Your choice to restrict the paladin to a very specific archetype may have some appeal to you, but I find it unnecessarily restrictive,If playing a LG-only character class by the lowest common denominator of 'good' (as in 'try not to be a genocidal baby-killing racist') is 'unnecessarily restrictive' to you, perhaps the Paladin is not for you?
It is only racist if they are killing the goblin babies because they are goblins. If they are killing them because they are evil, it may be alignmentist, but it is not necessarily racist.
Great job at mixing up real-world terms with game terms and once again quoting out of context. "Helpless" has more definitions than just what applies in the game. If you read that quote in context, you see that Xpltvdeleted was advocating killing anyone at all that is evil for only that reason, and R_Chance was saying that being evil isn't good enough; murdering the helpless (not as in "held by a hold person spell, but as in going into Ebenezer Scrooge's room and stabbing him in his sleep Nazgul style) is evil regardless of your intentions.
Exactly Zurai. Thanks.
Great job at mixing up real-world terms with game terms and once again quoting out of context. "Helpless" has more definitions than just what applies in the game. If you read that quote in context, you see that Xpltvdeleted was advocating killing anyone at all that is evil for only that reason, and R_Chance was saying that being evil isn't good enough; murdering the helpless (not as in "held by a hold person spell, but as in going into Ebenezer Scrooge's room and stabbing him in his sleep Nazgul style) is evil regardless of your intentions.Exactly Zurai. Thanks.
So you agree with Zurai that killing a trapped and helpless foe would not be an evil act?
Dude, you keep moving the goalposts.False; the goalposts are exactly where they were: Please show me where anyone has said that coup de grace is an Evil act. Quoting out of context and ignoring context does not a valid citation make.
Please explain where a person could be "helpless" by the game rule that wouldn't also be relevant to "helpless" by the common use of the term.
1-3,5,6No, but it is not a Good act.
So if the goblin children were shown to be both (a)evil and (b)dangerous, then killing them while they are caged would not be an evil act to you (see #6).
4Absolutely.
So it is not evil to kill someone in almost all other situations except when they are asleep AND in their own bed (see #2).
The alignment of the target does not change the morality of the action. Murdering Ebenezer Scrooge in his sleep is evil, regardless of the fact that Scrooge is evil himself. Otherwise, Devils and Demons would be Good, since they kill each other far more than they kill Good people.
First off, I said dangerous and evil, I'm sure that Ebenezer isn't all that dangerous thus in the context of this situation bringing him up is irrelevant. Also, where did I say killing evil was a good act? You seem pretty uptight about when you perceive others putting words in your mouth, please show the same respect you want from others.
It is only racist if they are killing the goblin babies because they are goblins. If they are killing them because they are evil, it may be alignmentist, but it is not necessarily racist.Your choice to restrict the paladin to a very specific archetype may have some appeal to you, but I find it unnecessarily restrictive,If playing a LG-only character class by the lowest common denominator of 'good' (as in 'try not to be a genocidal baby-killing racist') is 'unnecessarily restrictive' to you, perhaps the Paladin is not for you?
If you think all goblins are evil than it most certainly is racist. How do you think the KKK and the Nazis got so many members? They convinced everyone that the minorities were evil.
If you think all goblins are evil than it most certainly is racist. How do you think the KKK and the Nazis got so many members? They convinced everyone that the minorities were evil.It is only racist if they are killing the goblin babies because they are goblins. If they are killing them because they are evil, it may be alignmentist, but it is not necessarily racist.Your choice to restrict the paladin to a very specific archetype may have some appeal to you, but I find it unnecessarily restrictive,If playing a LG-only character class by the lowest common denominator of 'good' (as in 'try not to be a genocidal baby-killing racist') is 'unnecessarily restrictive' to you, perhaps the Paladin is not for you?
KKK doesn't have Detect Evil last time I checked. Let us not confuse a situation where morality is seen to be subjective and a situation where the morality of an individual can be objectively measured. You'll notice I said, "killing them because they ARE evil", not "killing them because you BELIEVE they are evil." It is pretty easy in the game world to be sure (within an acceptable level of confidence) if someone is evil.
Buhwhaa?
So you agree with Zurai that killing a trapped and helpless foe would not be an evil act?
6) A dangerous (and evil) foe is trapped and can't effectively defend itself. The paladin could kill the foe without danger, would doing so be an evil act?
1-3,5,6No, but it is not a Good act.
Your choice to restrict the paladin to a very specific archetype may have some appeal to you, but I find it unnecessarily restrictive,If playing a LG-only character class by the lowest common denominator of 'good' (as in 'try not to be a genocidal baby-killing racist') is 'unnecessarily restrictive' to you, perhaps the Paladin is not for you?
Well, I have played a paladin, but I normally DM. Nevertheless, yes, playing a paladin in your game would not be for me, unless I wanted to play one that did exactly as you require. Playing a paladin in my game would be fun, though.
It is only racist if they are killing the goblin babies because they are goblins. If they are killing them because they are evil, it may be alignmentist, but it is not necessarily racist.Your choice to restrict the paladin to a very specific archetype may have some appeal to you, but I find it unnecessarily restrictive,If playing a LG-only character class by the lowest common denominator of 'good' (as in 'try not to be a genocidal baby-killing racist') is 'unnecessarily restrictive' to you, perhaps the Paladin is not for you?
Exactly. Paladins are alignmentists.
First off, I said dangerous and evil, I'm sure that Ebenezer isn't all that dangerous
Oh, so you mean you moved the goalposts? Thanks for admitting it.
I already said that killing an active threat is fine.
KKK doesn't have Detect Evil last time I checked. Let us not confuse a situation where morality is seen to be subjective and a situation where the morality of an individual can be objectively measured. You'll notice I said, "killing them because they ARE evil", not "killing them because you BELIEVE they are evil." It is pretty easy in the game world to be sure (within an acceptable level of confidence) if someone is evil.
Ah. Good point. Still, if we are talking about goblin babies, detect evil won't help as they are most certainly under 5 HD.
For the record, this entire sub-argument started over this statement and context:
* 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.
There, clearly and unequivocalably, Xpltvdeleted advocated using detect evil as the sole reason for killing a creature, stated that nothing is "gooder" than killing evil, and stated that he thinks it's perfectly acceptable for a Paladin to kill an enemy that is trying to surrender, regardless of the reason for the surrender.
That is not a Paladin.
Someone had to bring racism into this... I would recommend meditation about "The Scorpion and the Frog":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
(I just saw the rattlesnake story in another post, the idea is the same).
If you think intellect can easily bypass nature, reflect on all the psychotropic substances that are known to man and often even prescribed. Then picture a species that is genetically under the influence of similar substances, permanently, or has a brain that is made so it behaves that way.
Some breeds of dogs are more aggressive than others. Some species are born predators. Some degenerate lines of all species are pre-disposed to health problems, deformities, insanity or infirmities. Sometimes it affects the brain. Non-domesticated animal species are inherently dangerous if they possess an attack that can significantly affect you; domesticating a species involves selecting and breeding the least aggressive ones. There is a natural bias that should not be ignored by the people espousing the "learned behavior" theory. There are some things that would require a saint to make them behave in a "good" manner, probably just temporarily. Some just can't be taught to be "good" no matter how much you try. It's like trying to teach a cat not to meow. I believe that the GM can decide where a particular tribe (line) of goblins lie. I'll just agree that it's not clear how much effort is involved in teaching various humanoid races to be "good". It most likely involves a sustained breeding effort over many generations (culling the most evil). Personally I wouldn't waste my time trying to teach a worm not to become a butterfly, if it's in its nature. It makes sense to destroy litters of things that needed to be destroyed, although I won't say it's always the morally perfectly correct decision. Pure white and pure black situations are rare. Sometimes you have to make a practical judgment call, do the best that you can given your resources and live with it the rest of your life.
I just don't think that moral dilemma over and over again at every monster lair is fun, and I have a hard time conceiving of (and probably wouldn't want to play in) a world where every town has some bizarre monster orphanage in it that people tolerate.
1. Then don't play a Paladin. The entire point of the Paladin moral code is that the Paladin class is a walking moral dilemma.
2. Who said anything about an orphanage in every town? No one is advocating that anyone but a Paladin (or an Exalted character) should be expected to show mercy to helpless goblin babies. Good characters should, but only Paladins are expected to, because they are the Epitome and Exemplar of Lawful Good behavior.
1. Then don't play a Paladin. The entire point of the Paladin moral code is that the Paladin class is a walking moral dilemma.
2. Who said anything about an orphanage in every town? No one is advocating that anyone but a Paladin (or an Exalted character) should be expected to show mercy to helpless goblin babies. Good characters should, but only Paladins are expected to, because they are the Epitome and Exemplar of Lawful Good behavior.
Interesting. I look up to paladins as the ones blessed so as to pick the morally best solutions. I don't see them as a walking problem, but as a sacrificial or miraculous resource. It's impossible for a normal being to be always right, yet paladins attempt it despite the odds. I think that they are doomed, and every time that they keep making the correct decision is a miracle. That's why I admire them. I don't expect their choices to be perfect in every way, though. They aren't gods.
Great job at mixing up real-world terms with game terms and once again quoting out of context. "Helpless" has more definitions than just what applies in the game. If you read that quote in context, you see that Xpltvdeleted was advocating killing anyone at all that is evil for only that reason, and R_Chance was saying that being evil isn't good enough; murdering the helpless (not as in "held by a hold person spell, but as in going into Ebenezer Scrooge's room and stabbing him in his sleep Nazgul style) is evil regardless of your intentions.Exactly Zurai. Thanks.So you agree with Zurai that killing a trapped and helpless foe would not be an evil act?
Where, in the English language, did you get that out of this? Curious.
Please fix your post, Sothmektri. I don't like having someone else's words put into my mouth, accidentally or otherwise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some breeds of dogs are more aggressive than others. Some species are born predators.
As someone who raised big cats for an animal park in my teens, and has recently owned a rottweiler, I say thee nay.
Big scary looking dogs aren't more aggressive than chihuahuas and poodles, it's just newsworthy when one attacks someone, because the thousands of people a year that get bitten by poodles don't end up needing to go to the hospital. 'More aggressive' has nothing to do with it. 'More physically able to kill you than a labradoodle' does.
I've broken horses to ride that were 'mean,' and prone to attempting to scrape a rider off against a tree branch, or leaning against someone and 'trapping' them between a barn wall and 1400 lbs of horse, so that they can't breath. (Ornery cows will do this too, occasionally, and you have to punch them repeatedly if you want to survive the experience, to get them to back off.)
And these animals are trainable. They aren't possessed by Satan. It just takes more work than it does a more kindly-disposed animal.
Some just can't be taught to be "good" no matter how much you try.
I'd agree that attempting to train something with an [Evil] or [Chaotic] subtype to be good or lawful is pissing in the wind.
Goblins are nothing of the sort. They have no alignment subtype. They have free will. They may be prone to ADD or whatever, but that doesn't make them incapable of being raised to be five times more socially-well-adjusted and productive members of society than the average Kender.
People who aren't Paladins can take the quick and easy path of just ganking the little blighters, because taking them home and raising them to be better people than their parents were sounds like 'too much work.'
But deciding to kill a bunch of children because you're too morally lazy to take the hard road and live by your convictions is the sort of choice that turns Paladins into Fighters-with-no-bonus-Feats (and serve as prime indicators of who'se gonna make a fine Blackguard, some day).
It's impossible for a normal being to be always right, yet paladins attempt it despite the odds. I think that they are doomed, and every time that they keep making the correct decision is a miracle. That's why I admire them.
This is exactly what I meant when I said "Paladins are walking moral dilemmas". Doing the right thing is hard. Paladins are expected to do the right thing all the time.
It's like playing Dark Sun or Dwarf Fortress: you aren't expected to beat the game. The real question is, how long will you hold out against the forces of darkness and how spectacular will your eventual failure be? And, if you defy all the odds and DO manage to come out victorious in the end, your story will be all the more powerful because of the odds you faced.
Robbing the Paladin of that power and tension just makes them into Fighters with Smite Evil. Boo-ooo-oorrring.
Ah. Good point. Still, if we are talking about goblin babies, detect evil won't help as they are most certainly under 5 HD.
KKK doesn't have Detect Evil last time I checked. Let us not confuse a situation where morality is seen to be subjective and a situation where the morality of an individual can be objectively measured. You'll notice I said, "killing them because they ARE evil", not "killing them because you BELIEVE they are evil." It is pretty easy in the game world to be sure (within an acceptable level of confidence) if someone is evil.
Exactly. Paladins usually kill evil creatures that are a threat to the innocent. Paladins have a class ability that allows them to better judge these threats. The goblin babies (barring some serious rule lawyer, see up thread), wouldn't detect as evil. Thus the paladin would not treat them as evil. Thus the paladin wouldn't gut them. Problem solved. It is when people start calling them "evil" and then saying, "So are you now going to kill them?" That they are just creating problems out of nothing.
So let's all agree, that the paladin should not be gutting the little buggers (unless of course they attack him while he tries to free them, and then when faced with a sick beast sometimes you got to put it down, hell even o'yeller had to be put down) and should be trying to help them as he would any person that he had no reason to believe wasn't innocent.
On another issue, "walking dilemma" sounds to me to be more of a mindset that looks as paladins as an opportunity to throw in a lot of paladin traps. The old train switch examples.
You know, a train is out of control and can't be stopped. It is racing towards a switch, on one track is a innocent person tied up but other wise safe, the other track leads to a cliff which will kill everyone on the train. Do you throw the switch to run over the innocent person or send the train off the cliff? Quick, you don't have time to do anything else. Oh yeah, and either choice means you killed someone so you fall as a paladin.
That kind of crap screams of small egos of DMs. In those cases, just play a ranger and don't put up with all the DM's crap. "You are evil!" "Yeah, big whooped do."
...
People who aren't Paladins can take the quick and easy path of just ganking the little blighters, because taking them home and raising them to be better people than their parents were sounds like 'too much work.'But deciding to kill a bunch of children because you're too morally lazy to take the hard road and live by your convictions is the sort of choice that turns Paladins into Fighters-with-no-bonus-Feats (and serve as prime...
You sound like a talented animal handler. What if you just don't have the resources (food, or even the talent to teach them or the time), and attempting to raise them would endanger your children or other people's children? Which is more evil? Should you just let the goblins rampage because you can't commit to taking care of their children? Sometimes you just have bad and worse choices and no good ones. Should paladins faced with a no-win scenario lose their status or is it enough that they chose the least "wrong" solution?
I'd agree that attempting to train something with an [Evil] or [Chaotic] subtype to be good or lawful is pissing in the wind.
Goblins are nothing of the sort. They have no alignment subtype. They have free will. They may be prone to ADD or whatever, but that doesn't make them incapable of being raised to be five times more socially-well-adjusted and productive members of society than the average Kender.
People who aren't Paladins can take the quick and easy path of just ganking the little blighters, because taking them home and raising them to be better people than their parents were sounds like 'too much work.'
But deciding to kill a bunch of children because you're too morally lazy to take the hard road and live by your convictions is the sort of choice that turns Paladins into Fighters-with-no-bonus-Feats (and serve as prime indicators of who'se gonna make a fine Blackguard, some day).
+1, Best post I've read in 6 pages. I have nothing to add, Set covered my opinion perfectly, Paladin or otherwise.
I might point out just for discussion, that Daviren Hosk, the owner of the Goblin Squash Stables in Sandpoint (see PF #1, p. 69), is offically Neutral despite helping to make a goblin tribe extinct (which I would assume involved killing some of their young). He also has goblin ears of his kills on display as well as the chief's head. That seems pretty bad, and this guy doesn't qualify as evil. I think maybe some people are making the farmer down the street evil a little too easily.
I might point out just for discussion, that Daviren Hosk, the owner of the Goblin Squash Stables in Sandpoint (see PF #1, p. 69), is offically Neutral despite helping to make a goblin tribe extinct (which I would assume involved killing some of their young). He also has goblin ears of his kills on display as well as the chief's head. That seems pretty bad, and this guy doesn't qualify as evil. I think maybe some people are making the farmer down the street evil a little too easily.
You were there I take it? You know how the tribe became extinct?
You know for a fact that every single member of the tribe died?
Or is it possible (more likely probable) that most of the non-combatants ended up fleeing and got absorbed by other goblin tribes. The tribe is still extinct (a tribe is not blood, it's identity, and the identity of the tribe is gone).
This was fairly common with the native americans, entire tribes got wiped out when the europeans came over. It doesn't mean all of their bloodlines were killed. It means the survivors got absorbed by other tribes.
On another issue, "walking dilemma" sounds to me to be more of a mindset that looks as paladins as an opportunity to throw in a lot of paladin traps.
Nope. Ad hominem attack aside, it's the mindset of someone who's handled Paladins on both sides of the screen and realizes that being a Paladin is intended to be hard. Paladins aren't intended to be a walk in the park to play. They aren't intended to be Fighter-with-Smite-Evil. They're intended to be Guy-Who-Is-Definition-Of-Good.
I might point out just for discussion, that Daviren Hosk, the owner of the Goblin Squash Stables in Sandpoint (see PF #1, p. 69), is offically Neutral despite helping to make a goblin tribe extinct (which I would assume involved killing some of their young). He also has goblin ears of his kills on display as well as the chief's head. That seems pretty bad, and this guy doesn't qualify as evil. I think maybe some people are making the farmer down the street evil a little too easily.You were there I take it? You know how the tribe became extinct?
You know for a fact that every single member of the tribe died?
Or is it possible (more likely probable) that most of the non-combatants ended up fleeing and got absorbed by other goblin tribes. The tribe is still extinct (a tribe is not blood, it's identity, and the identity of the tribe is gone).
This was fairly common with the native americans, entire tribes got wiped out when the europeans came over. It doesn't mean all of their bloodlines were killed. It means the survivors got absorbed by other tribes.
Good point. And to be fair, I did say, "I would assume ...", I wasn't claiming I knew for a fact.
Good point. And to be fair, I did say, "I would assume ...", I wasn't claiming I knew for a fact.I might point out just for discussion, that Daviren Hosk, the owner of the Goblin Squash Stables in Sandpoint (see PF #1, p. 69), is offically Neutral despite helping to make a goblin tribe extinct (which I would assume involved killing some of their young). He also has goblin ears of his kills on display as well as the chief's head. That seems pretty bad, and this guy doesn't qualify as evil. I think maybe some people are making the farmer down the street evil a little too easily.You were there I take it? You know how the tribe became extinct?
You know for a fact that every single member of the tribe died?
Or is it possible (more likely probable) that most of the non-combatants ended up fleeing and got absorbed by other goblin tribes. The tribe is still extinct (a tribe is not blood, it's identity, and the identity of the tribe is gone).
This was fairly common with the native americans, entire tribes got wiped out when the europeans came over. It doesn't mean all of their bloodlines were killed. It means the survivors got absorbed by other tribes.
True, sorry. The posts have been getting more and more prickly, and I'm falling into that as well. :)
You paint with too broad of a brush, though. I don't disagree with any of what you say above. I don't think it has to apply to the situation at hand, however.
Nope. Ad hominem attack aside, it's the mindset of someone who's handled Paladins on both sides of the screen and realizes that being a Paladin is intended to be hard. Paladins aren't intended to be a walk in the park to play. They aren't intended to be Fighter-with-Smite-Evil. They're intended to be Guy-Who-Is-Definition-Of-Good.
Situation at hand is as follows:
For the record, this entire sub-argument started over this statement and context:
* 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.
There, clearly and unequivocalably, Xpltvdeleted advocated using detect evil as the sole reason for killing a creature, stated that nothing is "gooder" than killing evil, and stated that he thinks it's perfectly acceptable for a Paladin to kill an enemy that is trying to surrender, regardless of the reason for the surrender.
That is not a Paladin.
I absolutely believe that what I said applies to the above.
I don't see how it would be 'more likely probable'. The various religious organizations of the past acknowledged the humanity of the Native Americans, and though that didn't stop atrocities from occurring constantly it might have had some impact on the public perception enough that innocents were spared, though clearly not always.Now, you're certainly free to write some similar material into the game world you're running to create a similar perception toward something like goblins, but to just assume it when they physically look like another species altogether, and those differences are sharp, nasty little teeth and beady red eyes, seems like a stretch.
It is indeed far more likely. First off, goblins are sneaky evil little buggers (in general). They also breed like rats. On top of that, they are more paranoid than a conspiracy theorist on X-Files. Finally, they are small and quick.
To completely wipe out a tribe of humans is, historically, very difficult. There's almost always survivors. Even more so when you take the culture of the average goblin tribe into account. Multiple bolt holes, a finely honed sense of 'cover butt', and the fact that they've been at war with humans for centuries and are still around as a species.
Basically, goblins are the cockroaches of the humanoid species. So yes, most probably they failed to kill them all and the mommy's and little buggers escaped and got absorbed into another tribe.
As to the rest of your post, I never said native americans were like goblins. I drew a parallel between the situation (attempting to exterminate a whole tribe to the last baby) with similar situations that occured for real in our own history, and pointed out how dismally it failed with human beings, who are not nearly as sneaky and evil and paranoid as the goblins are. Please don't twist my words to make it seem like I'm saying native americans are goblins.
Some breeds of dogs are more aggressive than others. Some species are born predators.As someone who raised big cats for an animal park in my teens, and has recently owned a rottweiler, I say thee nay.
Big scary looking dogs aren't more aggressive than chihuahuas and poodles, it's just newsworthy when one attacks someone, because the thousands of people a year that get bitten by poodles don't end up needing to go to the hospital. 'More aggressive' has nothing to do with it. 'More physically able to kill you than a labradoodle' does.
I've broken horses to ride that were 'mean,' and prone to attempting to scrape a rider off against a tree branch, or leaning against someone and 'trapping' them between a barn wall and 1400 lbs of horse, so that they can't breath. (Ornery cows will do this too, occasionally, and you have to punch them repeatedly if you want to survive the experience, to get them to back off.)
After some thought, I wonder, have you ever seen an animal that needed to be "put down"? What do you think of the laws about destroying animals that have attacked humans? Do you realistically think it is feasible to rescue them all and "turn them around"? That aside, I'm pretty sure the current state of scientific research is at odds with your worldview and impressive combination of luck and talent, but I'm too lazy to go dig out papers I remember reading.
Oh. Look.
It's this conversation again.
Neutral acts which neither make you more good nor more evil exist. Why is this something so many people do not understand. There exists acts which don't pull you in either direction. Just because a lawful execution isn't good doesn't mean it has to be evil. It's a neutral or otherwise non-aligned (in the spectrum of good vs evil) act. Now, depending on the circumstances behind the execution, it could be evil. But, in of itself, lawful execution of a criminal does not make you evil or good.
As for killing someone who's surrendered, that's a BBEG act. BBEGs are not known for their lawful good alignments.
It's impossible for a normal being to be always right, yet paladins attempt it despite the odds. I think that they are doomed, and every time that they keep making the correct decision is a miracle. That's why I admire them.This is exactly what I meant when I said "Paladins are walking moral dilemmas". Doing the right thing is hard. Paladins are expected to do the right thing all the time.
It's like playing Dark Sun or Dwarf Fortress: you aren't expected to beat the game. The real question is, how long will you hold out against the forces of darkness and how spectacular will your eventual failure be? And, if you defy all the odds and DO manage to come out victorious in the end, your story will be all the more powerful because of the odds you faced.
Robbing the Paladin of that power and tension just makes them into Fighters with Smite Evil. Boo-ooo-oorrring.
Fair enough, I think we share similar ideas. I'd like to explore consequences though in a thought experiment. One practical problem is, I think, if paladins must do like Mother Theresa, they'll have to stop adventuring rather quickly to take care of all the responsibilities they incurred. That makes them impractical as a PC class, no? How can a PC keep adventuring while taking care of goblin, kobold, troll, etc... children? Donate money? What if all the money you earn while adventuring isn't enough at some point?
Fair enough, I think we share similar ideas. I'd like to explore consequences though in a thought experiment. One practical problem is, I think, if paladins must do like Mother Theresa, they'll have to stop adventuring rather quickly to take care of all the responsibilities they incurred. That makes them impractical as a PC class, no? How can a PC keep adventuring while taking care of goblin, kobold, troll, etc... children? Donate money? What if all the money you earn while adventuring isn't enough at some point?
Well, your supposition assumes that Paladins will do a significant amount of raiding humanoid monster lairs, even unto the end of their careers. I don't really see that happening. It would happen maybe two or three times at most, and even then if it's getting tiring the DM can just say the children were evacuated by the mothers or noncombatants when the fighting started at the front of the cave (or whatever).
Eventually, the Paladin is going to outgrow being the one who clears out the local cave of the goblin tribe and graduate to the guy who delegates some other poor sucker to clearing out the local cave of the goblin tribe. Instead, that Paladin will be trying to depose the cruel wizard-tyrant who rule the country with an iron fist, or trying to defeat the devil who is pulling the strings behind the neighboring country's saber-rattling and threats of war, or trying to stop the extraplanar invasion, etc. None of those "paragon tier" (to borrow a 4e term) type adventures really provide any opportunity for monster-orphan-rescuing. They provide their own moral challenges, instead.
In other words, I don't think the problem would ever get as bad as you describe unless the DM were intentionally trying to make it that bad. Which would be bad DMing and a different problem entirely.
So only humanoid young are worthy of mercy? I call racism! Why do other sentient (or more accurately sapient) beings get to be treated in such foul manners with no mercy merely because they don't keep their genitals in the same place as humanoids?
So only humanoid young are worthy of mercy? I call racism! Why do other sentient (or more accurately sapient) beings get to be treated in such foul manners with no mercy merely because they don't keep their genitals in the same place as humanoids?
Because they're...they're....they're different!
Kill the Others!!
My post was more directed to the idea that paladins will reach a point where they are not fighting humanoids very often.
My point is, why does that matter? If you run into a pack of worgs for example, why would you be less likely to be merciful to the pups than you would be to goblinoid young?
My post was more directed to the idea that paladins will reach a point where they are not fighting humanoids very often.
My point is, why does that matter? If you run into a pack of worgs for example, why would you be less likely to be merciful to the pups than you would be to goblinoid young?
I think it's pretty clear what I meant, but if you truly didn't understand: while I did say humanoid, the intent was "intelligent creature with young that are not active, credible threats and can be reasonably believed to be brought up in a good manner and become good creatures, but are nonetheless monstrous in appearance and aspect". "Humanoid" was just a convenient shorthand, because the vast majority of such creatures are humanoids by type or appearance.
I think it's pretty clear what I meant, but if you truly didn't understand: while I did say humanoid, the intent was "intelligent creature with young that are not active, credible threats and can be reasonably believed to be brought up in a good manner and become good creatures, but are nonetheless monstrous in appearance and aspect". "Humanoid" was just a convenient shorthand, because the vast majority of such creatures are humanoids by type or appearance.My post was more directed to the idea that paladins will reach a point where they are not fighting humanoids very often.
My point is, why does that matter? If you run into a pack of worgs for example, why would you be less likely to be merciful to the pups than you would be to goblinoid young?
I obviously was mixing up game terms and real world ... oh, never mind.