3.P - Are Goblin Babies Born Bad?

[unseenmage]

Or more specifically, are they born evil because goblins are racially evil?

Would a couple of good goblins struggle to raise naturally evil children?

More practically, what would Sanctify the Wicked do to a hatchling black dragon?

To a freshly awakened or incarnated Golem who, though their mind isnt mature yet, shares their awaken-er's alignment?

How do you handle it in your games?

[BWR]

Or more specifically, are they born evil because goblins are racially evil?


The only real answer: it depends on the setting.
Most official settings don't consider them innately evil, even if most of them turn out that way.



Would a couple of good goblins struggle to raise naturally evil children?


Yes, as much as any good parents would struggle to raise naturally evil children. Note that this doesn't require them to raise goblin children. If said good goblin parents were raised in a generally evil society they may have an advantage in that they are very familiar with the behavior and mindset of evil creatures and have better ways of preventing/mitigating it.



More practically, what would Sanctify the Wicked do to a hatchling black dragon?


Make it less evil, if you assume all black dragons are born evil.



To a freshly awakened or incarnated Golem who, though their mind isnt mature yet, shares their awaken-er's alignment?


Don't know. Depends on what the GM wants, I suppose. Maybe they are basically neutral because they haven't learned anything. Maybe there is some spirit that alters them one way or the other. Maybe awakened golems naturally have fixed alignments.




How do you handle it in your games?
Goblins are not innately evil in Mystara. *
With a lot of roleplaying or appropriate backstory.
Has never come up.
Has never come up.


* Goblinoids in Mystara have a slightly different background than most other settings. They weren't created by some god of theirs in their current form. The original creatures that evolved into goblinoids, the beastmen, were evil souls (presumably of normal humans and demihumans) forcibly reincarnated into monstrous forms as punishment. They then evolved from a motley crew of creatures no two of which had the same general features into the main goblinoid, including goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, and bugbears, with subraces of each (some a bit more racist than would be acceptable today). While the modern goblinoid races are not innately evil, they do have a certain leaning towards it, which isn't helped by the races generally being marginalized by the 'good' races. Pretty much wherever you go, the goblinoids are hostile to non-goblinoids, and vice versa.

[Telonius]

Alignment as a system is always controversial, and it comes close to falling apart entirely when you bring children into the mix. As far as I can tell, only creatures with the [Evil] subtype are Evil regardless of actions or intentions. For everything else, "Always Evil" is the closest you're going to get. "Always Evil" doesn't even mean literally always Evil, either.

Children in general aren't considered moral actors, so I'd say that Goblin (or Drow, or Half-Celestial, or whatever) kids would probably ping as True Neutral until they're responsible for their own actions. Goblin kids wouldn't be any more horrible than human ones.

Dragons are kind of a special case, since a newly-hatched Dragon is still a creature with a statblock and an alignment listing. If you took one that had literally just hatched, the alignment would probably be Evil, as in they'd have a general tendency towards Evil. At the same time they wouldn't have any Evil choices to go along with the general tendency. Sanctify the Wicked would turn it Good; as in, they'd have no particular Good acts, but would now approach things with a Good mindset. For Awakened Golems, I'd probably parse it in a similar way.

[liquidformat]

Or more specifically, are they born evil because goblins are racially evil?

Would a couple of good goblins struggle to raise naturally evil children?

More practically, what would Sanctify the Wicked do to a hatchling black dragon?

To a freshly awakened or incarnated Golem who, though their mind isnt mature yet, shares their awaken-er's alignment?

How do you handle it in your games?

The way that I have taken this normally, is 'usually X' means most adults of this species fall into alignment x but outliers can be found. 'Always X' means there are no outliers to this alignment all specimens will be x (or at least should be if you ignore books written about said race by persons who didn't know about them before writing said books...). Lastly you have subtypes which to me means these are so evil that they have it ingrained in their very being. The real question I suppose is if an 'always evil' creature is innately evil from birth or is it a product of its environment, whereas by d&d logic, all subtyped evil creatures are innately evil.

Since a hatchling black dragon is always evil it would have its soul ripped out and trapped in a diamond and reflect on why it is innately evil...
Similarly the incarnated golem would have its soul.... (wait do they have a soul is this a catch 22?)

[Kayblis]

"Evil" in D&D is different from evil in the real world. In D&D, Evil is a real, palpable thing that can have mass and influences the world around it - it's not simply a concept of morality. "Good" and "Evil" are dictated by the gods, and some creatures are the literal embodyment of Good or Evil energy. That's why the only answer to a paladin wanting to redeem a succubus is a knife to the back, it doesn't work that way.

Goblins are lesser races. They are not literally made of any specific kind of energy, unlike Demons and Archons. As a DM, I'd rule that goblin babies do ping on Detect Evil for their nature, and would act like animals when cornered with a drop of malice in there(so, acting hurt and pretending to be harmless until they get a good chance to flee or attack). However, you CAN raise a goblin to be a good person, and it's totally possible to override their nature with proper teaching and caring. I also don't agree with Lawful Stupid Paladins smiting anything that pings Evil, and killing an unarmed infant that isn't threatening you is definitely an evil act.

Edit:
On the other questions:
2 - Yes, a couple of good goblins will have to deal with a very annoying and rebellious child. It's not much different from the usual cases of really bad children giving their parents and others a hard time.

3 - The spell forces an alignment change. It probably would work differently flavor-wise, but the dragon would in fact spend a year trapped and come out a Sanctified creature.

4 - There isn't a clear ruling on that. I'd rule that unless the creator takes measures to apply an alignment to the golem, it would be awakened as True Neutral and shape its worldview during the time it's alive, kinda like humans growing up. It can go through gradual alignment changes depending on its experiences.

[Maat Mons]

killing an unarmed infant that isn't threatening you is definitely an evil act.

That infant could have a dagger concealed in its diaper.

[Kayblis]

That infant could have a dagger concealed in its diaper.

Anyone can have a dagger concealed in their underpants. You don't go around stabbing people because of it.

[Crake]

Often X: 40-50% being that alignment, with the remaining % being split between the other alignments. "A plurality of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common"
Usually X: More than 50% possibly stemming from cultural influence, or due to the legacy of a creature's origin. The example given being that elves tend toward chaotic good due to their creation by Corellon Larethian. Goblins and orcs will generally fit into this category, with their alignment likely also stemming in part due to their creators.
Always X: Born with the alignment. This means hereditary disposition, or coming from a strongly aligned plane. Chromatic dragons fit into this category, a wyrmling black dragon that literally hatched 10 seconds ago is already evil. These creatures can change their alignment, but such cases are rare and unique, likely from strong mitigating circumstances.
Alignment Subtype: These creatures are one step beyond. These creatures are their alignment the same way a fire elemental is fire. They are quite literal embodiments of their alignment subtype, it's not ingrained in their being, it IS their being. Mortals are made of flesh, Earth elementals are made from earth, they are made from Evil/Good/Law/Chaos.


So going off this, yes, goblins and their kin generally have a natural leaning toward evil, however it is not by any means an all encompassing one, and can be guided away from, the same way drow can become good followers of ellistrae, or dwarves can become evil followers of abbathor.

[Jay R]

This is one of those questions that you can't improve the game by asking, and might hurt it.

In my game, the goblins that the PCs meet will be evil, but neither they nor I have any knowledge of goblins on other continents, or raised in other cultures.

There will never be baby goblins in their encounters.

[unseenmage]

This is one of those questions that you can't improve the game by asking, and might hurt it.

...

I disagree. In my own IRL game encountering baby goblins gave the players the expected tough choice.
That the hobgoblin player took on wholeheartedly by challenging the goblin leader and taking over the tribe.

His rule was stern, but not evil. Reforming the tribe into something their civilized neighbors valued became a part of the campaign, and it started with improving the treatment of the goblin young.

[Crake]

I disagree. In my own IRL game encountering baby goblins gave the players the expected tough choice.
That the hobgoblin player took on wholeheartedly by challenging the goblin leader and taking over the tribe.

His rule was stern, but not evil. Reforming the tribe into something their civilized neighbors valued became a part of the campaign, and it started with improving the treatment of the goblin young.

Gotta agree with unseenmage. It's the sort of question that COULD lead to the detriment of the game, depending on the table, some players want to just have some mindless fun killing goblins and saving the village, but other players might want something different, they might relish the idea of reforming the goblin tribe. What to the first group would seem like a tedious side quest is instead an intriguing main story to the second group.

It's fine if you and your players don't want to question the morality or ethics of their characters, not everyone is interested in that, but to assume that NOBODY does is just short sighted.

[Mordaedil]

Depends if you like Goblin Slayer or Reincarnated as a Slime more.

I feel like these two animes can answer everything you'd want about goblins in your setting and which you'd prefer to run.

Personally I prefer goblins that aren't evil, but are sometimes driven to do evil things because they don't think like we do about societal issues.

[OgresAreCute]

Anyone can have a dagger concealed in their underpants. You don't go around stabbing people because of it.

Maybe you don't...

[Fizban]

Or more specifically, are they born evil because goblins are racially evil?

Would a couple of good goblins struggle to raise naturally evil children?

More practically, what would Sanctify the Wicked do to a hatchling black dragon?

To a freshly awakened or incarnated Golem who, though their mind isnt mature yet, shares their awaken-er's alignment?

How do you handle it in your games?
I convert stated alignment tendency into whatever I want. If I want something to be a PC-race choice or otherwise treated as a person, then for those the stated alignment is a cultural tendency, not a physiologically/instinctive one. If I want it to be a monster, then it's a natural thing that might be overcome by extreme willpower, training, or magic, but is true enough that the creature can be used as a monster.

For goblins, I'm on the fence enough that it'd go to the rest of the table, if anything. I don't really like them as a player race, but I'm not against it mechanically. If the players want monster goblins, I can do that, or civilized, or merely unfortunate. I'd probably not use them at all unless they showed up in a module, in which case the module dictates how they're being used. The most middleground approach is to give them some nasty anti-social instincts (a symptom of cha penalties) which kick off the cycle of ostracism, so by default survival in a goblin tribe requires one to do things that eventually ping as evil (putting yourself before unfortunate clan-mates and raiding other peoples), but technically if the module/player/DM requires it there can be some that have the means to live a life that pings Good.

Dragons are born with skills and knowledge and all the normal thought functions- not as blank slates that take years to develop into something you can talk to. A dragon is born with an alignment, it's racial knowledge comes from its parents so that alignment will almost certainly be the same as theirs, so a dragon born to evil dragons will be evil. Sanctify the Wicked would work as normal, assuming I was using the spell.

I have no opinion on Incarnate Construct because I don't like it. General awakening effects that produce a fully functional mind will start at Neutral (unless the effect disagrees), because the creature has not yet developed any personality. As soon as its thoughts and actions take shape and stabilize enough to qualify as an alignment, it has that alignment.

[Florian]

Ok, first the usual blurb: In default D&D/PF, Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are objective forces of reality with very real effects and quite different from how we understand morals and ethics in RL. Being in alignment with one of those forces means to generally accept and share some of the associated things, like an outlook on life, society and deeds.

Creatures with an alignment tag or subtype are either made out of those literal forces or are so strongly connected to these forces that they are both, nurture and nature for them, as is the case with the Black Dragon or the Pit Fiend.

The rest is more or less setting dependent. Using Golarion as an example, the default assumption is that Free Will is a thing, so are Nature and Nurture. For example, PF Hobgoblins come with very war-like tendencies and have formed their society around those tendencies. These in turn align hard with LE. Does this exclude the possibility of a Hobgoblin Paladin? No. Still, raising a hobgob child in another society will always be an exercise of Nurture having to be stronger than Nature to overcome the basic instincts.

Broadly speaking, we are only used to Humans and Human behavior ranges and Nature, so some questions are more akin to "Why can't I raise my cat to be a dog" anyways.

[Malphegor]

[this post is a bit of a ramble, sorry]

In the game I'm in, whilst I may be mistaking the intentions of the DM, it appears to be a nurture dictates the alignment, but cultural alignments tend to skew towards making new offspring of that alignment.

But sometimes there's something innate about a species that makes it X alignment at birth. For example, if it was born from creatures who are innately evil- Tieflings are a good example of this. Part of its 'genetics' is a being that is lawful evil incarnate. Now, nurture in a predominantly human society allows it to develop as something less extreme alignment such as lawful neutral to true neutral, but it's unlikely to ever flip and become chaotic good, unless it's PC-level exceptional for some reason.

So you can be born innately evil, with a predisposition to do evil. It's not that common and most beings are neutral as babies (because honestly what kind of moral quandaries is a baby going to decide of their own free will? Whether to fart or not in mum's presence?), but generally the culture will override whatever it is.. somewhat.

That said, a Goblin being raised by angels or something would probably have a stressful teenage years. But a goblin in a goblin society full of evil goblins? Not a chance, that kid's probably going to grow up evil... And that's not terrible. For some species, it might just be the natural way of their life that they function in a certain way. Ilithids have gotta eat brains, after all, and good or bad, they can't easily change that part of their biological needs.

But there's still hope. Always, there is hope.

And that's the biggest quandary of clerics- do you DEUS VULT and slay the heathens, or do you convert them by the sword and the spell to serve your god's purpose?

It does make for an interesting question though- with sufficient prolonged effort, can nurture undo nature completely? Would a group of goblins socially adjusted to be good beget future generations that are also good?

And furthermore, how uncomfortable does that make us as players feel as it comes very close, tonally to real world missionaries interrupting other cultures to impart their ideologies upon them?

[Jay R]

Gotta agree with unseenmage. It's the sort of question that COULD lead to the detriment of the game, depending on the table, some players want to just have some mindless fun killing goblins and saving the village, but other players might want something different, they might relish the idea of reforming the goblin tribe. What to the first group would seem like a tedious side quest is instead an intriguing main story to the second group.

It's fine if you and your players don't want to question the morality or ethics of their characters, not everyone is interested in that, but to assume that NOBODY does is just short sighted.

I didn't say that I don't want to question the morality or ethics of characters; I didn't assume that nobody does; and the claim that I did is just short-sighted.

I said that asking whether Goblin babies are born bad won't help the game. It won't. I specifically said that the fact that the goblins my PCs meet are Evil doesn't mean that other goblins might not be.

And in fact, over the last two weeks, the party I'm playing with right now just ended a series of goblin raids on a small mining town by hiring them as miners...

... without ever asking if goblin babies are born bad.

[King of Nowhere]

I convert stated alignment tendency into whatever I want. If I want something to be a PC-race choice or otherwise treated as a person, then for those the stated alignment is a cultural tendency, not a physiologically/instinctive one. If I want it to be a monster, then it's a natural thing that might be overcome by extreme willpower, training, or magic, but is true enough that the creature can be used as a monster.


that's the same approach I use. I generally ignore everything except the most basic stats when I approach worldbuilding.

Regarding goblins, I made them live in desert caves and be continuously threatened by overpopulation and bigger foes. To survive, they developed a culture that sees the individual as disposable in favor of the community. their only advantages is that they need little food and they breed fast, so they learned to use numbers and "we have reserves" tactics.
Also, being surrounded by foes, they developed an extremely xenophobic attitude, summed up in their saying "everything falls in three categories: the goblin nation, the enemies of the goblin nation, and inanimate objects".

So, they are sort of a mixture between badass survivorists, social darwinists, slum dwellers, and nazis.
the evilness is mostly a product of the various pressures their society is subjected to.

[unseenmage]

Depends if you like Goblin Slayer or Reincarnated as a Slime more.

I feel like these two animes can answer everything you'd want about goblins in your setting and which you'd prefer to run.

Personally I prefer goblins that aren't evil, but are sometimes driven to do evil things because they don't think like we do about societal issues.
Am currently watching both. And I find that my games tend to contain both types of goblin. Sometimes in the same tribe.

Sure its messy, but people are messy and monsters get treated like persons more than stat blocks when I'm world building.

[SirNibbles]

"The only good goblins are the ones who never come out of their holes."

Evil can be innate to a race. Just as a panda is born to eat bamboo, or a lion is to eat antelope, so to are goblins born to do evil as defined in D&D.

And just as you can train a dog to not chase after squirrels, a goblin can be shaped by a good society to be less evil. But it's likely to still be tempted, as the dog is.

[emeraldstreak]

Yes, they are born evil. It isn't immediately obvious while they are babies, because babies don't have much capacity to do things, but their evilness is obvious by the time they are toddlers. In 3.5, that is.

[NontheistCleric]

Evil can be innate to a race. Just as a panda is born to eat bamboo, or a lion is to eat antelope, so to are goblins born to do evil as defined in D&D.

Goblins are given the Usually Neutral Evil alignment, but that designation does not prescribe being born evil. The description of Usually X Alignment was given upthread and nowhere does it state that being innately born with the alignment is the only way to achieve that designation.

[D+1]

How do you handle it in your games?This is really the answer to the other questions - that is, the answer varies from game to game.

I always run it the same way in any campaign...
Are they born evil because goblins are racially evil?
Yes. Is it possible that monsters and races that have the alignment descriptor "evil" can be non-evil? Sure. But I DO NOT require that players account for 1 in a million chances of that sort of thing happening. Things are labeled as "evil" in the game to ALLOW blanket judgment of the entire race from birth to death at the hands of PC's.

Would a couple of good goblins struggle to raise naturally evil children?
If I wanted them to, yes. The fact that I put two good-aligned goblins into my game world in the first place indicates that I am making EXTRAORDINARY exceptions. They would not be found piled in with all the evil goblins to be "accidentally" killed by PC's who had no reason to assume any of the goblins were worth saving. Those two and their offspring would be in the game FOR A REASON and that reason would dictate what's going on as far as knowing whether their children were born good or evil, or were going to turn out one way or another after being raised by good parents. After all, isn't it possible in EVERY campaign for two good humans to nonetheless end up raising an evil child?

More practically, what would Sanctify the Wicked do to a hatchling black dragon?
I assume it would become good as that IS the purpose of the spell, yes? If it can't do that at 9th level then what's the point of the spell?

To a freshly awakened or incarnated Golem who, though their mind isnt mature yet, shares their awaken-er's alignment?
Sorta depends on how your game rules depict golems. I've probably only used 2 or 3 golems in 40 years of running D&D and can't even remember when the last time would have been (not in any edition later than 2E). Golems IMC would be neutral, not aligned with their creators. They don't have MINDS to mature. They are non-intelligent - even if they can mostly behave as if they do have intelligence. They are largely automatons/robots. They follow programming/instructions of their creators but don't have personal drives, beliefs and motivations to act one way or another. If the golems in your campaign are different, then I'd say consult those rules for how you're supposed to handle their personal moral and ethical awakening. If someone used, say, a Wish to make a golem self-aware or free-acting then it would begin acting as NN until outside events and its choices/reactions dictated otherwise. If I WANTED it to then end up as a particular alignment, it would. The alignment of its creator could motivate it to act similarly, or motivate it to act radically different.

[Feantar]

Or more specifically, are they born evil because goblins are racially evil?

Would a couple of good goblins struggle to raise naturally evil children?

More practically, what would Sanctify the Wicked do to a hatchling black dragon?

To a freshly awakened or incarnated Golem who, though their mind isn't mature yet, shares their awaken-er's alignment?

How do you handle it in your games?

There are a couple of points here - I am just going to tell you how I generally see things.

First, as a general rule, I consider races that have the line "Often * evil" to be just culturally inclined, "Usually * evil" to be both cultural and mildly instinctual (prone to violence, for example) and "Always * evil" to be inherent. Since Goblins are Usually evil, I go by the above statement. Culturally evil, but with some problematic tendencies which, in most societies, would be more conductive to an evil-aligned position.

Dragons are a special case. They are not inherently evil, but they are initially evil - wyrms have genetic memory. So a black dragon starts evil, but it can go wherever it feels like later. Sanctify the Wicked black dragon would be like any other Sanctify the Wicked, but with a much better understanding of evil (due to the genetic memory). Note that sanctify the wicked is a problematic spell, but if I understand it correctly, it mostly follows an approach of to know yourself/everything makes you benevolent. As in, good is the final result of self-reflection, and sanctify is self-reflection on steroids. It doesn't force the alignment as much as make it impossible to refute (which requires an objective moral truth).

Awaken construct is weird, but sharing the caster's alignment might follow the same logic like a familiar - the caster gives a piece of themselves to the construct and that acts as a soul. In that case, it's like the dragons. I think it is different that the awaken spells, because the awakened beings already have something like a soul (an animus?) that the awaken spell blooms into a full one. Thus, the neutral part.

[Elkad]

All I'm going to say is that many years ago two of us were both playing paladins.

We got into a discussion about this in-character. It came to heartfelt blows, an offer from the winner to the loser to capitulate his position, and ultimately a PC death.


I can't see an in-forum discussion going much better.

[King of Nowhere]

All I'm going to say is that many years ago two of us were both playing paladins.

We got into a discussion about this in-character. It came to heartfelt blows, an offer from the winner to the loser to capitulate his position, and ultimately a PC death.


I can't see an in-forum discussion going much better.

I don't. It's an entirely different situation.
your two paladins were acting within a specific setting, where there was an actual correct answer.
here everyone is showcasing what he's using. there is no correct answer, as everyone has a different setting, and so there can be no hard feelings.

there shouldn't be, at least. i can totally see this one going 20 pages like the "how many buffs can a fighter ask before he's annoying" thread

[Quarian Rex]

Or more specifically, are they born evil because goblins are racially evil?

Would a couple of good goblins struggle to raise naturally evil children?

More practically, what would Sanctify the Wicked do to a hatchling black dragon?

To a freshly awakened or incarnated Golem who, though their mind isnt mature yet, shares their awaken-er's alignment?

How do you handle it in your games?

For Goblins, I've made things a little more complex and this, ironically, simplifies things. Hobgoblins are the progenitor race and they reproduce through egg laying. The Hobs have gotten good at manipulating their eggs to produce different results, either to hatch Orcs (who then breed true without eggs, and can, when taking a *4th* level in the Orc Paragon class, become Ogres, who can then also breed true) as a warrior race, or Goblins as a slave race.

All Goblins are male (with natural inclinations to being greedy, vicious, and wicked) and can only breed with other races females. Pregnancy only lasts a week and gives birth to 2d4 young (doing Con Drain to the mother equal to the number of Goblins born) who can walk immediately and reach full maturity in a few weeks. When used as a slave race their population can be easily kept in check. Should they be released into the wild (and really. who can keep track of all of them?) they are an expanding horde that is coming for your women. Inspiration taken from a number of places but Goblin Slayer obviously sealed the deal to ensure that even as weak as Goblins are they will always be seen as a threat.

While all mortal races can experience alignment change, doing so with a Goblin (through non-magical means) in my setting is an uphill battle.



To a freshly awakened or incarnated Golem who, though their mind isnt mature yet, shares their awaken-er's alignment?

Why would you think that their mind isn't mature? All Golems are powered by some type of elemental spirit. Once fully fused with a body and granted consciousness, why would what was once a possibly eternal elemental spirit not be mature? This is one of those fuzzy areas that I think is more interesting with a mature mind in a state of Tabula Rasa rather than trying to justifying the creation of a 9" tall meat-baby. When in doubt err on the side of basic competence.

More to the point, I would probably say Neutral but capable of being changed to the creators choice through Diplomacy/Intimidate checks within the first week of creation. Even a mature mind can be heavily influenced by that which created it, at least initially.




I also don't agree with Lawful Stupid Paladins smiting anything that pings Evil, and killing an unarmed infant that isn't threatening you is definitely an evil act.

I actually find this to be more Lawful Stupid. Neutral Good can be about Forgiveness above all. Lawful Good is about Judgement. Saying that the warriors of the faith ending an Evil threat (as they understand it, unless your campaign has egalitarian Goblin Free States) at the root is something that they would loose class abilities over would be crazy. Among other things, it would mean that any military force containing Paladins would soon be paralyzed by building Goblin orphanages or be filled with ex-Paladins. I think that Lawful Good can be harsh and has room for Torquemada.




This is one of those questions that you can't improve the game by asking, and might hurt it.

I think that this is one of those questions that a DM has to answer when making their game world and actually incorporate the answer into the setting. If killing Goblin young will lose a Paladin his class abilities (is an official EVIL act) then the sanctity and innocence of ALL children is something that has to be incorporated into the dogma of Good religions in a clear and obvious way. If an aspect of your game world forces Paladins to also be part-time social workers then that needs to be part of their training. Springing a 'gotcha' moment on a PC when they try to cleanse an 'infestation' is the hight of DM dickery.

Jay R is part right though, forcing this question on the players generally won't improve the game by asking, and might hurt it. The question should already be answered by the game world. Now, if the characters want to further question this, that is a completely different issue, and something that is usually dictated through previous DM interaction (have the PCs encountered a Goblin who isn't an a$$hole? That may sway their opinions on what to do with a gobo-daycare).

TL;DR - If the DM wants a moral choice he has to put the work in to set it up.

[Elkad]

your two paladins were acting within a specific setting, where there was an actual correct answer.

Was there? The DM sure didn't reveal one. We worked it out among ourselves, by ultimately attempting (and in one case succeeding) in killing one another.

Question answered, by might makes right.

[King of Nowhere]

Was there? The DM sure didn't reveal one.
The DM didn't reveal it, but the setting was established, and so it had to have an answer.
Or maybe it was vague enough, in which case it could make sense to clash over it (two paladins killing each other is taking it too far, though).
Either way, this thread needs not to degenerate into strife, as any argument could always be replied with "ah, well, my setting works a bit differently", so nobody will be in the wrong