventurers.

I once, foolishly, presented this scenario to my players in a 3.5 game. I mean exactly: the paladin, the nursery, the babies. It was stupid and ruined the party's cohesion. Because I was sending the players against obviously innocent creatures and basically goading them into testing their alignments. But if I had done it with Pathfinder, I would have made the goblin children as rabid and nasty as the adults. That kind of removes the "moral choice" aspect of the encounter, but I honestly can't think of a way to make "kill or not kill" into a good problem.

[Togath]

why is this even a question?
They are children, and you're a paladin, spare the little tikes, even if they are malicious.

One thing i also want to point out is that stat-wise, goblins are just as smart and wise as humans are, so i don't see why a goblin child couldn't be brought up good aligned.

[Scow2]

why is this even a question?
They are children, and you're a paladin, spare the little tikes, even if they are malicious.

They aren't children, though. They are immature Goblins. Or is your paladin also not permitted to kill grubs because "They're children too!", being immature beetles? The misconception here is that they're innocent because of their age: They most assuredly aren't.

[Togath]

They aren't children, though. They are immature Goblins. Or is your paladin also not permitted to kill grubs because "They're children too!", being immature beetles? The misconception here is that they're innocent because of their age: They most assuredly aren't.

So you're saying "murdering children is fine because they is teh enemy!".. aint that what the stereotypical uber-vilain does?(then again, most of those are blackguards, so i guess fallen paladins are pretty common..:smallamused:)

In a more serious note, I would like to point out that goblins are a playable race in PF.. how'd you feel if they were gnome children instead? or half-orc ones?

[Gullintanni]

They aren't children, though. They are immature Goblins. Or is your paladin also not permitted to kill grubs because "They're children too!", being immature beetles? The misconception here is that they're innocent because of their age: They most assuredly aren't.

For what it's worth, grubs aren't sentient. Goblins are. And if frivolous murder is an act of evil unto itself, then there's an argument to be made that a Paladin isn't permitted to kill grubs, so long as they're not an immediate threat to himself, his allies or the greater good. Or the greater law, as the case may be.

Goblin children are children, goblin adolescents are goblin adolescents. The difference is that one category is too young to effectively defend themselves, and the other is not. That said, there is no RAW for underage creatures, so I guess Goblin Toddlers are NE creatures that can carry up to 115lbs under heavy load and are eligible to pose for Madame Goblin Weekly. :smalltongue:

[Barsoom]

They aren't children, though. They are immature Goblins. Or is your paladin also not permitted to kill grubs because "They're children too!", being immature beetles? The misconception here is that they're innocent because of their age: They most assuredly aren't.
There is no misconception. We simply read the OP, which specified "innocent Goblin children" in plain English language. If there was any misconception, it's on your part.

[Scow2]

So you're saying "murdering children is fine because they is teh enemy!".. aint that what the stereotypical uber-vilain does?(then again, most of those are blackguards, so i guess fallen paladins are pretty common..:smallamused:)

In a more serious note, I would like to point out that goblins are a playable race in PF.. how'd you feel if they were gnome children instead? or half-orc ones?Not "Enemy", "Goblin". There's a difference. The former is someone you have a disagreement with. The latter is a tiny psychopath who's purpose in life is to rend, maim, and destroy the land, much like Gnolls were in 4e and 3.5 (The Beast of Butchery's blood burned hot in them). Although they may be "100% Natural", their destructive insanity is in the blood. It's possible to redeem them through traditional methods (Unlike demons.), but it's harder than rearing a Manticore.

Gnome and Half-Orc children are not cruel, murderous, arsonous psychopaths with a fetish for destruction by the time they are old enough to talk, unlike Goblins. Half-orcs may be socially spurned and prone to lashing out against their tormentors, but they are just as prone to toughening up and dealing with their problems in a more thought-out manner. Even Orcs aren't as prone to evil as Goblins are.

[Gullintanni]

The latter is a tiny psychopath who's purpose in life is to rend, maim, and destroy the land, much like Gnolls were in 4e and 3.5...

Under the goblin entry, alignment is listed as Usually NE, which means not all goblins are created equal. Moreover, particularly in this case, it also invites the nature/nurture debate. Are goblins naturally aggressive? Or is aggression a part of their upbringing?

If the goblins encountered are young enough, then a Paladin seeking to do the right thing has to ask himself:

Can I set these creatures on a path to right, or must they be killed to preserve good and order?

Failure to answer that question correctly could easily mean the difference between falling and not.

Now, not all D&D campaigns are run with the assumption that players will ask those sorts of questions of themselves, and if you're running a kick in the door style campaign where every goblin is evil and every elf is good, then depriving your paladin of his class features for striking down an iconic enemies is probably an exercise in bad faith on the part of the DM.

Regardless, if the campaign you're playing in IS asking those kinds of questions, then you've got to live up to your paladinhood.

[Togath]

In addition to other points that have been made, a "Usually X" alignment only means 75% of the population is of said alignment, and even an "Always X" one still only means 99%:smallsmile:

[turkishproverb]

Is it rightful for a Paladin of Abadar to slay innocent goblin babies and children? What kind of morals must he face? Can they be redeemed? Specifically, I put two baby goblins and two children goblins playing in the nursery at Thistletop per the option given to the DM's in Rise of the Runelords.

Is everything kosher with him doing the slaying?

...WHY WOULD THEY PUT THAT THERE? It's just asking for trouble. Then again, that's a Paizo product, and Pathfinder has taught me they don't always do the best thing with game design. On the other hand, at least it's only an option.


...If you're playing 3.5/3.0? Yes. He falls. Instantly. If you're playing Pathfinder? Yes. he falls. instantly. If you're playing AD&D? Rues are greyer, but from how I read them: Yes. he falls. instantly.

EDIT: For those who metnioned it, Pathfinder does have more...chaotic...goblins. however, as per the site (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin):
Goblins don’t have to be evil maniacs

[Gullintanni]

Are you reading the goblin entry from 3.5? Pathfinder/Golarion goblins (and Thistletop is in Golarion) are extremely different from traditional goblins. You can read up on Pathfinder goblins here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin).

I was indeed reading from the 3.5 entry. My bad.

That said, even there it says that, and I quote, "...most are neutral or chaotic evil."

I'm sticking to my guns. If you're in a campaign where moral ambiguity is par for the course, then dealing in absolutes is strictly for the sith fallen. :smallwink:

Defenseless (read: infantile) goblins are for capture. Not for killing. If reform proves impossible, then perhaps execution is in order. Perhaps imprisonment. Regardless, likely a decision that will come at the hands of a lawmaker, rather than the Paladin.

[Kudaku]

...WHY WOULD THEY PUT THAT THERE? It's just asking for trouble. Then again, that's a Paizo product, and Pathfinder has taught me they don't always do the best thing with game design. On the other hand, at least it's only an option.

While I do agree that Paizo has made some questionable decisions in the past, the vanilla version of this room is empty. They mention that a GM has the option to place some goblin children in there if he is feeling mean.
The exact phrasing is as follows:

GMs seeking to confront their players with awkward social situations might want to put a few sharp-toothed feral goblin children and babies in these cages for the unsuspecting adventurers to discover.

[Spuddles]

Gnome and Half-Orc children are not cruel, murderous, arsonous psychopaths with a fetish for destruction by the time they are old enough to talk, unlike Goblins..

o rly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies

[ryu]

I'm sure whatever tiny portion isn't an imminent threat to any and all nearby settlements right now probably would also not show many of the more ferocious bits of fluff description or detect as evil.

[Kudaku]

I was indeed reading from the 3.5 entry. My bad.

That said, even there it says that, and I quote, "...most are neutral or chaotic evil."

I'm sticking to my guns. If you're in a campaign where moral ambiguity is par for the course, then dealing in absolutes is strictly for the sith fallen. :smallwink:

No worries - I actually deleted my post. Reading your previous post I could have sworn it said LE, not NE. That's what I get for posting so late I guess :smallsmile:

[Gullintanni]

No worries - I actually deleted my post. Reading your previous post I could have sworn it said LE, not NE. That's what I get for posting so late I guess :smallsmile:

Norway! Yeah you're a little bit ahead of me.

Guess I should cut you a little slack then. :smalltongue:

[turkishproverb]

While I do agree that Paizo has made some questionable decisions in the past, the vanilla version of this room is empty. They mention that a GM has the option to place some goblin children in there if he is feeling mean.
The exact phrasing is as follows:

GMs seeking to confront their players with awkward social situations might want to put a few sharp-toothed feral goblin children and babies in these cages for the unsuspecting adventurers to discover.

Ok, that's not as bad as i thought, even if asking for certain parties to go crazy. Huh. Now I'm curious about the situation, because if that' show goblins raise their young, it explains some things about pathfinder goblins. Further, if they were captured by others, I'm curious.

[Kornaki]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin

Pathfinder SRD on playing a goblin:

Or maybe you were rescued as a child by a kindly adventurer who then turned your care over to a benevolent religion and you grew up with not only a deep respect for one of the gods of purity but a sense of shame that most of your kind worship barghests and demons.

I feel like this sounds remotely similar to one of the options that could have occurred here

[Lord Vukodlak]

They aren't children, though. They are immature Goblins. Or is your paladin also not permitted to kill grubs because "They're children too!", being immature beetles? The misconception here is that they're innocent because of their age: They most assuredly aren't.

They most assuredly are innocent and you've yet to provide any evidence that goblin or gnoll children aren't innocent. If your raised by chaotic evil parents chances are you'll end up chaotic evil. Goblins like most races are raised to be evil there isn't anything in there blood that makes them evil.


This is Pathfinder, mind you. I believe their goblins are specifically called out as being incapable of living in peaceful situations on their own.
Except for the fact that they aren't. People living within Golarion may consider this to be true of goblins but that doesn't make it so. Goblins in pathfinder are in no way always chaotic evil.

In one pathfinder boxed adventure set in Golarion, The principle town Thornkeep hosts a population of goblins. They're tolerated due to there low population, predisposition to eating rats and picking up junk to make crude items. Despite still being evil little blighters who think they can sing and think writing steals words from your head.

[Scow2]

Under the goblin entry, alignment is listed as Usually NE, which means not all goblins are created equal. Moreover, particularly in this case, it also invites the nature/nurture debate. Are goblins naturally aggressive? Or is aggression a part of their upbringing?

Goblins are Usually, not Often, Neutral Evil. The other two Evils take up another significant chunk of the Not-Neutral-Evil minority. They default to Evil, but Nurture can move them away from that - but that usually requires a non-evil Goblin community, which DOES happen - but it takes the entire community to make it happen. A child goblin in an Evil goblin society is irredeemable unless it strikes out on its own and ends up a natural abberration of its kind.

The Aggression is natural, but can be amplified or subdued by Goblin Upbringing -Non-goblin upbringing amplifies it, to spite their alien captors/caretakers.


They most assuredly are innocent and you've yet to provide any evidence that goblin or gnoll children aren't innocent. If your raised by chaotic evil parents chances are you'll end up chaotic evil.
Gnoll cubs murder each other, and the Ruler of Ruin and Beast of Butchery speaks within their minds directly. Demonic blood runs through their veins, though they are not Outsiders. Cruelty and slaughter are more firmly ingrained in their instincts than their libido.


Goblins are similar, though to a lesser extent. They range from mischevious to malicious, yet despite those qualities are still better to have in a city than rats, because even Demogorgon pales in comparison to the vileness of those rodents.

[Kudaku]

Ok, that's not as bad as i thought, even if asking for certain parties to go crazy. Huh. Now I'm curious about the situation, because if that' show goblins raise their young, it explains some things about pathfinder goblins. Further, if they were captured by others, I'm curious.

There is an excellent article summarizing the fluff from various sourcebooks on goblins located here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin). If that piques your interest then We Be Goblins (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8j5w) is a free adventure module where the players are goblins and Goblins of Golarion (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8mfk) gives you tons of insight into how goblins live :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

That could work, as could putting them on a ship or caravan to Molthune. I can't recall anything in particular regarding Ulfen and goblins, but like you said, Ulfen are essentially saga-vikings - they're big on honor, dependability, bravery, and so on. Goblins on the other hand are sneaky backstabbing cowardly pyromaniac bastards... Might not be the best fit.

I was thinking that at this point, the best that might be expected would be from a firm hand, at least initially.

[turkishproverb]

Not "Enemy", "Goblin". There's a difference. The former is someone you have a disagreement with. The latter is a tiny psychopath who's purpose in life is to rend, maim, and destroy the land, much like Gnolls were in 4e and 3.5 (The Beast of Butchery's blood burned hot in them). Although they may be "100% Natural", their destructive insanity is in the blood. It's possible to redeem them through traditional methods (Unlike demons.), but it's harder than rearing a Manticore.

Gnome and Half-Orc children are not cruel, murderous, arsonous psychopaths with a fetish for destruction by the time they are old enough to talk, unlike Goblins. Half-orcs may be socially spurned and prone to lashing out against their tormentors, but they are just as prone to toughening up and dealing with their problems in a more thought-out manner. Even Orcs aren't as prone to evil as Goblins are.



Goblins are Usually, not Often, Neutral Evil. The other two Evils take up another significant chunk of the Not-Neutral-Evil minority. They default to Evil, but Nurture can move them away from that - but that usually requires a non-evil Goblin community, which DOES happen - but it takes the entire community to make it happen. A child goblin in an Evil goblin society is irredeemable unless it strikes out on its own and ends up a natural abberration of its kind.

The Aggression is natural, but can be amplified or subdued by Goblin Upbringing -Non-goblin upbringing amplifies it, to spite their alien captors/caretakers.

Looking at the examples above, Paizo disagrees, and it's their version of goblins you're using to justify this stance. Goblins are people, and can be raised to be Good.

Edit: The examples:

Is it rightful for a Paladin of Abadar to slay innocent goblin babies and children? What kind of morals must he face? Can they be redeemed? Specifically, I put two baby goblins and two children goblins playing in the nursery at Thistletop per the option given to the DM's in Rise of the Runelords.

Is everything kosher with him doing the slaying?

...WHY WOULD THEY PUT THAT THERE? It's just asking for trouble. Then again, that's a Paizo product, and Pathfinder has taught me they don't always do the best thing with game design. On the other hand, at least it's only an option.


...If you're playing 3.5/3.0? Yes. He falls. Instantly. If you're playing Pathfinder? Yes. he falls. instantly. If you're playing AD&D? Rues are greyer, but from how I read them: Yes. he falls. instantly.

EDIT: For those who metnioned it, Pathfinder does have more...chaotic...goblins. however, as per the site (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin):
Goblins don’t have to be evil maniacs


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin

Pathfinder SRD on playing a goblin:

Or maybe you were rescued as a child by a kindly adventurer who then turned your care over to a benevolent religion and you grew up with not only a deep respect for one of the gods of purity but a sense of shame that most of your kind worship barghests and demons.

I feel like this sounds remotely similar to one of the options that could have occurred here


I was indeed reading from the 3.5 entry. My bad.

That said, even there it says that, and I quote, "...most are neutral or chaotic evil."

I'm sticking to my guns. If you're in a campaign where moral ambiguity is par for the course, then dealing in absolutes is strictly for the sith fallen. :smallwink:

Defenseless (read: infantile) goblins are for capture. Not for killing. If reform proves impossible, then perhaps execution is in order. Perhaps imprisonment. Regardless, likely a decision that will come at the hands of a lawmaker, rather than the Paladin.


There is an excellent article summarizing the fluff from various sourcebooks on goblins located here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin). If that piques your interest then We Be Goblins (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8j5w) is a free adventure module where the players are goblins and Goblins of Golarion (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8mfk) gives you tons of insight into how goblins live :smallsmile:

Thank you, I might just read up.

[Gullintanni]

The Aggression is natural, but can be amplified or subdued by Goblin Upbringing -Non-goblin upbringing amplifies it, to spite their alien captors/caretakers.

That would be a DM call, and not one I'd particularly support at that. A goblin litter, recovered at a young enough age by a travelling paladin, and raised by a religious order serving up 3-4 hot meals a day, offering comfortable amenities and reasonable clothing, as well as a firm hand, I believe could instill a sense of gratitude in the creatures.

Most goblin children, according to the fluff, are raised in squalor, starvation, poverty, and are victims of frequent abuse. Even the most stubborn goblin youth would eventually find himself reticent to be driven back to his roots.

To suggest that non-goblins and goblins can not coexist, to me, seems somewhat narrow minded. Worse, it doesn't make for particularly compelling gameplay. A little moral complexity, if handled correctly, can make for a deeper story.

EDIT: And for what it's worth, I'd wager that most goblins are NE, or some other permutation of evil, because they are raised by NE goblins, or some other permutation of evil.

[Need_A_Life]

Killing them would only be justifiable if such as the most merciful act. If they're slowly burning to death (and putting out the fire is not an option), then I could see an argument for euthanasia in the form of three feet of steel.

Of course, considering just how great racial feats Goblins have access to (seriously, just look at "Roll With It" combined with the Scout Archetype for Rogues), saving them to become replacement PCs down the road would be justified even for the "Killf**k Souls**tters," let alone a Paladin.

Not to mention that this is the option for the Paladin to raise those little psychotics "in the faith" and show the mercy of Abadar. Just keep them away from anyone who might be dumb enough to teach them how to make alchemist's fire...

In short:
1) Paladin kills baby = he falls. mercy-killing might be alright, though.
2) Goblins are hilariously fun and arguably overpowered.

[North_Ranger]

Fluff junkie powers, activate! Let's see if there's a decent precedent in the Pathfinder setting fluff...

Hmm... This looks interesting. An excerpt from the paladin code of conduct for Abadarans:


I make opportunities, and teach others to recognize them. When I aid others, I open the way for them, but I will not carry them - they must take responsibility.

In that regards, an Abadaran paladin could take in the goblin children and bring them to an orphanage - preferably a Lawful one. He should offer the presumed-innocent goblin children the opportunity to grow into better beings than their background would otherwise allow. But should they refuse or be unable to overcome their nature... well, then they will be lawfully punished.

That is, however, only my reading on the matter.

Now if the paladin were a servant of Torag, he'd probably just smash the little buggers and move on. Torag's approach to his enemies is pretty much "no prisoners".

[Lord Vukodlak]

Gnoll cubs murder each other, and the Ruler of Ruin and Beast of Butchery speaks within their minds directly. Demonic blood runs through their veins, though they are not Outsiders. Cruelty and slaughter are more firmly ingrained in their instincts than their libido.
Demonic blood is no more prevalent in Gnoll veins then it is in humans.


Goblins are similar, though to a lesser extent. They range from mischevious to malicious, yet despite those qualities are still better to have in a city than rats, because even Demogorgon pales in comparison to the vileness of those rodents.
Seriously stop confusing your personal campaign setting with the one from pathfinder. (or any published campaign setting for that matter). Goblins tend to be evil for the same reasons Elves tend to be good its there society.

Its already been established in pathfinder that a goblin can be good if he's raised to be good and nothing is mentioned that they're aggression is magnified by being raised by non-goblins.

You can make things up all you want for your own campaign setting.(as that's the fun of having your own campaign setting). But here and now we're talking about an established setting.

[Deadline]

Is everything kosher with him doing the slaying?

Eating babies is Evil. Eating Goblin Babies is Survival (Wis).

[Scow2]

Demonic blood is no more prevalent in Gnoll veins then it is in humans.
Humans, unlike Gnolls, were not created by a Demon Prince for the explicit goal of the destruction of civilizations on the Material Plane. Note that I specified 3.5 and 4e gnolls, though.

[North_Ranger]

Humans, unlike Gnolls, were not created by a Demon Prince for the explicit goal of the destruction of civilizations on the Material Plane. Note that I specified 3.5 and 4e gnolls, though.

And the OP asked specifically advice for a paladin in the Pathfinder system.

Although some theologians (and the gnolls themselves) believe that the gnolls are the favoured children of Lamashtu the Demon Mother...

[turkishproverb]

Humans, unlike Gnolls, were not created by a Demon Prince for the explicit goal of the destruction of civilizations on the Material Plane. Note that I specified 3.5 and 4e gnolls, though.

3.5 Gnolls are Usually Chaotic evil.

Let me repeat: USUALLY Chaotic Evil.

As such they are not inherently evil, as a relatively decent portion of the species is non-chaotic evil. And, since no other note is made, that means the non-CE Gnolls are assumed to span the spectrum. Further, they lack the (EVIL) subtype for your "Made of evil" logic to hold. And the case law on character WITH it strongly indicates they can be non-evil.

Also, I have you given up on your argument about Goblins?

[Scow2]

3.5 Gnolls are Usually Chaotic evil.

Let me repeat: USUALLY Chaotic Evil.

As such they are not inherently evil, as a relatively decent portion of the species is non-chaotic evil. And, since no other note is made, that means the non-CE Gnolls are assumed to span the spectrum. Further, they lack the (EVIL) subtype for your "Made of evil" logic to hold. And the case law on character WITH it strongly indicates they can be non-evil.

Also, I have you given up on your argument about Goblins?Actually, there is a lot more said on the matter through assorted supplements. "Usually Chaotic Evil" is just one step below "Always Chaotic Evil", which is "Occassional nonevil individuals". Gnolls tend to defect from their kind in entire packs. They have about the same difficulty defecting from their evil heritage as Discworld's Vampires. They are naturally sadistic, cunning, and brutal. Some harness that beastial brutality toward less-depraved ends. They are demons made of flesh and blood instead of "Evil Incarnate." Of course, Gnolls are something of an aberration among Evil races, having the strongest racial tendency toward it due to that demonic heritage and purpose (Even though they have the mortal will to defy it if they so choose).

I stand by "Redeeming Goblins is not as hopeless and foolish as trying to redeem a human, but nobody will fault you for killing the little blighters."

"Often Evil" means they have only a cultural disposition toward Evil. "Usually Evil" means there's a racial insanity element to it as well, which, like most mental diseases, can be treated.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I just lost half an hour of my life because you linked that thrice cursed website. I hope you're happy. :smalltongue:

I find Wikipedia to be worse.

Mostly because I use Wikipedia to try and learn everything I can about military equipment, tactics, and doctrines since the advent of automatic weapons, planes, and tanks.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Humans, unlike Gnolls, were not created by a Demon Prince for the explicit goal of the destruction of civilizations on the Material Plane. Note that I specified 3.5 and 4e gnolls, though.
The gnolls you describe are not in pathfinder, forgotten realms, OR grayhawk.
Yeenoghu may claim to have created the gnolls but this is in fact a lie.

[Karnith]

The gnolls you describe are not in pathfinder, forgotten realms, OR grayhawk.
Yeenoghu may claim to have created the gnolls but this is in fact a lie.
Fun fact: Yeenoghu is only the most recent patron of the gnolls. Worship of Yeenoghu supplanted that of the much more ancient Gorellik, an actual deity of gnolls.

[Crasical]

The paladin should win. Baby goblins are probably Tiny, and thus have no natural reach, forcing them to take an AoE if they wish to attack the paladin in melee, which is their only recourse as they are unlikely to posess ranged weapons. Even if we assume goblin babies to be relatively capable from a young age and feral, having stats roughly equivalent of a Cat, a paladin with heavy armor and a shield is around AC 18-19, and the goblins would lack natural weapons to deal any real damage to the paladin.

[Coidzor]

The paladin should win. Baby goblins are probably Tiny, and thus have no natural reach, forcing them to take an AoE if they wish to attack the paladin in melee, which is their only recourse as they are unlikely to posess ranged weapons. Even if we assume goblin babies to be relatively capable from a young age and feral, having stats roughly equivalent of a Cat, a paladin with heavy armor and a shield is around AC 18-19, and the goblins would lack natural weapons to deal any real damage to the paladin.

XD


I stand by "Redeeming Goblins is not as hopeless and foolish as trying to redeem a human, but nobody will fault you for killing the little blighters."


Redeeming humans is hopeless and foolish? :smallconfused:

[Janus]

^^Dang it, you stole my unvoiced/unposted idea!

having stats roughly equivalent of a Cat
Better keep the commoners away, then.

[Scow2]

Redeeming humans is hopeless and foolish? :smallconfused:
Certain humans, yes. I can't elaborate, though, due to risking forum rules and difficulty in expressing just how sick some people's minds are.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Fun fact: Yeenoghu is only the most recent patron of the gnolls. Worship of Yeenoghu supplanted that of the much more ancient Gorellik, an actual deity of gnolls.

Poor Gorellik didn't something similar happen to Maglubiyet in 4th edition in the forgotten realms?

[Yondu]

Except for creatures of evil nature and some intelligent monsters, for me, humanoids could be reedemed, so killing newborns and babies because they could be evil is an evil act...
If we go in the extrem, a paladin in Cheliax or in Thay, should kill every human baby he could find because he could become evil....
This could be extend to all the paladin decisions, does he kill before evil things happen or he must prevent these events to happen..?
Murder of a defenseless baby is unlawful and evil act, just the opposite of Paladinhood....
Hey Paladins are LG not mindless, heartless and mercyless killers...

[ryu]

Are you joking? Paladins and pcs in general regardless of alignment are generally pretty merciless with their killing. The only thing that changes on average is the target of their destructive rampages alignment.

[Theoboldi]

Certain humans, yes. I can't elaborate, though, due to risking forum rules and difficulty in expressing just how sick some people's minds are.

Perhaps you should have written some humans, instead of a human, then. Besides, you claiming that goblins are unredeemable (which, as other posters already have proven, is wrong) and thus it is okay to execute them is quite frankly shocking.
Also, I believe most of us do know just how sick some people are. I myself have had opportunies to read up on some criminal and court files, as well as having had time to talk to some insiders in the judical system during some internships I have done, and know exactly what kind of people you are talking about. I'll just say that their redeemability is debatable, but certainly not impossible. Not to mention that a lot of them show signs of mental illness, even if they are not judged to be legally insane by the courts.

That is however, all I'll say on the matter. This is already edging too close on real world politics for comfort, and I'll probably already get a reprimandation for what I just wrote. Besides, there's isn't much else I can add anymore at this point, so I'll just say that I disagree strongly, and leave it at that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What I am saying is that higher standard is often a double standard; one not truly compatible with what it means to be human. What I am trying to say is that the paladin should be allowed to act like a human and isn't being permitted to.Bull. If anything killing infants and small children is the least human thing the paladin in this situation could do in addition to its unquestionable nature as an act of evil.

Cosmic good sometimes, perhaps even often, demands that humans make difficult, or even very difficult, choices. Those choices aren't inconceivable to humans at all. (Especially given that we're talking about a rules construct that was made by humans.)

I can do some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to put myself into a frame of mind that would be considered nothing less than monstrous but I cannot fathom how you figure following the precepts of cosmic good is somehow inhuman.


A shining beacon may seem all nice and pretty but the reality is that it is untouchable; unapproachable and all too easily tarnished. The cause of righteousness is better served with a more down to earth aproch. Flawed human beings doing what they think is best inspite of their mistakes.Shining beacons are only beacons -because- they represent something that very much -is- attainable. You're not wrong about them being easily tarnished, but they still have enormous value as role-models and examples for what it is be Good in the capital-G, cosmic sense. Using the fact that humans are flawed as an excuse for why they shouldn't try to minimize those flaws is very circular logic.


I honestly think there is a difference between "right" and "good"...but perhaps that's just the lawful evil in me talking.Right and Good (capital-G) can, occasionaly, come into conflict. The former is a cultural value while the latter is a cosmic force which has its own standards and the two don't necessarily match in every possible instance. Just because a thing is right doesn't make it Good and just because a thing is Good doesn't make it right.

An example: you've defeated an enemy in combat for the third or fourth time. He's an absolutely vicious and underhanded bastard that reads as NE but is really an exemplar of stupid evil; puppy kicking, human sacrificing, slave-torturing, the whole nine-yards. Each time he has thrown down his weapon and pleaded for mercy, when his defeat became apparently inevitable, that you then granted. As you best him this time he, once again, throws down his arms and pleads for his life. The rather obvious right thing to do here is ignore his plea and cleave his skull. This wouldn't even be evil, since it's obvious by now that his promises to turn from darkness are nothing but lies to save his own skin. The Good option, however, would be to spare him yet again in the hope that he's not lying this time, though you'd obviously have to do something more than simply let him scurry away with his tail between his legs.




What I am trying to say is that a paladin is a kind of fighter; a crusader for good. That is what the resources invested in his training where meant for. He could go off and do basket weaving "for great justice" but that would be a waste of his talents when the average commoner could do just as well if not better.

The efficient thing is to delegate the task of guidance and child rearing to one better suited and more able. This frees up the paladin to focus on the business he is more able to. When engaged in the war between good and evil waste of fighting potential should be kept at an absolute minimum. Perhaps good does not behave in this way; which may go some way to explaining why they have yet to win.I did, in fact, make that very suggestion. The paladin is, indeed, a warrior. However, he's also an exemplar of good. To ignore one of the core precepts of that alignment can never be a good act and acting in direct opposition to it is almost certainly evil, whatever the circumstances. In this particular case, slaying innocent children, there's simply no room for interpretation. It's evil in direct opposition to the core tenet of respect for life and completely ignores the idea of mercy.


Being a Paladin isn't about being efficient. It's about following a Code that you've sworn your life to. It may be efficient, or expedient, even more Good to break that Code, but whatever the reason, if you break the Code, you fall. You can atone at a later date (there's even rules for it! :smallwink: ), but the failure to observe the Code in that one instance means you hit the deck face-first.Almost. It's a single -evil- act that makes a paladin fall. For a single code violation to make him fall it has to be a pretty egregious one. Knocking an important noble out and taking a crap on his head because he said your armor looked more fit for a museum (suggesting it was antiquated and useless) than the battlefield would be a pretty blatant and gross (in two senses of "gross") violation of "respect legitimate authority" for example.


That would you choosing to create houserules, which is your prerogative as a DM. But pretending your houserules are not houserules does not buttress your argument.

It is the metaphysical nature of D&D universes that moral innocence can sometimes be disproven by a simple magical effect. It is not a "thought crime" here; it is a provable fact. Note that by the RAW many "not innocent" persons probably do not ping as evil, so showing up on evil-radar means something.

You, as a DM, could easily give fair warning about the ambiguity. "While they are obviously not nice cuddly babies, even at their tender age, they show only the tiniest hint of taint from evil."

Actually, evil is a result of both thoughts and actions by RAW. A creature can detect as evil without actually being guilty of any evil actions. With the noteable exceptions of fiends and dragons, this is why you should never rely on detect evil as the sole criterion for whether or not something needs killing. That and that even if they are guilty of evil, it may not be evil on a magnitude that warrants summary execution. Generally speaking, if it doesn't ping as at least moderately evil or worse; indicating an evil outsider, a cleric dedicated to an evil god, an evil undead creature, or an evil creature of legendary power (HD=10+); investigate.

[Pickford]

Absolutely not. Goblins are not a creature that is "Always Evil". The blind slaughtering of any creature that is not "Always Evil" should illicit a fall for the paladin unless he is aware of some evil actions by the creature.

There are exceptions even for creatures that list as 'always evil' in the MM. That is to say, even they can be good, neutral or innocent (not an alignment thing)

[Ravens_cry]

Not to mention that an atoner who hasn't shifted alignment yet would also count as Evil for Detect Evil.
I think even a Paladin of Abadar would object to killing Goblin babies and children. In fact, he would probably try to get them raised in 'civilised' circumstances, to 'ennoble' them instead.

[North_Ranger]

Except for creatures of evil nature and some intelligent monsters, for me, humanoids could be reedemed, so killing newborns and babies because they could be evil is an evil act...
If we go in the extrem, a paladin in Cheliax or in Thay, should kill every human baby he could find because he could become evil....
This could be extend to all the paladin decisions, does he kill before evil things happen or he must prevent these events to happen..?
Murder of a defenseless baby is unlawful and evil act, just the opposite of Paladinhood....
Hey Paladins are LG not mindless, heartless and mercyless killers...

Objection, your honour! While some more stringent and fanatical sects might believe that, the fluff also states that what a person does is secondary to what he believes in his heart, at least in Pathfinder. This was a point that was given no small amount of discussion in Cheliax, The Empire of Devils. Obliging to the dominant faith in the region outwardly - bending the knee and saying the prayers in services, keeping the state-mandated shrine to Asmodeus - do not automagically condemn your soul to Hell. You can do the legally mandated services, and still be a good person with a post-mortem residence in an angelic neighbourhood.

What is more, Cheliax actually doesn't outright outlaw any religion beyond the service to chaotic gods (like Cayden Cailean, Gorum, or Rovagug) and any demon or any devil besides Asmodeus himself (the former due to their chaotic nature, the latter because as per the Thrune's infernal bargain, all diabolic veneration in Cheliax belongs to the King of Hell and none of his lieutenants or lessers). Granted, the clerics of these non-outlawed faiths must have their clerics officially registered by the state and offer no resistance to the throne and the Church of Asmodeus. and even then the Byzantine legal system means that should the Church of Asmodeus require a pretext for getting rid of a troublesome cleric or temple, they can always find some technicality by which the non-Asmodeans are breaking the law. But that still doesn't mean that a paladin has a carte blanche to start head-chopping every Chelish person he comes across. That would be genocide, which is most definitely an Evil act with a Xykon-approved capital E.

[SethoMarkus]

Snip

I think Yondu was being a bit sarcastic with that line... Illustrating it as ridiculous to consider "killing an infant before it can grow to be evil", simply because taking that thought process to the extreme would be "kill everyone, everywhere, ever, so that no evil can exist!"

[Scow2]

If the Goblin Children are "Innocent", then it's wrong to kill them. However, Goblin Children, especially those raised conventionally, are more like pit bulls raised to fight each other, or other feral beasts. Although they are of the Humanoid type, they are as much a monster as a Manticore or Chimeara is.

[The Fury]

I remember having to deal with almost this same situation. I wasn't a paladin but I was Lawful Good. Although the DM told us that killing goblin babies was justifiable because "always evil."
So in the end we did kill them. I voluntarily changed my character's alignment to Lawful Neutral-- because good guys don't kill kids. The DM was a little confused but he allowed it.

[SaintRidley]

It's never good to fight a baby or child. Of any kind. Especially with a weapon. The question shouldn't even have to be asked.

[Scow2]

It's never good to fight a baby or child. Of any kind. Especially with a weapon. The question shouldn't even have to be asked.Even though all animals are mentally infants or children?

[Mutazoia]

Even though all animals are mentally infants or children?

All animals are not mentally infants or children. Well the puppies are. [Adult] Animals are capable of reasoning and high level problem solving. Wolves use group tactics to take down larger opponants, something that an infant of any species would be incapable of comprehending. Watch "Bad Dogs" on Animal Planet and see how many dogs use advanced problem solving and elaborate methods to get into or out of places.

Infact there is a lot of evidence that some animals are smarter than a lot of humans...

[Kish]

If the Goblin Children are "Innocent", then it's wrong to kill them. However, Goblin Children, especially those raised conventionally, are more like pit bulls raised to fight each other, or other feral beasts.
Insupportable.

And grotesque. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718923&postcount=148)

[SethoMarkus]

Even though all animals are mentally infants or children?

By RAW, animals are always neutral (unless specifically stated otherwise in their creature entry). If you are likening infants and animals, then you are admitting that all infants are neutral, and thus an evil act to kill them. From what I gather, you are attempting to use this as an argument that "by that logic killing an animal would also have to be an evil act". What is the purpose of this, then?

A) It is always evil to kill animals and infants.

B) It is never evil to kill animals and infants.

C) Animals are neutral and infants retain the alignment of their adult kin. Killing is good/evil dependent on circumstance.

D) Animals are neutral and infants are also neutral. Killing is good if in self-defense (an animal or infant attacked you), and is evil if not provoked (the animal/infant is helpless, indifferent towards you).

???

Really, with any of these, I fail to see how killing an infant can ever be construed as Good. I could possibly agree that it isn't always an Evil act, but it could never be a Good act. Regardless of alignment of the prisoner, a Paladin cannot kill a helpless foe that has surrendered/been taken prisoner. Even if the infants were to bite/scratch at the paladin, how can that be construed as a valid threat that warrants execution? Paladins have to stop/fight evil; it never says they have to kill evil. If there is some way to detain and/or reform the prisoner.

[Berenger]

Even though all animals are mentally infants or children?

Even if you assume that a toddler has the same INT score as an animal at some point during his development... this is just ridiculous. Children of intelligent species can be subdued and reasoned with, unlike dangerous animals.

Heck, even dangerous animals like polar bears walking into towns can be tranquilized and carried back to the wilderness or into a reservation if you are not hellbent on splattering their brains across the street instead.

[dascarletm]

Animals and (human) babies do not have the same mental capacity/potential.

[The Fury]

It should also be noted that when you're fighting an animal it's usually something pretty dangerous that might like to eat you.

Humanoid babies, at their most menacing, might poop their pants or spit up on you.

[North_Ranger]

I think Yondu was being a bit sarcastic with that line... Illustrating it as ridiculous to consider "killing an infant before it can grow to be evil", simply because taking that thought process to the extreme would be "kill everyone, everywhere, ever, so that no evil can exist!"

I see. Sorry then. Sarcasm doesn't always translate well for me online, seeing as how English isn't my first language.

[turkishproverb]

I stand by "Redeeming Goblins is not as hopeless and foolish as trying to redeem a human, but nobody will fault you for killing the little blighters."



So then you shouldn't be arguing that it's moral to kill the babies.


"Often Evil" means they have only a cultural disposition toward Evil. "Usually Evil" means there's a racial insanity element to it as well, which, like most mental diseases, can be treated.

That um....That's not in any book i'm looking through. In PF OR 3.5/3.0.

Which suggests it's more of the stuff you've fabricated for your setting/houserules, rather than accurate.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If the Goblin Children are "Innocent", then it's wrong to kill them. However, Goblin Children, especially those raised conventionally, are more like pit bulls raised to fight each other, or other feral beasts. Although they are of the Humanoid type, they are as much a monster as a Manticore or Chimeara is.

Killing chimera or manticore (those both feel like no-S plurals) is not automatically okay. They have to attack you or otherwise be a menace to nearby peaceful folk or cause some other unacceptable problem that can only end with violence. Actively hunting them in their territories when they have no overlap with human settlements is seeking out and murdering intelligent creatures; an evil act.

Babies, toddlers, and even adolescent goblins can't meaningfully threaten anyone but themselves and other equally harmless members of other races at similar levels of development unless they're armed.

It's never good to fight a baby or child. Of any kind. Especially with a weapon. The question shouldn't even have to be asked.

*cough cough* chromatic dragon wyrmlings *cough cough*

Oh, excuse me. I seem to have caught a chill.:smallamused:

[turkishproverb]

*cough cough* chromatic dragon wyrmlings *cough cough*

Oh, excuse me. I seem to have caught a chill.:smallamused:

How is getting killed by an infant you picked a fight with good? :smallcool:

[SaintRidley]

*cough cough* chromatic dragon wyrmlings *cough cough*

Oh, excuse me. I seem to have caught a chill.:smallamused:

True dragons have the benefit of being of humanoid intelligence right off the bat, which does make them different. However, wyrmlings are still babies and lacking in experience. Getting them out of their native society and trying to raise them better is still a superior option to fighting them.

[Spuddles]

True dragons have the benefit of being of humanoid intelligence right off the bat, which does make them different. However, wyrmlings are still babies and lacking in experience. Getting them out of their native society and trying to raise them better is still a superior option to fighting them.

Superior? More Good, perhaps, but superior?

Daddy needs a new pair of wyrmskin gloves....

[TuggyNE]

"Often Evil" means they have only a cultural disposition toward Evil. "Usually Evil" means there's a racial insanity element to it as well, which, like most mental diseases, can be treated.

Hmm, only racial insanity I know of is Derro. What others are there?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Six pages and no one mentioned Kore (http://www.goblinscomic.org/09172005/)? For shame...

Here's one for you:

You kill the goblin. The goblin's child sees you slay their parental figure, picks up a rusty dagger, and charges. Now what?

The child's only crime is avenging their parental figure (an exceedingly common background for adventurers, even Lawful Good ones), yet it will try and kill you if it can.

[Karnith]

Hmm, only racial insanity I know of is Derro. What others are there?
The Xerfilstyx are an insane race of devils, though I believe that they are insane because the live in the River Styx rather than because of some strict racial trait.

[zlefin]

I've read some more on it and settled on the best method I think. If the players like the arguing and moral debate, let them argue, otherwise, dm fiat will make the problem moot somehow.

[Pickford]

Six pages and no one mentioned Kore (http://www.goblinscomic.org/09172005/)? For shame...

Here's one for you:

You kill the goblin. The goblin's child sees you slay their parental figure, picks up a rusty dagger, and charges. Now what?

The child's only crime is avenging their parental figure (an exceedingly common background for adventurers, even Lawful Good ones), yet it will try and kill you if it can.

Take the -4 penalty and deal nonlethal damage. At least, that would be my answer. Killing a child, even an armed one, is unnecessary for a highly combat proficient adventurer.

edit: And even a wizard could probably make the grapple/disarm checks required to get a dagger away from a child.

[Coidzor]

*cough cough* chromatic dragon wyrmlings *cough cough*

Oh, excuse me. I seem to have caught a chill.:smallamused:

Wyrmlings aren't exactly easily analogous to children though.

[turkishproverb]

Wyrmlings aren't exactly easily analogous to children though.

Although I'll go ahead and say that if you managed to kill their parent, you're probably high enough level to disable them nonlethal.

[ryu]

Only if he has relevant spells prepared or isn't level one. Otherwise it's actually kinda hard if the wizard isn't optimized or at a distance.

[Malroth]

He's a Wizard He's either optimized, at a distance, level one or already dead

[Kelb_Panthera]

True dragons have the benefit of being of humanoid intelligence right off the bat, which does make them different. However, wyrmlings are still babies and lacking in experience. Getting them out of their native society and trying to raise them better is still a superior option to fighting them.If it's a level appropriate challenge (even a lowly white is hatched; born, if you will, at CR2) It's not necessarily your choice to make. It's just hatched, it's hungry, and you look vaguely edible. It also already knows enough about how life works to know that, while probably tastey, you also pose a significant threat. This is a definitive kill-or-be-killed scenario if there's no obvious escape for the wyrmling.


Six pages and no one mentioned Kore (http://www.goblinscomic.org/09172005/)? For shame...Not familiar.


Here's one for you:

You kill the goblin. The goblin's child sees you slay their parental figure, picks up a rusty dagger, and charges. Now what?

The child's only crime is avenging their parental figure (an exceedingly common background for adventurers, even Lawful Good ones), yet it will try and kill you if it can.

This is a bad joke, right? You hit it once with a non-lethal attack and watch it crumple like a wet news-paper then stuff it in a corner where it won't be trampled if the fighting comes back this way or restrain it properly if the fighting's already over. I'm sure you can afford the -4 against AC 10-12ish against an unarmored foe with maybe 1 HP and no proficiences to speak of.

Edit: Another thought: we're talking about a small child from a small race. The kid is probably a -tiny- creature, meaning he'll more often than not eat that non-lethal attack as an AoO before he even gets a chance to swing. At your knees.

[Yondu]

I think Yondu was being a bit sarcastic with that line... Illustrating it as ridiculous to consider "killing an infant before it can grow to be evil", simply because taking that thought process to the extreme would be "kill everyone, everywhere, ever, so that no evil can exist!"

Thanks, should have writen in blue... not already familiar with the forum....
And in the same idea "Kill them all, God will recognize his followers...."
For me, Bad Things can be done in the name of the greater good, Lucifer want to rule at the place of God because he thought that he could be greater than Him...He was the greatest of the Angels, and still turn very very bad (at least...). The way of Paladinhood is a path full of ambushes and traps and it is easy to cross the line to commit murders in the name of Law and Good (Inquisition's Tor Quemada was sure he was working for Go...) and killing infants is the way of damnation..

[marcielle]

I like the pinprick test. Call smite. Do something that would only elicit one point of damage. If it doesn't proc, heal it and leave it be. If it is evil enough to provoke a smite, smite further. Sure you could just detect evil but this is more silly and can't be fooled/blocked.
This is assuming alignment is based on actions, not arbitrary racial percentage thingy where a certain percent of a race is likely to be evil blah blah blah.
In the case of the babies, I'd rule they were still True or chaotic neutral and not proc the smite.
In the case of one of those children who likes to drown cats and pull limbs off little animals, I'd totally let the paladin keep his powers if he smote them.

[137beth]

I like the pinprick test. Call smite. Do something that would only elicit one point of damage. If it doesn't proc, heal it and leave it be. If it is evil enough to provoke a smite, smite further.
This is assuming alignment is based on actions, not arbitrary racial percentage thingy where a certain percent of a race is likely to be evil blah blah blah.

That is also assuming that it is acceptable to kill someone purely because they possess an evil alignment.

[marcielle]

That is also assuming that it is acceptable to kill someone purely because they possess an evil alignment.
Like I said, if alignment is based on actions alone. I always run my games so that to have an evil alignment, you must have done significant evil. Others run their games differently where a person may have an evil alignment despite never doing anything worse than shortchanging an old lady. Nothing wrong with that, I just like to give Paladins a break within reason. They allready chose a bad class, no need to set traps for them every other corner(unless they are in to that sort of thing, though I've never met one who actually was, I have heard of their existence)
Most dnd/pf campaigns have the whole 'I do in fact know that gods exist and cannot argue evil is some distant man made concept' thing going on. Anyone being evil in such a setting is kinda asking to be attacked by good guys.

[hamishspence]

Like I said, if alignment is based on actions alone. I always run my games so that to have an evil alignment, you must have done significant evil.
Quintessential Paladin II (a third party book) actually discusses the various campaign models-
one of which has Good, Neutral, and Evil humans occurring with roughly equal frequency,

Low Grade Evil Everywhere
In some campaigns, the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

In such a campaign up to a third of the population will detect as Evil to the paladin. This low grade Evil is a fact of life, and is not something the paladin can defeat. Certainly he should not draw his greatsword and chop the landlord in twain just because he has a mildly tainted aura. It might be appropriate for the paladin to use Diplomacy (or Intimidation) to steer the landlord toward the path go good but stronger action is not warranted.

In such a campaign detect evil cannot be used to infallibly detect villainy, as many people are a little bit evil. if he casts detect evil on a crowded street, about a third of the population will detect as faintly evil.
one of which has Neutral being significantly commoner than the others,

Evil As A Choice
A similar campaign set-up posits that most people are some variety of Neutral. The old granny might do good by being kind to people, but this is a far cry from capital-G Good, which implies a level of dedication, fervour and sacrifice which she does not possess. If on the other hand our granny brewed alchemical healing potions into those boiled sweets or took in and sheltered orphans and strays off the street, then she might qualify as truly Good.

Similarly, minor acts of cruelty and malice are not truly Evil on the cosmic scale. Our greedy and grasping landlord might be nasty and mean, but sending the bailiffs round to throw granny out might not qualify as Evil (although if granny is being thrown out into a chill winter or torrential storm, then that is tantamount to murder and would be Evil). In such a campaign, only significant acts of good or evil can tip a character from Neutrality to being truly Good or Evil.

if a paladin in this campaign uses detect evil on a crowded street, he will usually detect nothing, as true evil is rare. Anyone who detects as Evil, even faintly Evil, is probably a criminal, a terrible and wilful sinner, or both. Still, the paladin is not obligated to take action - in this campaign, detecting that someone is Evil is a warning, not a call to arms. The paladin should probably investigate this person and see if they pose a danger to the common folk, but he cannot automatically assume that this particular Evil person deserves to be dealt with immediately.
and in one Evil and Good are so rare as to be supernaturally associated- even serial killers are not Evil aligned (for Detection purposes) unless they're doing it as part of devotion to a fiend or evil deity.

Evil As A Supernatural Taint
Another alternative is that Evil is essentially a supernatural quality, a spiritual taint that comes only from dark powers. Merely human evil would not be detected by the paladin's power - only monsters, undead, outsiders, and those who traffic with dark powers are Evil on this scale.

A murderer who kills randomly would be evil on the human scale, but the paladin's senses operate on a divine level. However, if this murderer were killing as part of a sacrificial ritual to summon a demon, then his evil would be supernatural in nature and therefore detectable by the paladin.

In this campaign, a positive result on detect evil means that the paladin should immediately take action. This is a morally black-and-white set-up - anyone who is Evil should be investigated or even attacked immediately.
Suffice to say that this last does not fit "standard 3.5 D&D" at least (maybe other editions) - though the other two could both be argued as valid interpretations of 3.5 alignment.

The point being- in neither of the first two, is Detecting as Evil considered sufficient to justify immediate attack.

[TuggyNE]

I like the pinprick test. Call smite. Do something that would only elicit one point of damage. If it doesn't proc, heal it and leave it be. If it is evil enough to provoke a smite, smite further. Sure you could just detect evil but this is more silly and can't be fooled/blocked.

That's gonna waste a ton of smites. They're a limited resource, you do realize that?

[Kish]

Most dnd/pf campaigns have the whole 'I do in fact know that gods exist and cannot argue evil is some distant man made concept' thing going on. Anyone being evil in such a setting is kinda asking to be attacked by good guys.
How does that follow?

[137beth]

Like I said, if alignment is based on actions alone. I always run my games so that to have an evil alignment, you must have done significant evil. Others run their games differently where a person may have an evil alignment despite never doing anything worse than shortchanging an old lady. Nothing wrong with that, I just like to give Paladins a break within reason. They allready chose a bad class, no need to set traps for them every other corner(unless they are in to that sort of thing, though I've never met one who actually was, I have heard of their existence)
Most dnd/pf campaigns have the whole 'I do in fact know that gods exist and cannot argue evil is some distant man made concept' thing going on. Anyone being evil in such a setting is kinda asking to be attacked by good guys.

And so the paladin should execute someone without trial/anything related purely because of their alignment:smallconfused:

[Pickford]

Quintessential Paladin II (a third party book) actually discusses the various campaign models-
one of which has Good, Neutral, and Evil humans occurring with roughly equal frequency,

one of which has Neutral being significantly commoner than the others,

and in one Evil and Good are so rare as to be supernaturally associated- even serial killers are not Evil aligned (for Detection purposes) unless they're doing it as part of devotion to a fiend or evil deity.

Suffice to say that this last does not fit "standard 3.5 D&D" at least (maybe other editions) - though the other two could both be argued as valid interpretations of 3.5 alignment.

The point being- in neither of the first two, is Detecting as Evil considered sufficient to justify immediate attack.

Well, to be fair, detect evil detects evil 'auras'. You don't get those except if you're a cleric of an evil deity, a blackguard, undead, outsider (evil) or an evil creature. So your average NPC won't ping at all. (As they would have levels of commoner only or somesuch)

edit: And evil in the d&d universe is simply selfishness as opposed to compassion. You can be evil just because you're a jerk, not because you actually murder people. (Not that you have a problem with killing people)

That's an excruciatingly low standard to go around smiting people with.

[cerin616]

Depending on your DM, and depending on your paladin there are some things that need to be considered.

First off, a Paladin does not always get his power from a god. Unless he is a paladin of an order that worships a specific god, he gets his power directly from the force of good, which is tapped from maintaining his code. Blah blah, but none of this is important.

A paladin cannot commit an evil act, even if it is for a good reason, and even if it is against an evil creature/character. This includes vengeance, murder, etc.

Depending on your DM (since this isn't a thing written in the rules explicitly, and since the concept of evil is considered vague at best) this can include things such as killing the helpless, ignoring requests for mercy, and killing creatures that don't really have a hope of fighting back even if they were well prepared for the situation.

In my oppinion, those babies could have been the most evil and vile monsters the world was ever going to see, the paladin would have fallen for killing babies, who probably just cried and cowered as he did it.

[ArqArturo]

My answers are this:

Paladin: No. It's against the code, since by default, children (be it of any race) are innocent.

Paladin with a Deity: The god might approve, but then again, there's the code to worry about.

Paladin with Exalted feats: No.

Paladin with Grey Guard levels: ... Oh boy...


In my oppinion, those babies could have been the most evil and vile monsters the world was ever going to see, the paladin would have fallen for killing babies, who probably just cried and cowered as he did it.

That actually raises a question: In BoVD, they describe a sub-race of irredemable humans called Vasharans, stat-wise they're similar to all humans, except that instead of gaining an extra feat, they gain an extra vile feat, and they're described as 'any evil'. Are Vasharan babies beyond salvation?.

[cerin616]

Seeing as evil characters can be redeemed and become exaulted characters, no they are not. In fact, with a simple shun the vile darkness spell, that vile feat is no longer there, and you pick a new feat.

And even if they were, any paladin in my campaign that went slaughtering their babies would fall.

[hamishspence]

Well, to be fair, detect evil detects evil 'auras'. You don't get those except if you're a cleric of an evil deity, a blackguard, undead, outsider (evil) or an evil creature. So your average NPC won't ping at all. (As they would have levels of commoner only or somesuch)

Actually, no. "Evil creature" means "creature with an Evil alignment". This can include 1 HD NPCs.

[Kudaku]

Actually, no. "Evil creature" means "creature with an Evil alignment". This can include 1 HD NPCs.

Actually, the Pathfinder version of Detect Evil only pings on 5+ HD unless the creature is specifically aligned with evil - undead, anti paladins, evil deity clerics, evil outsiders etc.

It's one of those small changes that many people miss when they go from 3.5 to PF.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Paladin losses: seriously he barely breaks tier five. You put him up against a swarm of tiny humanoids its a class inappropriate encounter.

In all seriousness its going to end up bad for those kids one way or another. They end up eaten, executed by some yokel sheriff or raised all vengeful. Spited by a paladin is probably the most merciful thing that can happen and in the long run is just saving time.

I like the thinking here. Proactive judgement.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Like I said, if alignment is based on actions alone. I always run my games so that to have an evil alignment, you must have done significant evil. Others run their games differently where a person may have an evil alignment despite never doing anything worse than shortchanging an old lady. Nothing wrong with that, I just like to give Paladins a break within reason. They allready chose a bad class, no need to set traps for them every other corner(unless they are in to that sort of thing, though I've never met one who actually was, I have heard of their existence)The RAW default is somewhere in between those extremes. Once again, it's all about consistent patterns. Somebody that's short-changed one or two old ladies is a jerk, but probably not evil. If, on the other hand, he intentionally inflates his prices, short-changes everyone he can get away with, and generally just tramples over everyone around him to get ahead, he's very likely evil (the most important part of that is bolded for emphasis.)

Generally, you don't become evil from a single act unless that act is so heinous as to make a fiend say "damn that was evil," i.e. casting a spell like fell-drain fimbulwinter or apocalypse from the sky in or near a heavily populated area (genocide) or creating a permanent gate to the abyss to let hordes of demons through to the material (though you're probably already evil if you chose to do that.)



Most dnd/pf campaigns have the whole 'I do in fact know that gods exist and cannot argue evil is some distant man made concept' thing going on. Anyone being evil in such a setting is kinda asking to be attacked by good guys.
This simply isn't, or at least shouldn't be, true. Significantly less than 1% of a standard campaign setting's population (as determined by the demographic tables in the DMG) are even capable of meaningfully interacting with the planes beyond the material. Of them, less than 1% will ever interact directly with a god. Your average Joe Dirt-farmer only has a great big heaping pile of hearsay on which to base his decision of whether or not to believe in a deity.

The existence of magic and outsiders on the material only proves the existence of magic and outsiders with certainty. Laymen will have no way of differentiating between arcane and divine and outsiders that can speak telling you they're from planes other than the material is still just someone telling you the outside exists.

I like the thinking here. Proactive judgement.

I very much hope that's supposed to be sarcasm.

[Coidzor]

Paladin: No. It's against the code, since by default, children (be it of any race) are innocent.

It depends on the race and if children is the proper term or a term being misapplied.

Applies here though, as far as I can tell.

[Pickford]

Actually, no. "Evil creature" means "creature with an Evil alignment". This can include 1 HD NPCs.

It has to be racial HD, if it's an evil Fighter with no other HD, no pinging.

[Karnith]

It has to be racial HD, if it's an evil Fighter with no other HD, no pinging.
There is no requirement that the HD need to be racial HD in the spell's description. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm):
An evil aura’s power depends on the type of evil creature or object that you’re detecting and its HD, caster level, or (in the case of a cleric) class level; see the accompanying table. If an aura falls into more than one strength category, the spell indicates the stronger of the two.(Emphasis mine)

With no mention of racial HD, the spell pings off of any creature with an evil alignment, based on its HD. As hamishspence said, this includes classed 1 HD NPCs of an evil alignment.

[Pickford]

There is no requirement that the HD need to be racial HD in the spell's description. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm):(Emphasis mine)

With no mention of racial HD, the spell pings off of any creature with an evil alignment, based on its HD. As hamishspence said, this includes classed 1 HD NPCs of an evil alignment.

Huh, I guess I always read that as differentiating between classes and creatures (i.e. levels from not having a class).

[Renegade Paladin]

Actually it includes 5 HD NPCs of an evil alignment. Observe. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/detect-evil)

[TuggyNE]

It has to be racial HD, if it's an evil Fighter with no other HD, no pinging.

"HD" generally includes HD gained from classes; for example:
Hit Dice
The creature’s Hit Dice equal the number of class levels it has plus its racial Hit Dice. Additional Hit Dice gained from taking levels in a character class never affect a creature’s size like additional racial Hit Dice do.

Consider also sleep and deep slumber, or cloudkill.

[Psyren]

How did this reach 7 pages, and why are people quoting the 3.5 SRD when the OP is clearly playing Pathfinder?

And yeah, you'd fall for killing innocents.

[Coidzor]

How did this reach 7 pages, and why are people quoting the 3.5 SRD when the OP is clearly playing Pathfinder?

And yeah, you'd fall for killing innocents.

Discussing whether Pathfinder's changes to goblins made them irredeemable or not due to the racial insanity angle, discussing alternate things to do with them other than killing, reminding one another that we're discussing PF and not 3.5, and I think discussing gnolls and dragons as they're both similar to and dissimilar from goblins and whether any of them can be innocent at any point in their life cycle and if so, which ones and for how long.

[Krobar]

Even if they're irredeemable, they still haven't as of yet done anything deserving of death, and they're essentially helpless.

Paladins are supposed to take the high road, not assassinate children in cold blood. Not even evil children.

[Spuddles]

Quintessential Paladin II (a third party book) actually discusses the various campaign models-
one of which has Good, Neutral, and Evil humans occurring with roughly equal frequency,

one of which has Neutral being significantly commoner than the others,

and in one Evil and Good are so rare as to be supernaturally associated- even serial killers are not Evil aligned (for Detection purposes) unless they're doing it as part of devotion to a fiend or evil deity.

Suffice to say that this last does not fit "standard 3.5 D&D" at least (maybe other editions) - though the other two could both be argued as valid interpretations of 3.5 alignment.

The point being- in neither of the first two, is Detecting as Evil considered sufficient to justify immediate attack.

I don't really like any of these.

Evil in my D&D requires Acts, and they must be worthy of capital punishment. So if the crime doesn't seem evil enough to warrant execution, then you'll never register as evil for it. You could steal candy from babies, devote your whole life to it- not Evil.

I'm not playing d20 Disney Princess Villain. Evil is a universal force, and to earn that mantle, you need to committ something heinous, either in scope, devotion, or brutality. Ideally all three, so the Dark Gods will heed your prayers.

[hamishspence]

Evil in my D&D requires Acts, and they must be worthy of capital punishment. So if the crime doesn't seem evil enough to warrant execution, then you'll never register as evil for it. You could steal candy from babies, devote your whole life to it- not Evil.

This seems to me inconsistent with the standard rules though. Neither the PHB, nor any of the sourcebooks, make "acts worthy of capital punishment" a requirement for an evil alignment.

Sure, people can homebrew their own alignment system where paladins can slaughter all Evil-aligned beings on sight without falling- but that is very much a different system.

[Spuddles]

This seems to me inconsistent with the standard rules though. Neither the PHB, nor any of the sourcebooks, make "acts worthy of capital punishment" a requirement for an evil alignment.

Sure, people can homebrew their own alignment system where paladins can slaughter all Evil-aligned beings on sight without falling- but that is very much a different system.

Evil in my games means people that the world would probably be better off without. It prevents 7 pages worth of nonsense debates. I tend to rule a lot more into law/chaos.

Quintessenial paladins 2 or whatever you quoted isn't RAW, afaik, and most definitely does not agree with the PHB description of evil, so I thought we were on the topic of house rules

[Mystral]

The true question is, how many Goblin Children can a Paladin kill before they overwhelm him? What if unarmored and without weapons? Would he be willing to use their corpses as thrown weapons? What range increment does a goblin baby have?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Personally, my houserule on Detect Evil is that it can't detect Faint auras. This basically means if you aren't at least 11 HD, a Cleric, an Outsider, or Undead... you aren't pinging on the Paladin's Evildar.

This solves a lot of shenanigans with 'but that peasant detected as Evil!' and makes the spell function properly as I see it... if something is going to radiate evil, it needs to be pretty evil to do so.

If a Peasant pings on Detect Evil using this system, you are fairly certain he is no ordinary peasant. Either it's an Evil Outsider (succubus?) masquerading as a peasant, an Evil Undead (Vampire) masquerading as a peasant, or an Evil Cleric masquerading as a peasant. Or perhaps a high-level assassin masquerading as a peasant. Point is... it's not a bloody peasant, go smite-happy all you want!

[hamishspence]

Quintessenial paladins 2 or whatever you quoted isn't RAW, afaik, and most definitely does not agree with the PHB description of evil

In what way does:

the common population is split roughly evenly among the various alignments - the kindly old grandmother who gives boiled sweets to children is Neutral Good and that charming rake down the pub is Chaotic Neutral. Similarly the thug lurking in the alleyway is Chaotic Evil, while the grasping landlord who throws granny out on the street because she's a copper behind on the rent is Lawful Evil.

not agree with the PHB definition?

Especially since the PHB states "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".


Point is... it's not a bloody peasant, go smite-happy all you want!

Or, it's that one commoner in a large settlement who's managed to reach 11+ levels.

Neutral clerics of Evil deities (very common in some settings) also would ping.

"Going smite-happy" is not consistant with "Good demands respect for life".

And even in Pathfinder, Evil does not mean "deserves to be killed on sight":
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules
In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed. The extent of a character's evil alignment might be a lesser evil, like selfishness, greed, or extreme vanity.

[Scow2]

Even if they're irredeemable, they still haven't as of yet done anything deserving of death, and they're essentially helpless.

Paladins are supposed to take the high road, not assassinate children in cold blood. Not even evil children.

The issue I have here, (Even after being deprived of internet for the past few days), is that Goblins are "Monsters" more than "People" in Pathfinder - Yes, they can be redeemed, but so can a lot of other monsters. It's a shame that we use the term "Race" to distinguish between all the different types of fantastic creatures, even those that share a humanoid form.

Now, I'm familiar with Rich Burlew's stance on the issue (That anything with INT 3+ and not an Outsider or Aberration is a funny-looking human) is probably of more relevance to the real world (And tells a pretty entertaining story - especially because he DOES humanize even the 'inhuman' extremes like Mind Flayers, Dragons, and Fiends), it closes off the opportunity to have actual "monsters" in a game.

"Human", "Animal" and "Monster" are three points on a somewhat triangular continuum. (The angle's kind of obtuse, but animals don't fall directly in the middle of the continuum, nor toward either side). Rich Burlew's comic world, like the real world, lopped off the ENTIRE "Monster" corner of the triangle, making it "Human" and "Beast" - and even the animals cling to the "Human" side stronger than the other.

Personally, I found Rich Burlew pushing his stance against racial alignment in fantasy games to be built on the same faulty logic as Jack Thompson pushing his stance on "murder-simulator" videogames (However, unlike Thompson, Burlew is being decent enough to not take legal action against those who don't share his worldview). Yes, it's important to remember that a person is a person in the real world, but having that be true for all fantasy worlds as well.

"It's okay to kill all Goblins on sight" gets disturbing if you replace "Goblin" with a real-world race - but Goblins AREN'T based on any such, and are instead a stand-in for vile, malevolent, and mischievous monsters used as a precautionary tale to keep children in line.

[hamishspence]

The issue I have here, (Even after being deprived of internet for the past few days), is that Goblins are "Monsters" more than "People" in Pathfinder - Yes, they can be redeemed, but so can a lot of other monsters.
"Monster" may simply be a term a group uses for those sufficiently far outside it for the members of the group not to empathise with them.

"It's okay to kill all Goblins on sight" gets disturbing if you replace "Goblin" with a real-world race - but Goblins AREN'T based on any such, and are instead a stand-in for vile, malevolent, and mischievous monsters used as a precautionary tale to keep children in line.
Which may be the problem with "precautionary tales" in the first place.

Beings change a lot depending on the writer- so what's wrong with the idea that "malevolence" in this case is primarily cultural?

[Scow2]

Actually, after reading the rules on Alignment someone else linked, killing the goblin babies and children is explicitly compatible with the Good alignment, though it is not the most "Saintly":

One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option. The way the paragraph is written (Namely - to help handle and clear up alignment debates), all three courses of action are viable. The paragraph in question is also unambiguously about dealing with Evil Humanoids (Not Outsiders or Aberrations), with Goblins name-dropped specifically.


As long as the deaths are as expedient and swift as possible, you should be safe. (Sort of like an animal control officer putting down feral cats or puppies instead of subjugating them to over-full animal shelthers)

[cerin616]

It never actually states whether that is good or evil though.

and its in the same book that talks about always showing mercy, a bout trying to redeem evil and showing forgiveness. these babies have never committed an evil act. so how can it be justified to slaughter them when you are supposed to forgive people who actually do bad things?

RAW never gives a legit answer, but in my oppinion it doesnt work out.

[Krobar]

Actually, after reading the rules on Alignment someone else linked, killing the goblin babies and children is explicitly compatible with the Good alignment, though it is not the most "Saintly":
The way the paragraph is written (Namely - to help handle and clear up alignment debates), all three courses of action are viable. The paragraph in question is also unambiguously about dealing with Evil Humanoids (Not Outsiders or Aberrations), with Goblins name-dropped specifically.


As long as the deaths are as expedient and swift as possible, you should be safe. (Sort of like an animal control officer putting down feral cats or puppies instead of subjugating them to over-full animal shelthers)

While a good-aligned character could probably do such a thing, and not have an alignment-based problem, Paladins also have a code to stick to above and beyond their alignment. I'm away from my books right now, so let me ask...

Does not the Paladin code forbid killing the weak and helpless?

[Wings of Peace]

I'd say no but the Paladin is now much closer to following. Killing the babies might qualify as an evil act but in the Paladin's mind it was most likely an act of good meaning he was not "willfully" (the requirement to fall) perpetrating evil and since I'm guessing he didn't torture them to death I wouldn't qualify it as a heinously evil act.

That said, there should still be some manner of atonement involved since the Paladin failed to act in an honorable fashion.

[turkishproverb]

Actually, after reading the rules on Alignment someone else linked, killing the goblin babies and children is explicitly compatible with the Good alignment, though it is not the most "Saintly":
The way the paragraph is written (Namely - to help handle and clear up alignment debates), all three courses of action are viable. The paragraph in question is also unambiguously about dealing with Evil Humanoids (Not Outsiders or Aberrations), with Goblins name-dropped specifically.


As long as the deaths are as expedient and swift as possible, you should be safe. (Sort of like an animal control officer putting down feral cats or puppies instead of subjugating them to over-full animal shelthers)

Link?
also, well....no it does not justify that. It says the logic a good character would use (viewing it as something, rather than it being as such), not that it is good. Especially since it relies on the character believing something that is canonically NOT TRUE. Further, you ignore that it blatantly violates the paladin code. Mind, the fact you're desperately ignoring the rules to justify child-murder has me thinking there's not much.

So far, your justifications have had little relation to the rules, usually none (For example: It's not cultural, it's "genetic insanity" or some such nonsense) and even at the best of time using material that is, at best, a mixed suggestion. Meanwhile, you refuse to refer to sentient races as "people," thus trying to avoid the issue in the process of arguing it. No doubt why you went to animals for your example (which sounds LN as is), instead of suggesting it was equivalent to say, shooting petty thieves due to crowded prisons, with the logic they would have gone on to be murderers anyway.

The good character can do it, that doesn't make it a good act, it means they can justify it to themselves. Even then, with the addition of the code, the paladin can't. I'm sorry. They don't get to go stomping infant skulls without consequences. It may not be what you want, but it's the rules. If you don't want it? Fine, ignore it. It's your game. But your game, if played as such, isn't RAW.

[Yahzi]

Meanwhile, you refuse to refer to sentient races as "people," thus trying to avoid the issue in the process of arguing it.
I think that's the key: are Goblins people?

If they are biological, evolved, sentient creatures, then obviously yes.

If they are physical manifestations of evil, born out of mud and magic (like Saruman's orcs), then obviously no.

As Scow2 remarks, D&D (and fantasy in general) originally presumed the latter; or, at the very least, that the PCs would (in-character) think that way. Team Human and Team Monster were irrevocably opposed, and it didn't even matter if Team Monster was capable of feelings or virtue, they were the wrong team. A Paladin's code only applied to people, not monsters.

As time went by the general consensus changed, and now most game-worlds (and novels) run off the monsters-as-people paradigm. Which kind of puts the whole murder-hobo thing into questionable territory, even while the rules are still focused on that kind of play.

I would not necessarily make the Paladin fall; if it really was his best option at the time, then so be it. Burning an orphanage down while the parents are alive is always an act of cruelty (since its only real purpose is to cause pain); but killing young monsters after destroying all the other support that would allow them to survive is just a mercy. Providing some other form of support is only required if it's possible and reasonable. If there was a multi-racial orphanage that the paladin knew of, then he has to take them there; if not, well...

Paladins are Good; but they are not nice. Nobody who serves a divine cause with a sword is nice.

[turkishproverb]

It would still make a paladin fall, as they aren't really combatants.

Also, the paladin would have other options, even if he doesn't know of such orphanages. Particularly given the "above and beyond" nature of paladins. Like bringing them up himself, giving them to a monastery (they'll take almost anyone, though this varies by deity) or adopting them (it IS an option. Heck, in pathfinder there are friendly non-goblin focused cities with indigenous goblin populations. Give them to them.

I'm not making issue of the whole "TOLKIEN orcs/goblins" (and he even commented on the unfortunate implications of that, and suggested it might be cultural) vs "Other orcs/goblins." I am saying that is not an issue here, because these goblins are officially by Raw not Tolkien types.

[Coidzor]

It would still make a paladin fall, as they aren't really combatants.

Nothing in the code prevents them from killing non-combatants as I recall it.


I'm not making issue of the whole "TOLKIEN orcs/goblins" (and he even commented on the unfortunate implications of that, and suggested it might be cultural) vs "Other orcs/goblins." I am saying that is not an issue here, because these goblins are officially by Raw not Tolkien types.

From what I've seen of pathfinder material, the devs there definitely worked to confuse the issue further, so it's easy to see why people could get the impression that there's some kind of intrinsic evil or insanity to gobbos.

[turkishproverb]

Nothing in the code prevents them from killing non-combatants as I recall it.



requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin#TOC-Code-of-Conduct)


Unless you're going to argue the children aren't innocent (in which case this isn't the situation the OP described), or that the paladin will punish himself, I'm not seeing it. In addition, required to help those in need would be hard to put off as "here's help" *CRACK*. Act with honor: It's rather hard to argue that killing an unarmed, caged opponent is "acting with honor" especially when they're caged.



From what I've seen of pathfinder material, the devs there definitely worked to confuse the issue further, so it's easy to see why people could get the impression that there's some kind of intrinsic evil or insanity to gobbos.

Well, as much as they might say that from time to time, the goblin entry says otherwise explicitly.

[Coidzor]

Unless you're going to argue the children aren't innocent (in which case this isn't the situation the OP described), or that the paladin will punish himself, I'm not seeing it.

In addition, required to help those in need would be hard to put off as "here's help" *CRACK*.

Act with honor: It's rather hard to argue that killing an unarmed, caged opponent is "acting with honor" especially when they're caged.

Then you're looking too narrowly and forgetting a few things like execution, and the potential for hyperbole on the part of the OP. Someone who has surrendered but whose surrender cannot be accepted for one reason or another would be another example of such an instance.

On the contrary, it's rather trivial to argue about playing mercy angel in the appropriate context, as unlikely as it is to come up in an actual game.

Is putting down a rabid dog honorable or dishonorable? Does adding a cage into the mix change things?


Well, as much as they might say that from time to time, the goblin entry says otherwise explicitly.

Actually which Goblin Entry was that which was referred to for that again? Compare that with their general treatment throughout the rest of the material though.

The easily found Goblin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/goblin)Entries (http://paizo.com/PRD/monsters/goblin.html#_goblin)don't say a word about it, though they don't exactly provide optimism for the character of goblins. The excerpts from Goblins of Golarion that I recall seeing and other materials that dealt with them did seem to be working extra hard to depict them as acceptable targets as per the allegations.

[turkishproverb]

Then you're looking too narrowly and forgetting a few things like execution, and the potential for hyperbole on the part of the OP. Someone who has surrendered but whose surrender cannot be accepted for one reason or another would be another example of such an instance.

On the contrary, it's rather trivial to argue about playing mercy angel in the appropriate context, as unlikely as it is to come up in an actual game.

Is putting down a rabid dog honorable or dishonorable? Does adding a cage into the mix change things?

Dogs don't have int 3. Not part of the conversation, I'm not discussing it. Nothing personal, I'm just tired of the "not people" thing, and the roads that keep leading people to it.

Also, execution requires GUILT of something. The goblins are, as per OP, INNOCENT. So no, not comparable. Further, it requires a lawful authority of some sort meaning the paladin needs to take then to face justice, if they've done anything, since they're in cages and not a threat to anyone at the moment.

Example of someone whose surrender cannot be accepted? That would compare to this?

It's not trivial at all. Skull-crushing is being thrown around as a perfectly GOOD option, and it's not.


And once more, "PUNISH THOSE WHO HARM OR THREATEN INNOCENTS" "INNOCENT GOBLINS".


Actually which Goblin Entry was that which was referred to for that again? Compare that with their general treatment throughout the rest of the material though.

The easily found Goblin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/goblin)Entries (http://paizo.com/PRD/monsters/goblin.html#_goblin)don't say a word about it, though they don't exactly provide optimism for the character of goblins. The excerpts from Goblins of Golarion that I recall seeing and other materials that dealt with them did seem to be working extra hard to depict them as acceptable targets as per the allegations.

THIS. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin)ONE. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/featuredRaces/goblins.html) it came up earlier.

Initially being pushed, from what i recall, by those that were arguing in favor of infanticide.

[Coidzor]

Also, execution requires GUILT of something. The goblins are, as per OP, INNOCENT. So no, not comparable. Further, it requires a lawful authority of some sort meaning the paladin needs to take then to face justice, if they've done anything, since they're in cages and not a threat to anyone at the moment.

Example of someone whose surrender cannot be accepted? That would compare to this?

You'll note that I've been discussing the general case since you mentioned them not being able to kill noncombatants, of course. You may be correct in every other regard, but not on that one point.

Someone who the Paladin cannot keep captive (any spellcaster or psion worth his salt for instance), especially if they're known for chronic backstabbing syndrome and will kill him or escape as soon as his attention goes from them.


It's not trivial at all. Skull-crushing is being thrown around as a perfectly GOOD option, and it's not.

And once more, "PUNISH THOSE WHO HARM OR THREATEN INNOCENTS" "INNOCENT GOBLINS".

Generally it is fairly trivial to find a well-constructed argument on the subject in favor of there being circumstances where it might be appropriate, but the more we get into the actual ethics of mercy killing, the more we invite real world politics to become an issue, whether historical or current. Depends on how much you view a quick death versus a clean death, really. If one's fastest way of dispatching someone is a brief burst of pain in the scalp before the brain is destroyed, well, then we could get into utilitarianism vs. arguments about dignified death and what that means.

Well they can't very well punish themselves, after all. Considering the description of the way they treat their young, it doesn't seem like their age is a guarantor of innocence, necessarily. Sure, the DM declaring something is the DM declaring something, but it seems more complicated than just that, given the mixture of fanon and canon that swirls around in people and groups.


THIS. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-goblin)ONE. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/featuredRaces/goblins.html) it came up earlier.

Initially being pushed, from what i recall, by those that were arguing in favor of infanticide.

I know it came up earlier, I was just having difficulty tracking it down again. Though, I must admit, most of the things that reflect favorably upon their potential mostly smacks of Drizzt syndrome in order to accommodate people who'd want to play as a goblin. Possibly as a form of roundabout revenge by the DM if they manage to get anyone to take the goblin songs suggestion seriously.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Then you're looking too narrowly and forgetting a few things like execution, and the potential for hyperbole on the part of the OP. Someone who has surrendered but whose surrender cannot be accepted for one reason or another would be another example of such an instance.

On the contrary, it's rather trivial to argue about playing mercy angel in the appropriate context, as unlikely as it is to come up in an actual game.

Is putting down a rabid dog honorable or dishonorable? Does adding a cage into the mix change things?As has already been pointed out, execution is a matter of law/chaos not good/evil. If a criminal is executed lawfully it's generally a morally neutral act.

As for killing a surrendered foe whose surrender is unacceptable, this is not a Good act. It's not evil either, but definitely not Good (capital G). People seem to be forgetting that there are 3 points on this axis, not just good and evil. Note, however, that a creature whose surrender is unacceptable is generally so due to their ability to easily escape capture or history of going back on their word when the opportunity is presented. These do -not- apply to goblin non-combatants that are de-facto prisoners rather than targets intentionally captured.

Rabid dog is an invalid comparison. Dogs are non-sapient and, thus, cannot be reasoned with under normal circumstances. Being rabid means they're also going to die a slow, painful death over the next few days. Euthanasia to spare an already dying creature excessive pain might be considered in-line with respect for life as a form of alleviating suffering. Though in the case of a paladin, remove disease as a SLA makes this a non-issue.


Actually which Goblin Entry was that which was referred to for that again? Compare that with their general treatment throughout the rest of the material though.

The easily found Goblin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/goblin)Entries (http://paizo.com/PRD/monsters/goblin.html#_goblin)don't say a word about it, though they don't exactly provide optimism for the character of goblins. The excerpts from Goblins of Golarion that I recall seeing and other materials that dealt with them did seem to be working extra hard to depict them as acceptable targets as per the allegations.

It's been given and you deign to ignore it. This is not conducive to a proper argument and severely undermines your position in that your denial of the given argument as valid strongly suggests you don't have a valid counter-argument.

[Coidzor]

As has already been pointed out, execution is a matter of law/chaos not good/evil. If a criminal is executed lawfully it's generally a morally neutral act.

Exactly. Also, again, they are a noncombatant. That was my only dog in that fight, not whether it was good, evil, lawful, or chaotic in and of itself.


As for killing a surrendered foe whose surrender is unacceptable, this is not a Good act. It's not evil either, but definitely not Good (capital G). People seem to be forgetting that there are 3 points on this axis, not just good and evil.

Paladins don't fall for Neutral things, after all.


Note, however, that a creature whose surrender is unacceptable is generally so due to their ability to easily escape capture or history of going back on their word when the opportunity is presented. These do -not- apply to goblin non-combatants that are de-facto prisoners rather than targets intentionally captured.

Fair enough. I figured it more hinged upon whether they were innocents rather than whether they were noncombatants anyway.


Rabid dog is an invalid comparison. Dogs are non-sapient and, thus, cannot be reasoned with under normal circumstances. Being rabid means they're also going to die a slow, painful death over the next few days. Euthanasia to spare an already dying creature excessive pain might be considered in-line with respect for life as a form of alleviating suffering. Though in the case of a paladin, remove disease as a SLA makes this a non-issue.

That depends on a number of factors whether it is truly as out of place as all that. The in-universe perception of goblins or whatever other creature generally termed as a monster could very well be such, this thread alone shows it's a not-insignificant fanon for this to be the case after all.


It's been given and you deign to ignore it. This is not conducive to a proper argument and severely undermines your position in that your denial of the given argument as valid strongly suggests you don't have a valid counter-argument.

Well, I was the one who began things by half-jokingly arguing in favor of profiting off of their sale because Abadar.

Also, upon re-reading it once I was relinked to it, it merely serves to further illustrate developer/writer inconsistency rather than establish anything truly hard and fast, talking about how their very nature is destructive and rapacious in one moment and then saying that they're not inherently disposed to evil.

And, really, my purpose is not to definitively show that goblins are all inherently evil, that was Scow2. I merely thought that Pathfinder's fluff had provided the potential for that interpretation, even more strongly than 3.5's treatment of them as forgettable, glossed over mooks, to begin with from what I'd read and what people were taking away from when they'd read it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Exactly. Also, again, they are a noncombatant. That was my only dog in that fight, not whether it was good, evil, lawful, or chaotic in and of itself.If all you were trying to say is that it's sometimes okay to kill non-combatants, that's not really saying much. It's true, as far as it goes, but there have to be mitigating circumstances beyond the creature simply being a non-combatant. In a setting (not campaign, but specific scene) where the rule of law isn't present and capture is a non-option, the only thing you can do with non-combatants is ignore them. If the rule of law isn't present and non-combatants become defacto prisoners because you feel you -can't- simply ignore them, then you have to treat them as the prisoners they are and extend the hand of mercy or change your mind and turn them loose. As I highlighted earlier, mercy, in this case, is respect for life taken to extreme. Whole-sale slaughter of the prisoners is not mercy.




Paladins don't fall for Neutral things, after all. Again, true as far as it goes. Too little good in your character's behavior can lead to an alignment shift as surely as a lesser amount of evil, and that will cause a paladin to fall. Again, alignment is all about patterns.




Fair enough. I figured it more hinged upon whether they were innocents rather than whether they were noncombatants anyway.It does and it doesn't. Their innocence is a -major- factor in why you can't simply slaughter them, but that you're considering them prisoners is also a factor. Ignoring them is an option and if you feel that trying to transport them to somewhere they can be properly cared for is a non-viable option, it's the only option a paladin has.




That depends on a number of factors whether it is truly as out of place as all that. The in-universe perception of goblins or whatever other creature generally termed as a monster could very well be such, this thread alone shows it's a not-insignificant fanon for this to be the case after all.No, it really doesn't. How other creatures and even the gods percieve goblins is completely irrelevant. The cosmic forces that alignment represents only care if they're sapient, redeemable, and/or an immediate threat. These goblin youths are sapient, redeemable, and not an immediate threat. Killing them because it's 'merciful' is a rationalization that cosmic good won't abide. It's nothing less than murder because you're too lazy or racist to give them a fair chance at a life that isn't consumed by evil.




Well, I was the one who began things by half-jokingly arguing in favor of profiting off of their sale because Abadar.It's an option. I'm not familiar with Abadar, but slavery is a matter of law and only becomes evil when slaves are treated as less than people. It's not the most comfortable practice for most good aligned cultures but it isn't in and of itself evil.


Also, upon re-reading it once I was relinked to it, it merely serves to further illustrate developer/writer inconsistency rather than establish anything truly hard and fast, talking about how their very nature is destructive and rapacious in one moment and then saying that they're not inherently disposed to evil.Destruction isn't inherently evil either. Breaking things isn't an aligned act at all, no matter how big or important those things are, unless doing so creates an immediate danger to those near the object. An exception is made for the destruction of necessary supplies to deliberately deprive the people depending on those supplies.


And, really, my purpose is not to definitively show that goblins are all inherently evil, that was Scow2. I merely thought that Pathfinder's fluff had provided the potential for that interpretation, even more strongly than 3.5's treatment of them as forgettable, glossed over mooks, to begin with from what I'd read and what people were taking away from when they'd read it.

Being naturally inclined to break things and live by strength and cunning over civilized cooperation doesn't make goblins inherently evil. They're not even necessarily inborn traits rather they're quite probably a result of being born into and raised in that culture. People have an unfortunate tendency to get nature and nurture confused (thus the phrase "like second nature"), in no small part because the line between the two can be a bit blurry at times.

[ryu]

How many days does it take a goblin newborn to starve or dehydrate to death? Assuming they can make it that far how long until a local predator mauls them to death in one of the most painful death available in the area short of being lit on fire. They hardly had a ''fair'' chance at life to begin with once the parents died. Giving them the cleanest death available is far more merciful than leaving them to natures devices.

[Theoboldi]

How many days does it take a goblin newborn to starve or dehydrate to death? Assuming they can make it that far how long until a local predator mauls them to death in one of the most painful death available in the area short of being lit on fire. They hardly had a ''fair'' chance at life to begin with once the parents died. Giving them the cleanest death available is far more merciful than leaving them to natures devices.

Or you could give them to an orphanage, raise them yourself, find some some adoptive parents for them, etc. Heck, maybe even just bring them to another tribe of goblins that is a bit more peaceful. This is not a decision between leaving them to slowly starve in a desert or slitting their throats. Of course just leaving them behind after killing their parents is a worse choice than killing them. But no one suggested that this is what a paladin should do.
Excuse me if this sounds somewhat harsh, but you seem to be arguing against a position no one was arguing for in the first place.
Yes I know I said that I would leave this thread a few pages ago. I lied.

[ryu]

Multiple people in thread have openly stated that in the assumed situation that a goblin couldn't be given some form of alternate care leaving them was acceptable as per alignment and the paladin code. I was pointing out that actually doing that was WAAAAAAAAY more horrible than simply knocking them out to dull the ensuing pain and ending it as quickly and cleanly as possible afterwords.

[Kelb_Panthera]

How many days does it take a goblin newborn to starve or dehydrate to death? Assuming they can make it that far how long until a local predator mauls them to death in one of the most painful death available in the area short of being lit on fire. They hardly had a ''fair'' chance at life to begin with once the parents died. Giving them the cleanest death available is far more merciful than leaving them to natures devices.

False dillema.

We're not talking about leaving them in a barren wasteland where such an outcome is a near certainty. We're talking about leaving them in a goblin settlement with whatever food and water provisions are there. Unless they're all helpless infants they'll be able to get the food and water they need for a while and whatever tools and weapons their parents leave behind are still there for them to try and decipher the use of.

They have a fair-to-middling chance of surviving to adult hood, probably on about the same level as they had when their parents would force them to fight over food.

There's also the matter of ignoring them being a non-action. Alignment doesn't ping you for what you -didn't- do, only what you did.

Large predators aren't so common and they usually learn to avoid humanoid settlements well before they reach adulthood. Even then, it's no more or less danger than they'd face as adults; having the weapons they do and goblins being small creatures with a natural strength penalty.

Unless the players loot every tool and scrap of food that's not nailed down, this just isn't a valid objection.

[ryu]

And where exactly were the parents getting the food and water? Was the river a mile off or so? Do the goblins know which direction to go in? Are any of them old enough to effectively use the tools physically even if they are simple? Remember that most tribal peoples don't train their young for real hunting until at least physical adolescence for a reason. Can the adolescents or whatever arbitrary age category gather enough food even for this much smaller group? Can they also do that while fending off natural day to day threats? Not to mention dnd wilderness is a much nastier place on average than ours. Fighting with each other over offered food at least assured some subgroup wasn't going to die.

[Theoboldi]

There's also the matter of ignoring them being a non-action. Alignment doesn't ping you for what you -didn't- do, only what you did.


Actually, I'd disagree with this one, since it is a good act to help those in need, and it explitly is a part of a paladin's code. Besides, leaving the goblin children to fend for themselves is a complete jerk-move. Even if it is neutral, it certainly isn't good. And being a 'good' character, especially a paladin, isn't done by neutral actions.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And where exactly were the parents getting the food and water? Was the river a mile off or so? Do the goblins know which direction to go in? Are any of them old enough to effectively use the tools physically even if they are simple? Remember that most tribal peoples don't train their young for real hunting until at least physical adolescence for a reason. Can the adolescents or whatever arbitrary age category gather enough food even for this much smaller group? Can they also do that while fending off natural day to day threats? Not to mention dnd wilderness is a much nastier place on average than ours. Fighting with each other over offered food at least assured some subgroup wasn't going to die.

Settlements are -rarely- built that far from a source of drinking water and small children are often tasked with helping to gather nuts and berries alongside their care-givers before they're old enough to hunt.

Simple tools are simple and goblins don't have a racial intelligence penalty. I think they even have a racial intelligence bonus in pathfinder, but don't quote me on that. If they're too stupid to figure out how to operate these tools, especially having seen their parents use them, they were probably gonna die anyway as their more cunning peers would've used them as patsies and fall-guys in a society where punishments are absolutely draconian.

They might lose a few, but some will survive and they all had the same chance.

You're severely underestimating both the survival instinct of all creatures and the cunning of small children.

[ryu]

It's not about intelligence! Physical strength is a necessary tool for effectively using any bladed weapon or blunt weapon to hunt. Not to mention the abysmal resistance to dying if the actual hunting party faces a threat while on a raid. As for why you need at least some distance from the river as a bunch of tribals do you know what else frequents rivers depending on area? Ferocious wild cats, bears, and literally every other predator in the area. Best not to offer them an easy nighttime meal unless the kids are now ready to start pulling watch shifts on top of all the other logistical problems. You also can't afford any hunters dying or the food supply goes down.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's not about intelligence! Physical strength is a necessary tool for effectively using any bladed weapon or blunt weapon to hunt.If a blade is sharp enough, and nearly all stone blades are, it requires a fairly minimal amount of strength to drive it into flesh. As long as they're not trying to hunt elephants or crocodiles I like their chances.

Seriously, have you ever used a razor sharp knife to cut a piece of raw beef or chicken? Steel doesn't hold as keen an edge as stone, it'll be just as easy or easier for the tots to drive a spear into an animal.

Remember also that rabbits, squirrels, raccoons, and other small animals are quite edible.

No intelligent race would try to hunt with bludgeons once they'd discovered bladed weapons, especially a race with lower than average strength.
Not to mention the abysmal resistance to dying if the actual hunting party faces a threat while on a raid.This doesn't really change much from youth to adult. Remember that the vast majority of NPC's are level one. Accidents and predators are -always- a serious threat to any but a fraction of the population.
As for why you need at least some distance from the river as a bunch of tribals do you know what else frequents rivers depending on area? Ferocious wild cats, bears, and literally every other predator in the area. Best not to offer them an easy nighttime meal unless the kids are now ready to start pulling watch shifts on top of all the other logistical problems.This is just plain wrong. If the body of water is large enough, those creatures will water either up-stream or down-stream of humanoid settlements. Even large predators usually learn that humaniods are much more dangerous than their size would indicate long before reaching adulthood. If the body of water is small enough the settlement surrounds it and, again, animals avoid it because it's too risky to be worth the trouble if they even know it's there. The territory of, for example, a wolf pack is measured in tens of miles. They'll find a water source away from humanoid settlements unless no such water source exists.
You also can't afford any hunters dying or the food supply goes down.

So does the need for food. Whether this is proportionate or not is largely a function of the size of the group. If there were so many that they couldn't realistically be transported to another settlement by the party, there're enough that losing one or two to accidents or predators on hunting trips isn't going to endanger the whole group.

There's also the matter of other goblin settlements that may be near enough to trade with this one. A trader may come well before the stored provisions run dry and then the adults from his tribe come to either repopulate or relocate the survivors.

Abandoning the children is a hell of a long ways from an automatic death-sentence.

[ryu]

You think dnd predators are afraid of humanoids? The same dnd predators who are constantly attacking things in their territory multiple times per day many of which are humanoid? This isn't even considering all the youth based strength, con and wis penalties. By rights those kids may as well be deaf and dumb not being old enough to even take an npc class level. If you want to talk realistic lets see how well five npc goblins with the appropriate strength penalties and no weapon proficiency or attack bonus do against even one wolf. Hint: Not well.

[Krobar]

You think dnd predators are afraid of humanoids? The same dnd predators who are constantly attacking things in their territory multiple times per day many of which are humanoid? This isn't even considering all the youth based strength, con and wis penalties. By rights those kids may as well be deaf and dumb not being old enough to even take an npc class level. If you want to talk realistic lets see how well five npc goblins with the appropriate strength penalties and no weapon proficiency or attack bonus do against even one wolf. Hint: Not well.

I have to agree.

I've been in a lot of games, both as player and as DM, where wandering predators attacked low-level adventuring parties. Wolves, big cats, alligators, all kinds of predators.

They aren't afraid of adventuring parties, so why would they be afraid of goblin children?

[zlefin]

you're talking about monsters in a game; the other guy is talking about animals in real life. Real life animals are far less prone to attack people than dnd animals. Animals tend not to attack people unless really hungry. A predator just wants food. They tend to prefer to attack things that can't kill them then things which might.

Animal attacks make for fun gaming, but their attack frequency would tend to be unrealistic and unsustainable. Whether dnd low level predators are afraid of humans would depend on whether they're being played reasonably or not.

[ryu]

See here's the thing: This is explicitly a conversation about dnd/patherfinder. Predators pretty demonstrably are different. Forest roaming dinosaurs are a thing that exist in dnd. Do I really have to go further than that to point out that dnd critters in general and by extension all wilderness is far more dangerous than our world?

[Kelb_Panthera]

See here's the thing: This is explicitly a conversation about dnd/patherfinder. Predators pretty demonstrably are different. Forest roaming dinosaurs are a thing that exist in dnd. Do I really have to go further than that to point out that dnd critters in general and by extension all wilderness is far more dangerous than our world?

Taken to its logical extreme these are the very reasons that humanoids most emphatically shouldn't be the dominant species in -any- campaign setting. They should all absolutely be firmly under the heels (or equivalent anatomy) of any of a number of higher-order creatures.

I also see -nothing- in the rules to suggest that settlements are attacked with any kind of frequency by non-humanoids.

This is an assumption based in the perspective of Player-DM interaction. To players and DM's it -seems- like monstrous attacks and spellcasters and all kinds of game-centric elements of the world are -much- more frequent than the rules actually suggest.

To whit, a traveling party has an 8% chance per hour of having a random encounter. Since it's assumed overland travel is only 8 hours per day, that's not quite a 50% chance of having an encounter on any given day of travel. Then also consider that all of the encounter tables for a reasonably habitable, temperate zone region have a chance of that encounter being with non-hostiles it's even -less- likely that a hunting party is automatically doomed.

Dinosaurs are just animals. They're no more or less dangerous or intelligent than bears or tigers. They'd know to stay away from human settlements as surely as any other animals.

The only thing that makes the D&D world more dangerous than ours is that a number of large, intelligent, magical creatures are running around. If that's really the tack you want to take, then -all- humanoids are basically screwed from birth. Nevermind they should -never- have become such dominant species.

[Pickford]

See here's the thing: This is explicitly a conversation about dnd/patherfinder. Predators pretty demonstrably are different. Forest roaming dinosaurs are a thing that exist in dnd. Do I really have to go further than that to point out that dnd critters in general and by extension all wilderness is far more dangerous than our world?

The behavior of creatures in d&d is entirely a function of your DM's attitudes and knowledge (or lack thereof) about how animals behave.

That means your position/experience with the behavior of predators in d&d is entirely unique and not indicative of either the experiences of the whole, or appropriate standards from real life.

[Scow2]

The entire purpose of the section of rules about alignment I linked on the d20pfsrd is about resolving alignment debates. If it WASN'T okay for a Good-aligned person to kill the goblin children/babies, then either that paragraph wouldn't exist at all (Since it's counterproductive to its goal of clarifying what's acceptable) or it would have a disclaimer saying that despite being considered good by the actor, it is still an evil act. The omission of such a disclaimer indicates that it actually IS a non-evil act.

And no, there are no rules against a Paladin killing "The weak and helpless". Otherwise, he'd never be allowed to coup-de-grace, nor would he be allowed to fight ANY terror smaller than Medium Size. And, Goblin babies/children are neither weak nor helpless.

[ryu]

It's not just the fact that there are magical critters roaming around that makes the wilderness dangerous. Larger more dangerous versions of existing predators exist and while relatively uncommon are still a thing that must be guarded against. Honestly, the mere that idea settlements as defined by class distributions, indefensible locations, and active technological advancement could survive reliably in dnd land is ludicrous. I could maybe see larger towns and settlements with at least a few magic users and beatsticks surviving the common wilderness for long periods of time. Settlements though? Lol nawp. Settlements where there are no proficient defenders, no large scale agriculture, and a requirement to last several years before bringing in a new generation is even possible just to name a few logistical problems? I'll get right on finishing those genetically engineered flying pigs.

[Scow2]

It's not just the fact that there are magical critters roaming around that makes the wilderness dangerous. Larger more dangerous versions of existing predators exist and while relatively uncommon are still a thing that must be guarded against. Honestly, the mere that idea settlements as defined by class distributions, indefensible locations, and active technological advancement could survive reliably in dnd land is ludicrous. I could maybe see larger towns and settlements with at least a few magic users and beatsticks surviving the common wilderness for long periods of time. Settlements though? Lol nawp. Settlements where there are no proficient defenders, no large scale agriculture, and a requirement to last several years before bringing in a new generation is even possible just to name a few logistical problems? I'll get right on finishing those genetically engineered flying pigs.
You obviously haven't played enough Dwarf Fortress. It only takes 7 skilled noncombatant dwarves (Or 6 noncombatants and 1 woodsman militia dwarf) to make a settlement that will eventually be able to thrash even the mightiest of demons.

[ryu]

Everybody knows that most dwarf fortress starts by rights should be dead within a few days. That world is more kill happy than dnd will ever be, and that's making a statement.

[dascarletm]

All the magical creatures/monsters that plague the country-side have a population of: DM choice. It isn't stated in the rules. So really if a DM makes a setting that wouldn't logically play out that humanoids would be dominant, then does it really matter if they are? Maybe he put humans as dominant because, I don't know... it would be more fun that way? Maybe the frequency of critter attacks just happens to the PCs because in actuality the universe revolves around them. Taking random encounter rules, which isn't required to be used, and using that to extrapolate the survivability of these guys is rather silly.

[Scow2]

Everybody knows that most dwarf fortress starts by rights should be dead within a few days. That world is more kill happy than dnd will ever be, and that's making a statement.That they aren't (And most early starts are caused by not knowing how to get the guys to do anything) should tell you why it's perfectly viable for D&D's settlements to survive as well.

And the reason Adventurers have to deal with Random Encounter rules is because they're actually moving around. A stationary place is MUCH less likely to stumble across something.

[hamishspence]

And no, there are no rules against a Paladin killing "The weak and helpless". Otherwise, he'd never be allowed to coup-de-grace, nor would he be allowed to fight ANY terror smaller than Medium Size. And, Goblin babies/children are neither weak nor helpless.

The usual rule is against killing "the innocent". By some definitions, a goblin that has not committed a crime that warrants the death penalty yet, qualifies.

And where is it stated in Pathfinder books that goblin babies are "neither weak nor helpless"?

[ryu]

Right the game where the only way to survive is to have semi omniscient knowledge of how the world is built and what the consequences of certain actions will be is TOTALLY good for guessing the survival rate of goblin children.

Also as previously stated even the nastier non magical creatures the goblins would meet while hunting should be more than enough of a threat to significantly endanger the entire remaining population let alone smaller hunting parties spread out to gather food in a wide area.

Also by definition hunting means you're looking for encounters and hoping they don't come up murderous threat to your survival.

[Scow2]

The usual rule is against killing "the innocent". By some definitions, a goblin that has not committed a crime that warrants the death penalty yet, qualifies.

And where is it stated in Pathfinder books that goblin babies are "neither weak nor helpless"?Where is it stated they are? First off: Weak doesn't have a defintion. They probably ARE weak (Less than STR 10)... but so are kender, and goblins, and stirges, and imps, and other horrific creatures that need to die. And they aren't helpless (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Helpless) either - they are capable of taking actions.

[hamishspence]

So can a 1 hour old human baby. Yet most people would say that this qualifies as, at least colloquially, "helpless".

[Lord Vukodlak]

Where is it stated they are? First off: Weak doesn't have a defintion. They probably ARE weak (Less than STR 10)... but so are kender, and goblins, and stirges, and imps, and other horrific creatures that need to die. And they aren't helpless either - they are capable of taking actions.

You need a rule to tell you that a humanoid baby isn't helpless? Really if a human child of x age is helpless you can be damn sure a goblin child of equivalent age is just as helpless.

The goblin children are innocent, they haven't done anything to deserve an execution and your made up arguments that goblins are inherently evil like demons has no weight in the actual rules or in the Golarion campaign setting.

[TuggyNE]

And they aren't helpless (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/conditions#TOC-Helpless) either - they are capable of taking actions.

I'm not sure that the "weak/helpless" thing is strictly referring to the condition, but it doesn't matter. Nothing in the definition prevents a creature that is still capable of taking actions from being helpless:
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.

[Silvanoshei]

This is just the age old question of "Kill 1 to save 10" moral dilemma. Not exactly the same because we're talking about an act of mercy in this case. Take my 1st point into context though; if you kill an innocent person that will not kill 10 others, is that a bad act? The answer, as always is, depends. If let say it was said persons wife, less likely to kill her to save 10 strangers. Or it could be reversed in respect to 1 stranger and 10 family members. Then all of a sudden it's justified to kill a stranger because of the "greater" good of 10 > 1. Or back to the wife point, she's worth more than 10 people.

Either decision is right, depending on which side of the coin you are on. The whole point of all of this, THE WORLD IS NOT WHITE AND BLACK. DM should rule all gray scenarios with good judgement and perception on which side of the coin the Paladin should be on.

In this OP question, it is better to kill the goblins or not, depends. No way the Paladin can get said babies to a place to grow and survive because of a time constraint? Mercy kill is acceptable. It's not an act of anger, or blood-thirst, or malevolence, but of compassion. If the Paladin knew the babies would die and he left them there on purpose, that is a worse act than mercy killing. That would show resentment, and not compassion of knowing the right thing to do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ultimately, my only point in even arguing about the survivability of the children (I double-checked before starting this post, there are -children- as well as babies) was to prove that leaving them alone leaves them with a chance of survival that is not practically zero.

As long as they have a chance, the paladin is not responsible for their deaths should they fail to survive.

Alignment as an objective system simply cannot work if one creature can be held responsible for the actions of another creature when he's not even aware of the existence, much less actions, of that other creature.

If the goblins are eaten by wolves (unlikely but possible) it's not the paladin that's responsible but the wolves because they decided that the goblins were acceptable-risk prey. If some of the larger ones turn on the smaller and murder them, that's on the larger goblins. If some of them are carried off by large, predatory birds or reptiles then that's on those predators. If they fall off of a ledge and break their necks its their fault for approaching that ledge.

If you hold a creature responsible for the eternally cascading effects of literally every action he takes then everyone is all alignments simultaneously and the system simply doesn't mean anything anymore.

[Pickford]

It's not just the fact that there are magical critters roaming around that makes the wilderness dangerous. Larger more dangerous versions of existing predators exist and while relatively uncommon are still a thing that must be guarded against. Honestly, the mere that idea settlements as defined by class distributions, indefensible locations, and active technological advancement could survive reliably in dnd land is ludicrous. I could maybe see larger towns and settlements with at least a few magic users and beatsticks surviving the common wilderness for long periods of time. Settlements though? Lol nawp. Settlements where there are no proficient defenders, no large scale agriculture, and a requirement to last several years before bringing in a new generation is even possible just to name a few logistical problems? I'll get right on finishing those genetically engineered flying pigs.

Perhaps there are simply very few of these large predators in any given region as you would have to consider their ability to procure food as well.

For example: (courtesy of wiki)

Male grizzly bears have large territories, up to 4,000 km2 (1,500 sq mi),[12] making finding a female scent difficult in such low population densities.

And in the wild most animals avoid humans (unless they consider them food).

[TuggyNE]

Ultimately, my only point in even arguing about the survivability of the children (I double-checked before starting this post, there are -children- as well as babies) was to prove that leaving them alone leaves them with a non-zero chance of survival.

As long as they have a chance, no matter how slim, the paladin is not responsible for their deaths should they fail to survive.

That's kind of a lousy way to look at it, since, strictly speaking, almost anything has a chance of surviving almost any danger, no matter how small. Sure, a human baby (1 HP) is quite unlikely to survive a dire boar's rage for any length of time, but theoretically the boar might roll a string of 1s and get tired or frustrated and wander off. The odds are merely infinitesimal, not zero, so surely a paladin can't get in trouble for dropping a baby off near a dire boar's wallow because it's too annoying to carry around, right?

Put another way, if you have, or should have, a reasonable expectation that leaving the person(s) in question will likely lead to serious injuries or death, it's negligence to leave them alone. Whether that's actually the case for any given group of goblin children I don't know, but it might be, and you can't simply dismiss it out of hand with the argument "well, they have at least some tiny chance of surviving, right?"

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's kind of a lousy way to look at it, since, strictly speaking, almost anything has a chance of surviving almost any danger, no matter how small. Sure, a human baby (1 HP) is quite unlikely to survive a dire boar's rage for any length of time, but theoretically the boar might roll a string of 1s and get tired or frustrated and wander off. The odds are merely infinitesimal, not zero, so surely a paladin can't get in trouble for dropping a baby off near a dire boar's wallow because it's too annoying to carry around, right?

Put another way, if you have, or should have, a reasonable expectation that leaving the person(s) in question will likely lead to serious injuries or death, it's negligence to leave them alone. Whether that's actually the case for any given group of goblin children I don't know, but it might be, and you can't simply dismiss it out of hand with the argument "well, they have at least some tiny chance of surviving, right?"

Perhaps I should've injected the word "practical" in there somewhere.

As long as their chance of survival is not practically zero.....

The children in this scenario, if left to their own devices, will not have had their overall chance of survival reduced to what is -practically- zero, therefore the paladin isn't responsible for their very much -not- inevitable deaths at the hands of predators, accidents, and each other.

Previous post edited. Better?

[Drachasor]

Perhaps I should've injected the word "practical" in there somewhere.

As long as their chance of survival is not practically zero.....

The children in this scenario, if left to their own devices, will not have had their overall chance of survival reduced to what is -practically- zero, therefore the paladin isn't responsible for their very much -not- inevitable deaths at the hands of predators, accidents, and each other.

Previous post edited. Better?


Book 'em for murder two, boys; depraved indifference.


When it comes to kids left alone like this, Paladins or anyone trying to do a Good act, doesn't have a lot of choices. This is as it should be. Taking responsibility like this is what good is all about. Don't do that...then you aren't good (at least in that instance).

[TuggyNE]

Perhaps I should've injected the word "practical" in there somewhere.

As long as their chance of survival is not practically zero.....

The children in this scenario, if left to their own devices, will not have had their overall chance of survival reduced to what is -practically- zero, therefore the paladin isn't responsible for their very much -not- inevitable deaths at the hands of predators, accidents, and each other.

Previous post edited. Better?

Somewhat, although I'd consider even a 50/50 chance of them surviving as a group too risky to leave in good conscience (rather than the 10% one might suppose from your post).

[Augmental]

No mention was made of a celestial court; unless the executor in question beheld the trial and von EvilRapeKill was given the chance to defend himself, the trial holds no water. Plus, it assuredly holds no jurisdiction in Eviltopia to begin with, and so qualifies as murder (as going after someone to kill them is, by definition, premeditated).

It's both against the law and premeditated, and so counts as murder regardless of how Good (with a capital G) it might be. The very definition of the word "murder" combined with WotC's description of it as being an unmitigatedly evil act, means that whatever celestials are involved in this murder are inspiring others to commit Evil, which is an Evil act in itself. As a result, whatever paladin they commanded this of would fall for committing it, and I'm sure EvilRapeKill will laugh at this fact when he manages to resurrect himself (assuming he's successfully murdered to begin with).

So a paladin falls for killing the BBEG without holding a court case for him/her in his/her homeland first? What if the BBEG comes from another plane without courts? If a BBEG destroys all the courts in his homeland, does that mean the paladin can't ever kill him without falling? :smallsigh:

[Drachasor]

So a paladin falls for killing the BBEG without holding a court case for him/her in his/her homeland first? What if the BBEG comes from another plane without courts? If a BBEG destroys all the courts in his homeland, does that mean the paladin can't ever kill him without falling? :smallsigh:

A DM I had was fine with Paladins administering "frontier justice." If someone is guilty of crimes punishable by death, then a Paladin can put them to death -- in as merciful a way as that allows. I think within reasonable limits this works.

Obviously killing kids like goblin babies is almost always outside of those limits.

That said, regarding the OP, there can be misunderstandings here between the players and DM. Some might take a Tolkien view of all orcs, goblins, etc. They are always evil, no matter what. I've met players that tend to always do this, and if you get it through their heads one session this isn't the case, it might still pop up again a few sessions later or in another campaign. Or the DM might have that particular view and the players something different. It really helps to try to clarify where everyone is coming from and ensure the players and DM understand what is going on -- possibly allowing actions to be taken back if they stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work in the game world.

[Scow2]

And the official stance on the matter on the SRD says it's perfectly fine for someone to kill the progeny of evil humanoids such as goblins, in a section explicitly about clearing up these kinds of alignment debates.

[hamishspence]

It says in effect "A good character who believes goblins are irredeemable, might kill goblin children, seeing it as the most moral option"

One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

however, since the same page, makes it clear that it's fiends, whose redemption is "rare, if even possible"

Creatures with an evil subtype (generally outsiders) are creatures that are fundamentally evil: devils, daemons, and demons, for instance. Their redemption is rare, if it is even possible. They are evil to their very core, and commit evil acts perpetually and persistently. Mortals with an evil alignment, however, are different from these beings. In fact, having an evil alignment alone does not make one a super-villain or even require one to be thwarted or killed.

then it seems like it makes it pretty clear that any character who "believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil" is likely to be in error- and thus, it's not shown to be "perfectly fine" to kill them.

[Drachasor]

And the official stance on the matter on the SRD says it's perfectly fine for someone to kill the progeny of evil humanoids such as goblins, in a section explicitly about clearing up these kinds of alignment debates.

I do not believe that appears on the SRD. If it does, please provide a link.

From the text on that I've seen quoted (which I think was from the BoED), it didn't say all the options were good or not. Nonetheless, a passaging waxing on alignment quandaries still isn't the primary source on what alignment means. Killing children because you believe they are "born bad" most certainly isn't a good act -- those require respect for life. It's at best a neutral act, if not outright evil (e.g. killing because it is convenient).

[hamishspence]

From the text on that I've seen quoted (which I think was from the BoED), it didn't say all the options were good or not.

Actually BoED goes out of its way to say that goblins, orcs, and "even the thoroughly evil drow" are redeemable, and that killing "noncombatants" (which generally means younglings, and the females of patriarchal groups) in war, is a big no-no.

The bits I quoted in my previous post, came from the Pathfinder SRD.