Personally, I always use the 'culture influence' with traditionally evil npcs. 99% of the culture is evil. Those who aren't evil usually end up being neutral. The reason being those who end up being good are usually killed (by their own parents or siblings) for being abberant. Only very occasionally does a good one escape to scrape out a living. There might even be a good village of them here or there, and the more common neutral village. But as a whole, the population matches the 'usually <blah>' alignment.
As to dragons... I've never liked the way dragons get done in default D&D/PF. The best way I ever had to handle it was this.
For their first year of life, dragons 'molt' every month. They start out the color/temprament of their mother, then cycle through every color/metal that exists. So, say starting out Gold, then Black, then Copper, then Green, etc. I usually throw in two random Neutral colors the last two months of the year (like sand dragons, or a gem dragon).
For the next twelve years, they do the cycle again, this time lasting a year each.
At the end of the 13th year of life, they molt for an entire month, and when they emerge, they have settled on the 'color' that they are most comfortable with.
The way I do age is, they advance one age category each time they go through a cycle. The first cycle is 12 months, then it's 12 years. After that, they spend 12 more years as their preferred color and molt again (growing an age category). Then they go 120 years and molt, then 1200 years and molt. After that, they molt every 1200 years (each time growing a age category). Once they reach the oldest age category, they live 1200 years and then die, so they know their appointed day very well.
Though I hesitate to agree with a blue-skin, I find myself doing just that.If you, the DM, decide that paladins will fall from grace should they kill goblin children, let the players know and go from there.
If you don't tell the player of a paladin/cleric that such actions will result in their character's fall, you are a jerk. The players rely upon the DM for some things, and this is one of those things.
However, if a good character not dependant on such benefits from the gods kills the little blue devils, there's not a whole lot you can do. Alignments are not straightjackets. Good people do bad things. Bad people do good things.
And goblin babies should be tossed over cliffs into the sea so that Father Dagon can sort out the deserving from the shark food.
Uhm,
No. A paladin player has to make his own decisions. He can ask about culturally acceptable things, but in the end he has to decide what to do. The GM should not be giving him 'This is bad for your alignment' hints every time he has a tough decision. There is a magic item specifically for that (although I do not remember if it's core or Magic Item Compendium, come to think of it) but I can't remember the name just now, but it allows a Paladin to know if the action he's about to take is at odds with his god.
|
Ah, but that is a wizard character, not a LG paladin and a CN cleric of war.
Also, I would hate to play in one of your games if you think that child-sitting in the name of "add[ing] flavor and new elements" is a fun experience for the players.
Do you guys in your game traditionally just do crawls and such? I can see coming from that kind of background that it would be a little bit tiresome but injecting some funny new, if sometimes annoying NPCs can be a cool way of spicing things up and changing the norm.
Handle it how you may, you make what you will of what you have.
The way you put it about the LG pally, or the CN Cleric does make sense though.... hmm I guess it just depends on what the morality and the social landscape of the group looks like, and if anyone in particular overwhelms the rest of the players.
Now that I think about it, saving a baby is more of a "lawful" thing than it is a "good" thing, as most cultures don't really condone child killing wheras others do. A good example is the native American raids in colonial America. During raids they often killed all noncombatants as well, that was just part of the war, and for this they were considered savages.
|
Sounds like a lot of people don't actually want paladins to be adventuring. From most of the arguments I've seen in this thread, a paladin can't slay any creature becasue it has the POSSIBILITY of changing alignment. Any PC that plays a paladin must go out of their way to rescue and reform any creature they come across.
|
|
Do you guys in your game traditionally just do crawls and such? I can see coming from that kind of background that it would be a little bit tiresome but injecting some funny new, if sometimes annoying NPCs can be a cool way of spicing things up and changing the norm.Ah, but that is a wizard character, not a LG paladin and a CN cleric of war.
Also, I would hate to play in one of your games if you think that child-sitting in the name of "add[ing] flavor and new elements" is a fun experience for the players.
Yes, we normally just do "crawling" or exploration campaigns with Pathfinder/D&D. For the moral ambiguity/social RP games, we will usually use a system that is more suited for those interactions and less black/white than Pathfinder.
|
|
Not sure I agree with this. I also disagree that giving them the opportunity to pick up these children would be "burdening" them. Does it possibly make combat and dungeon crawling a bit more complex? Yeah. But does it add flavor and new elements into the game? For sure.If my wizard happened across a red dragon hatchling in a dungeon that wasn't overtly hostile, I would demand affording it protection and likely adopt it for my own. I can think of no better guard for a wizards tower than a friendly and amiable red dragon.
It's worth noting that wyrmlings do not possess an alignment based aura.
And with them being intelligent creatures, they can have ANY alignment.Ah, but that is a wizard character, not a LG paladin and a CN cleric of war.
Also, I would hate to play in one of your games if you think that child-sitting in the name of "add[ing] flavor and new elements" is a fun experience for the players.
Then you'd hate my games too, as a player or as a DM. As a player, if I'm playing a good character, odds are I'm gonna take the kids, as a DM, I put babies in the cages and gave sin points when the players killed them (not for the act of killing them, rather the way they did it)
Uhm,
No. A paladin player has to make his own decisions. He can ask about culturally acceptable things, but in the end he has to decide what to do. The GM should not be giving him 'This is bad for your alignment' hints every time he has a tough decision. There is a magic item specifically for that (although I do not remember if it's core or Magic Item Compendium, come to think of it) but I can't remember the name just now, but it allows a Paladin to know if the action he's about to take is at odds with his god.
If the paladin's player asks specifically, then you, the DM, should tell him.
If the player just charges ahead and does things, sure, make him fall.
When the paladin's/cleric's player asks directly, then "Well,go ahead and see what happens" is a sign of DM-jerkiness.
Apparently I didn't make it clear that the player has to ask.
Personally, I'm more interested in people having fun instead of mucking with their characters. But maybe that's just me.
Here's the thing. Much of the commentary assumes a perspective that we have in the modern world today, which is largely based on judeo-christian morality. It's artificial to apply those same values to a fantasy game world where there are racial enemies that are a part of the mileau (elves vs. drow; elves vs. orcs, dwarves vs. duergar, etc). In this context, such races would likely view the elimination of young as "extermination". There is even a class (the ranger) that has bonuses against such favored enemies, so the concept of racial extermination is very much a part of the game.
And if we do apply the concept to the "children" of evil creatures, where is the limit? Does it only apply to creatures with an anthropomorphic frame (i.e human-like)? What about baby grell or juvenile ooze? Is this a matter of having problems with the killing of fantasy children that meet specific criteria (i.e. - they look similar to me) or the offspring of all "sentient" creatures.
I understand the distaste the topic has for some people, because violence against children happens all-to-often in the real world. And, ultimately, whether or not to include such an encounter rests with the DM and his/her awareness of the players' sensitivities. But it's important to remember the context of the fantasy world and how the various races view each other.
Just some thoughts from someone who's dealt with this very topic in another campaign.
Sounds like a lot of people don't actually want paladins to be adventuring. From most of the arguments I've seen in this thread, a paladin can't slay any creature becasue it has the POSSIBILITY of changing alignment. Any PC that plays a paladin must go out of their way to rescue and reform any creature they come across.
I would say more that paladins--and generally anyone playing a good alignment--will try to avoid slaying any creature who isn't a clear threat to him and others. (And no, simply having an evil alignment does not automatically mean that being is a clear threat.) There's grey area for things like "mercy killings" (when they truly are merciful) and other things.
Which is a reasonable guideline, IMHO. When I play good characters (including 1 paladin in there somewhere), this is how I choose to interpret my alignment, and I have never felt unnecessarily restricted or unable to participate in the adventure.
We've never faced the goblin baby dilemma, but we did rescue some brown dragon wyrmlings once when we could have easily slain them (or captured them to sell on the market). And that choice (though we didn't know it would have that effect at the time) led to the area's protective demigod healing us to full health and giving us an artifact we were looking for, since we were respectful to the region's native creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a lot of people don't actually want paladins to be adventuring. From most of the arguments I've seen in this thread, a paladin can't slay any creature becasue it has the POSSIBILITY of changing alignment. Any PC that plays a paladin must go out of their way to rescue and reform any creature they come across.
A child or baby is not just "any creature". There are practically endless amounts of other opponents for a paladin to vanquish in a typical game setting besides children and other noncomabatants.
I like paladins. I think that they're an interesting character type because of their moral and ethical constraints, and the potential ramifications of their actions/inactions. If a paladin's enemy asks for quarter, should she not comply? If a paladin has the chance to redeem an evil character, should she not jump at the chance? I don't think these are adventuring limitations; I think that this is simply a side-effect of the paladin truly believing in the code that defines who they are. Situations like these allow a paladin to shine in the way that arguably matters most: being exemplars of good and law to the rest of the world, even if it is unpopular or inconvenient. This is the paladin's job: not only to smite evil, but to serve as examples for the rest of the world.
After all, morality is pretty cheap if it can be ignored. Alignments are not straightjackets, to be sure, but I feel that this is not a good excuse for a character to do whatever they want. An alignment is a description of a character's moral worldview; this is something they believe in, not necessarily just a yardstick to determine how much they can get away with before "angering the gods".
|
|
Here's the thing. Much of the commentary assumes a perspective that we have in the modern world today, which is largely based on judeo-christian morality. It's artificial to apply those same values to a fantasy game world where there are racial enemies that are a part of the mileau (elves vs. drow; elves vs. orcs, dwarves vs. duergar, etc). In this context, such races would likely view the elimination of young as "extermination". There is even a class (the ranger) that has bonuses against such favored enemies, so the concept of racial extermination is very much a part of the game.
You know you get that ranger bonus if you deal non-lethal damage right? As far as the judeo-christian morality, that just doesn't bear out with history, as the crusades, and the taking of america were all examples of judeo-christian morality not at all in conflict with an extermination goal. But you are right that it is culturally shaped morality, and people with different backgrounds will think differently, a human paladin of serenrae (goddess of redemption) would probably save them while an elf ranger with favored enemy goblin will not.
And if we do apply the concept to the "children" of evil creatures, where is the limit? Does it only apply to creatures with an anthropomorphic frame (i.e human-like)? What about baby grell or juvenile ooze? Is this a matter of having problems with the killing of fantasy children that meet specific criteria (i.e. - they look similar to me) or the offspring of all "sentient" creatures.
for me I would say that it's the criteria of all sentient non demon/devil children.
I understand the distaste the topic has for some people, because violence against children happens all-to-often in the real world. And, ultimately, whether or not to include such an encounter rests with the DM and his/her awareness of the players' sensitivities. But it's important to remember the context of the fantasy world and how the various races view each other.
which is something that an individual player should have to justify with an individual DM
|
|
Are goblin babies and goblin children evil? If they aren't evil when they're born, when do they become evil?
So, should I make all/some/or none of the goblin children evil? And how would you GM this encounter?
Simple answer, and this is strictly from a psychological, motivational point of view, all children are evil. They don't have any moral compass and exist only to sate their needs and wants. Eventually, they will even lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish their very selfish and simplistic goals.
The real question shouldnt be when goblin babies become evil but when the proper influence could make goblin children good.
I don't agree at all. What you describe is animalistic behaviour - are animals evil? Children learn primarily from imitation and have a very high empathy - empathy is one of the key traits of being "humane" and acting in a selfless manner. All beings have needs and wants - the moment they are sated "higher" values can take their place - like curiosity, learning, caring.
I have master degree in pedagogy and psychology, but my primary focus has always been adults (and work) and not children - so if you can quote sources or have a background that gives you insights I do not have, I'm willing to discuss this, but I very much disagree with you.
...it does sound like Mr Fishy's little critters are pure evil, though. Poor Mr Fishy...
Within the framework of the alignment system, selfish behavior in human beings is considered evil. I never meant to imply I believe in actual evil, as that's more philosophy than psychology. Without getting on a tangent, the capacity for empathy doesn't instill children with any degree of self-control. In fact, most children can simultaneously love and desire love from their parents while doing things they know are wrong but want to do anyway. Toddlers in particular are marvels of antisocial behavior and can be dastardly little monsters while they test boundaries. No less terrifying are the behaviors of teenagers, but that's another matter altogether.
Again, replace the young goblins with baby chromatic dragons and see how well that argument stands up.
Considering the argument was "goblin babies are helpless noncombatants", and even fresh-out-of-the-shell wyrmlings are far from helpless (even a white wyrmling is CR 2, while an adult goblin with a PC class is only CR 1/2), I think it holds up pretty well.
|
I had this very quandry a few months ago as a Paladin.
I was instructed to take care of a child who we had rescued. Turns out that said child was inherently evil (being the spawn of an evil deity) and had been taught from birth to be evil.
As a group we refused to kill the child and she went into my care (by edict of the king). Later we were heading out to deal with another problem and an IC discussion came about as to what we should do with the child. Eventually I realised that raising a child meant I could not continue to adventure as the child's needs came first. So my Paladin hung up his sword and started a new life as a farmer in an attempt to bring stability to the girl's life and teach her a better way of living. I reasoned that this was at least as good an act as opposing evil forces.
That debate was one of the best roleplaying experiences I have had.
Goblin children are the same. I would say that Goblin children are not inherently evil because Goblins aren't inherently evil themselves. "Usually" Lawful Evil suggests that their society as a whole is Lawful Evil but individual goblins can be of any allignment. Therefore Lawful Evil is a taught response not an inherent one.
I would say that Goblin children are feral but not evil in and of themselves. If caught young enough they could end up being of any allignment, as could any Goblin taken out of his or her society (particularly at a young age).
I love the concept that anything can be good and anything can be evil. Even devils and angels. Redemption and corruption are powerful narrative devices and make for some of the best villains and heroes. That's why any paladin who kills on a whim or "because it's green" will soon find himself a fighter with no feats in my games :).
Incidentally I love the idea of dragons morphing into different forms and then deciding on their final type based on their personality and allignment. I think I might have to steal that one. :)
You know you get that ranger bonus if you deal non-lethal damage right? As far as the judeo-christian morality, that just doesn't bear out with history, as the crusades, and the taking of america were all examples of judeo-christian morality not at all in conflict with an extermination goal. But you are right that it is culturally shaped morality, and people with different backgrounds will think differently, a human paladin of serenrae (goddess of redemption) would probably save them while an elf ranger with favored enemy goblin will not.
Except that your opinion here is based on anti-European revisionist propaganda based on modern European self-hate, and not on fact.
The fact is that neither the Crusades nor the colonization of America were motivated by a policy of extermination, nor was a policy of extermination followed in either case.
The Crusades were a counterattack against several centuries of Muslim aggression against Europe and Christianity. The Moors invaded Spain, conquered much of it, and enslaved part of the population, then went on to invade France, with only Charles Martel stopping their advance. They also conquered Silicy and a good part of Italy, which they occupied until the Normans expelled them. Muslim aggression continued long after the Crusades, with Eastern Europe being subjugated and ravaged repeatedly until the Turks were finally driven out over the course of several centuries.
Crusader fiefs in the Middle East were full of local peasants, who often preferred the Crusaders to their former overlords (who were themselves conquerors, and had little sympathy with the locals despite their shared Islam). There were occasional massacres at the end of a siege, but those happen everywhere and were not a peculiar feature of the Crusades, nor part of a wholesale policy of extermination. Most of the people living in the areas invaded by the Crusaders survived, since there was no extermination policy.
Similarly, the United States was founded by colonization, not genocide. In fact, the fact that there are still Indians left shows that mercy was extended because of the Judeo-Christian culture -- in Indian vs. Indian warfare, the defeated were usually wiped out to the last infant, and if the Europeans had applied this rule instead of their Judeo-Christian ones, there would be literally no Indians left. Fortunately, this was not the case -- the Indians were SAVED from extermination by Judeo-Christian cultural beliefs.
@ FallofCamelot: +1. A great roleplaying opportunity was presented, and this decision you made is a wonderful story in and of itself. Adopts badly executed, blustery British accent: "Good show!"
CHILDREN ARE SOULLESS ABOMANATIONS!!! Mr. Fishy has two, the little one force fed Mr. Fishy a cookie then poked Mr. Fishy in the eye, Mr. Fishy screamed in pain the monster reached into Mr. Fishy's maw and took the cookie back. The big one rammed his finger into Mr. Fishy's nose, the only thing that keep that finger outta Mr. Fishy's brain was A LITTLE FIST.
EVIL!!! They also take Mr. Fishy's food.
I have a 3-year old and I can verify that Mr. Fishy speaks truth. Younglings lie without being shown how, take what isn't theirs and claim it is theirs, and antagonize pets even after being repeatedly told not to. Most definitely born evil. Yep.
Are goblin babies and goblin children evil? If they aren't evil when they're born, when do they become evil?
Nope. Like human children, they must be uncarefully guided to realize their full potential in evil. Goblin childrens just have a natural knack for it. You might say they are like child prodigies when it comes to evil. As for when do they become evil, all I can say is that it is different for everyone. Some might say 3 or 5 or 10 or 15. I would think that all are already at least selfish from the get-go, but most are probably evil by the time they are 10 or 12.
Note that I was going by human years for my estimates above. I don't know how goblins age and cannot check that information at the moment.
I have a 3-year old and I can verify that Mr. Fishy speaks truth. Younglings lie without being shown how, take what isn't theirs and claim it is theirs, and antagonize pets even after being repeatedly told not to. Most definitely born evil. Yep.CHILDREN ARE SOULLESS ABOMANATIONS!!! Mr. Fishy has two, the little one force fed Mr. Fishy a cookie then poked Mr. Fishy in the eye, Mr. Fishy screamed in pain the monster reached into Mr. Fishy's maw and took the cookie back. The big one rammed his finger into Mr. Fishy's nose, the only thing that keep that finger outta Mr. Fishy's brain was A LITTLE FIST.
EVIL!!! They also take Mr. Fishy's food.
My children are "grown up" now, and all they have done is learn to mask their evil! You got to love 'em ;)
You know you get that ranger bonus if you deal non-lethal damage right? As far as the judeo-christian morality, that just doesn't bear out with history, as the crusades, and the taking of america were all examples of judeo-christian morality not at all in conflict with an extermination goal. But you are right that it is culturally shaped morality, and people with different backgrounds will think differently, a human paladin of serenrae (goddess of redemption) would probably save them while an elf ranger with favored enemy goblin will not.
Except that your opinion here is based on anti-European revisionist propaganda based on modern European self-hate, and not on fact.
The fact is that neither the Crusades nor the colonization of America were motivated by a policy of extermination, nor was a policy of extermination followed in either case.
The Crusades were a counterattack against several centuries of Muslim aggression against Europe and Christianity. The Moors invaded Spain, conquered much of it, and enslaved part of the population, then went on to invade France, with only Charles Martel stopping their advance. They also conquered Silicy and a good part of Italy, which they occupied until the Normans expelled them. Muslim aggression continued long after the Crusades, with Eastern Europe being subjugated and ravaged repeatedly until the Turks were finally driven out over the course of several centuries.
Crusader fiefs in the Middle East were full of local peasants, who often preferred the Crusaders to their former overlords (who were themselves conquerors, and had little sympathy with the locals despite their shared Islam). There were occasional massacres at the end of a siege, but those happen everywhere and were not a peculiar feature of the Crusades, nor part of a wholesale policy of extermination. Most of the people living in the areas invaded by the Crusaders survived, since there was no extermination policy.
Similarly, the United States was founded by...
The lack of Moors and the eradication of numerous indigenous people due to the beginnings of germ warfare kind of fly in the face of this argument, though. I had a lot more on this topic, but it was, perhaps mercifully, eaten.
Replace "baby goblins" with "baby red dragon" in this thread and see how things turn out. No one would have problems killing baby red dragons because of what they will inevitably become without intervention by the PCs. To burden the PCs by forcing them to become parents of goblins is loads of non-fun in my book.
No, because Dragons aren't of the evil subtype and so aren't necessarily always evil. Unless you are evil subtype there's a chance for you to be raised differently.
No, because Dragons aren't of the evil subtype and so aren't necessarily always evil. Unless you are evil subtype there's a chance for you to be raised differently.
And note that Dragons of Golarion has specific information about non-good ("tarnished") metallic dragons and non-evil chromatic dragons, so they absolutely exist in canon.
|
|
Again, replace the young goblins with baby chromatic dragons and see how well that argument stands up.Considering the argument was "goblin babies are helpless noncombatants", and even fresh-out-of-the-shell wyrmlings are far from helpless (even a white wyrmling is CR 2, while an adult goblin with a PC class is only CR 1/2), I think it holds up pretty well.
So, now it is a matter of "How difficult is it to kill?" If there's some sport in it, it is ok, right?
So, now it is a matter of "How difficult is it to kill?" If there's some sport in it, it is ok, right?
No, but I must applaud you on your mastery of spin and twisting words. Are you by chance a Fox News correspondent?
|
|
So, now it is a matter of "How difficult is it to kill?" If there's some sport in it, it is ok, right?No, but I must applaud you on your mastery of spin and twisting words. Are you by chance a Fox News correspondent?
No, just recapping what you said. Basically, if it can't kill you easily, capture it and re-indoctrinate it. However, it it will be hard to capture it, save a lot of time and kill it outright.
No, just rewriting what you said.So, now it is a matter of "How difficult is it to kill?" If there's some sport in it, it is ok, right?No, but I must applaud you on your mastery of spin and twisting words. Are you by chance a Fox News correspondent?
Fixed that for you.
I'm not a baby. I can speak for myself. I don't need other people re-writing my words for me.
Incidentally I love the idea of dragons morphing into different forms and then deciding on their final type based on their personality and allignment. I think I might have to steal that one. :)
Thanks, you're welcome to steal it. :)
No, because Dragons aren't of the evil subtype and so aren't necessarily always evil. Unless you are evil subtype there's a chance for you to be raised differently.And note that Dragons of Golarion has specific information about non-good ("tarnished") metallic dragons and non-evil chromatic dragons, so they absolutely exist in canon.
|
|
stuff
Okay way to loose the forest for the trees. None of that really contradicts my point which is that it isn't a judeo-christian morality but a modern one. And that rangers can still get their bonuses without killing which means the idea that rangers exist= racial based extermination is automatically assumed a norm is incorrect.
To quote OOtS...
"Dragons... color coded for your convenience"!
I have always hated that, personally. Dragons aren't a good or evil subtype. Why would there be a physiological change on them based on their alignment?
|
|
No, just rewriting what you said.So, now it is a matter of "How difficult is it to kill?" If there's some sport in it, it is ok, right?No, but I must applaud you on your mastery of spin and twisting words. Are you by chance a Fox News correspondent?Fixed that for you.
I'm not a baby. I can speak for myself. I don't need other people re-writing my words for me.
I'm not calling you a baby, but you did imply that I was being malicious, I'm just trying to find where the boundaries are for putting evil creatures to the sword in other people's morality sphere.
Lets assume that young goblins and young dragons are the same CR. They both have the same potential to do evil and become powerful (goblins can take class levels) as well as the same potential (however small) of doing evil. Would you rescue/reform both? What if they are both CR 1/2? What if they are both CR 4? What about CR 15?
If it is ok to kill big, adult, evil stuff, why is it not ok to kill little evil stuff. What if killing a young goblin saves an entire village 15 years down the road when that goblin is the leader of a warband?
Also, when exactly do you determine if a creature has settled on it's "true" alignment?
|
|
If it is ok to kill big, adult, evil stuff, why is it not ok to kill little evil stuff. What if killing a young goblin saves an entire village 15 years down the road when that goblin is the leader of a warband?
And what if, with a loving influence he becomes a champion of the cause of good and winds up the most powerful paladin the realms have ever known?
which is why we don't play the what if game with children because we don't know how it's going to turn out.
Lets assume that young goblins and young dragons are the same CR. They both have the same potential to do evil and become powerful (goblins can take class levels) as well as the same potential (however small) of doing evil. Would you rescue/reform both? What if they are both CR 1/2? What if they are both CR 4? What about CR 15?
For me personally, as long as they weren't attacking me or others, I'd try to reform them, if they were in the process of hurting myself or others without due cause, I would warn them off, and if that failed then I would try and defeat it. If something is an immediate threat, deal with it, but "potential" threats should not be a blanket ok to kill things.
Also, when exactly do you determine if a creature has settled on it's "true" alignment?
if it has an alignment subtype, at creation, if not, then it never settles on a true alignment.
which is why we don't play the what if game with children because we don't know how it's going to turn out.
That's right. Throw 'em over the cliff. It's the only way to be sure.
Stuff about Indian warfare
You make it sound as if the colonists who fought the Indians were paragons of morality. This is hardly the case. Sadly I no longer have access to them, but I could cite historical documents from colonists themselves (several from the Cherokee Wars in the Carolinas) who described horrible atrocities committed against the Indians, including rape and murder of innocents. There's also completely wiping out their food supply, and let's not forget distributing disease-ridden blankets. I just want it to be clear that Judeo-Christian morality had little to no relevance to the actions of both sides during armed conflict (except maybe spurring religious hatred of the "Godless heathens.")
Back to the thread...
I would say that the Goblin children should not be evil, except maybe the very oldest ones. The younger ones should be CN. If Goblin society puts them in cages to toughen them up and make them meaner, doesn't that imply that that is environmental conditioning and not some sort of inherent evilness?
If it is ok to kill big, adult, evil stuff, why is it not ok to kill little evil stuff. What if killing a young goblin saves an entire village 15 years down the road when that goblin is the leader of a warband?
And what if, with a loving influence he becomes a champion of the cause of good and winds up the most powerful paladin the realms have ever known?
which is why we don't play the what if game with children because we don't know how it's going to turn out.
Lets assume that young goblins and young dragons are the same CR. They both have the same potential to do evil and become powerful (goblins can take class levels) as well as the same potential (however small) of doing evil. Would you rescue/reform both? What if they are both CR 1/2? What if they are both CR 4? What about CR 15?For me personally, as long as they weren't attacking me or others, I'd try to reform them, if they were in the process of hurting myself or others without due cause, I would warn them off, and if that failed then I would try and defeat it. If something is an immediate threat, deal with it, but "potential" threats should not be a blanket ok to kill things.
Also, when exactly do you determine if a creature has settled on it's "true" alignment?if it has an alignment subtype, at creation, if not, then it never settles on a true alignment.
Don't forget about the time paradox! If you knew it would be evil in 15 years and killed it the spell or ability used to discern that wouldn't have worked because the creature you killed wouldn't have existed when you cast it to begin with and thus you couldn't have known to kill it. Universe ends..paladin destroys the univers.. who's the bad guy now? (err..i agree this is why we don't play the what if game).
|
|
When I ran this, the players took the babies to the temple in Sandpoint and had Father Zanthus watch over them while they tried to figure out what they should do. The little brats almost burned the temple down again. (Even as babies Goblins love fire.)
In the end, Gogmurt led a few surviving goblins on a raid of the temple and "rescued" the "kidnapped" goblin babies. The party kind of went. "Hmnn.... nobody was killed and they're not our problem any more" and let the goblins "escape."
I agree, the what-if game is a tenuous stance at best. Many horrible atrocities were committed in the name of the eventual "greater good."
What really matters is the right here right now. Would you, as a paladin, murder children who have not yet reached the pinnacle of their environmental conditioning? What makes them any different from human children who have put in the same conditions?
What... so you're saying "Detect Evil first, then Smite" isn't a viable tactic? >.>
Waaaaaaaay too many players have used Detect Evil as an "it's ok to mercilessly slaughter this person or monster because he's evil" justification.
Playing a Paladin is -about- making hard moral choices. It's not easy being a Paladin. It takes years of training and discipline. It shouldn't be all about killing the evil stuff in a hack and slash manner... even if Detect Evil did work on the goblin kids, I like it better if the Paladin has to rely on his own moral compass rather than letting a magical ability do his thinking for him.
My two cents at least.
What... so you're saying "Detect Evil first, then Smite" isn't a viable tactic? >.>
Waaaaaaaay too many players have used Detect Evil as an "it's ok to mercilessly slaughter this person or monster because he's evil" justification.
Playing a Paladin is -about- making hard moral choices. It's not easy being a Paladin. It takes years of training and discipline. It shouldn't be all about killing the evil stuff in a hack and slash manner... even if Detect Evil did work on the goblin kids, I like it better if the Paladin has to rely on his own moral compass rather than letting a magical ability do his thinking for him.
My two cents at least.
+1. At one point I advocated removing detect evil from the Paladin because of the huge number of "it detects as evil so I smite it" "paladins", but now I actually like it for exactly that reason. It's an easy "I'm not really a paladin" indicator: if they detect, then smite, with no intervening steps, they're obviously not cut out to play a Paladin*.
* Extenuating circumstances apply, of course. Detect evil is perfectly acceptable mid-combat if they want to be sure their smite will actually work, for example. It's just not an excuse to start the combat.
|
|
I wouldn't have a problem with a mercy killing of the two older gobbys. The young-youngun OTOH, would fall under evil IMHO. Goblins are adolescents at what? 5 years? IIRC, studies have shown that, in humans at least, most behaviors are formed by 5 (human) years. Besides...clubbing them to death is a hell of alot better than letting them starve to death.
When I ran this, the players took the babies to the temple in Sandpoint and had Father Zanthus watch over them while they tried to figure out what they should do. The little brats almost burned the temple down again. (Even as babies Goblins love fire.)
In the end, Gogmurt led a few surviving goblins on a raid of the temple and "rescued" the "kidnapped" goblin babies. The party kind of went. "Hmnn.... nobody was killed and they're not our problem any more" and let the goblins "escape."
Sounds perfect! I hope Father Zanthus isn't too pissed with the heroes for all the trouble they've caused. Even if he is, none can impune the honor of the heroes on account of their chosen course of action (though their intelligence may be questioned).
|
|
* Extenuating circumstances apply, of course. Detect evil is perfectly acceptable mid-combat if they want to be sure their smite will actually work, for example. It's just not an excuse to start the combat.
Depends on what type of paladin they're playing. A zealotous, "i will destroy all evil" type paladin would be perfectly justified in doing this, IMO. What's "gooder" than ridding the world of all evil, both big and small?
I will be playing a paladin in an upcoming game and I will play it more like:
Enemies get one chance to surrender before the fighting begins (or at the beginning if an ambush).
They will know before hand that if they fight me their lives are forfeit...surrender will not be accepted nor quarter given if they refused my initial offer (which will lead to killing surrendering combatants more than likely).
What is wrong with that type of paladin? Nothing as far as I'm concerned :D.
|
|
What... so you're saying "Detect Evil first, then Smite" isn't a viable tactic? >.>
Waaaaaaaay too many players have used Detect Evil as an "it's ok to mercilessly slaughter this person or monster because he's evil" justification.
Playing a Paladin is -about- making hard moral choices. It's not easy being a Paladin. It takes years of training and discipline. It shouldn't be all about killing the evil stuff in a hack and slash manner... even if Detect Evil did work on the goblin kids, I like it better if the Paladin has to rely on his own moral compass rather than letting a magical ability do his thinking for him.
My two cents at least.
+1. At one point I advocated removing detect evil from the Paladin because of the huge number of "it detects as evil so I smite it" "paladins", but now I actually like it for exactly that reason. It's an easy "I'm not really a paladin" indicator: if they detect, then smite, with no intervening steps, they're obviously not cut out to play a Paladin*.
* Extenuating circumstances apply, of course. Detect evil is perfectly acceptable mid-combat if they want to be sure their smite will actually work, for example. It's just not an excuse to start the combat.
You know, with pathfinders changes I'm more likely to actually allow sight and smite, then I was in previous editions. Because now in order to have an evil aura of any significance you have to BE an outsider/undead/cleric of evil. It makes it a lot more black and white that something actually showing up IS pure evil whereas before selfish pig farmer Jim would detect as evil. So while I prefer pathfinders version of detect, I also have reservations in that arena. Still I don't ever think a paladin should smite and site, I'm just sayin's more likely to be okay is all.
A zealotous, "i will destroy all evil" type paladin...
... is not a Paladin. Killing the Lawful Evil commoner who has never raped or murdered or any of that, and wouldn't, but is petty, selfish, and mean, just because he's Evil -- that doesn't serve any deity of Good, and would cause a Paladin to fall.