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...
The point isn't that they must help others repent, it's that they want to. If they simply kill them, all they do is create another evil outsider - which they despise for their inability to repent.
|
After some thought, I wonder, have you ever seen an animal that needed to be "put down"?
I've butchered animals to eat. Back on the farm, many decades ago, I even 'put down' a pet or two that was either hit by a car, bitten by a brown recluse and / or otherwise dying anyway. (I don't even like the term 'put down.' It's namby-pamby sanitized nonsense that attempts to divorce the individual from the moral and visceral significance of what should be a grown-up difficult decision. I *killed* those animals. If I'm going to do something like that, I should at least have the testicular fortitude to use the word 'kill.' But I'm a bit of a nut for personal responsibility, so that's just me.)
Animals are not people. I'm not a Paladin. The relevance falls down on two levels, at least, not counting the reality vs. fantasy divide.
What do you think of the laws about destroying animals that have attacked humans?
Laws are matters of ethics, not morality. Sometimes some idiot attempts to legislate morality, but that's a moral fail in and of itself.
I wouldn't presume to call myself 'Good' if the only reason I didn't do evil is because I was afraid of legal repercussions.
Do you realistically think it is feasible to rescue them all and "turn them around"?
And there's the $64,000 dollar question (adjusted for inflation).
It certainly does sound hard doesn't it?
IMO, a Paladin's life does include harder decisions than a Ranger or Fighter might have to make, and sometimes, doing the right thing, means making a sacrifice, or accepting a responsibility, while the Fighter can say 'I'm not wasting a second of my life on these runts!' and leave them to starve in their cages, rationalizing his choice with thoughts like, 'I didn't put them in those cages,' and 'they'd just grow up to be a threat anyway,' and 'I didn't get the goblin mommies pregnant, they aren't *my* kids to take care of.'
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,
People have been training animals, including animals that can easily mutilate humans (tigers, large dogs, *elephants,* even sharks) for thousands of years. I don't consider myself to be particularly lucky or talented for being able to tap into thousands of years worth of training to replicate a much easier version of what cavemen did when they domesticated wolves. Whoo-hoo. I'm almost as 'lucky and talented' as a caveman! :/
And I can't even make fire, without a match. Go me.
Chihuahuas attack people all the time (not to pick on those strange, shivering, bug-eyed alien monsters, I've also owned one of those, too, and she would never bite anyone, because I don't raise dogs that way). Those people survive, and the chihuahua doesn't have to be 'put down' because it's hard-pressed to kill a person. Dobermans can kill people. A Doberman who has been trained to attack people (or abused and made into a 'fighting dog') are even better at it, and they are like a sword or a gun, a weapon used by a human being to endanger other human beings, incapable of moral evil, but capable of killing a person. A dog has no more business being 'on trial' for 'murder' than a gun does, IMO, and there's no real equivalence between the child of a sentient race and a dog that's been 'turned mean.'
I'm sure as heck not a member of Greenpeace or the SPCA, and while I like animals, I don't draw a moral equivalence between killing a 'mean dog' and killing a childbaby that had bad parents because it's 'impractical' (read: inconvenient) for me to take on parental responsibilities for that child.
|
|
If they simply kill them, all they do is create another evil outsider - which they despise for their inability to repent.
And that's an interesting aside, in a game where evil souls go on to power the evil gods.
Every time the Paladin kills an evil critter, he makes the evil gods stronger. Every time he redeems a critter that could go either way, he's not only weakening Team Evil (stealing power from them), he's strengthening Team Good (a new voice for the heavenly choir!).
The question is, do the goblin children count as 'default evil' for now, pledged to the goblin demigods and / or Lamashtu, if they die before they are old enough to make ethical or moral choices regarding their beliefs and afterlife? If so, killing the goblin children just sends more raw demon-producing materials to the Abyss.
If the goblin children do not count as 'default evil,' and are effectively neutral until they are older, then killing them *before they can turn evil* is a terrible monstrous choice, but eminently practical, as it denies Team Evil their souls, and leaves them standing in front of Pharasma, who can arbitrarily send them anywhere.
This sort of logic, in the real-world, led to a practice during the Spanish Inquisition of torturing Jews and Moslems until they repented and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and then stabbing them to death, so that they died in a state of grace, their souls bound for Heaven, and didn't have time to backslide into 'heathenry.' I'd hardly call that good behavior, but, in a game-world where souls explicitly do exist and can travel to upper or lower planes, and become outsiders, or become power sources for good or evil powers, that sort of logic would be even *more* likely to manifest than it was here on Earth.
It's in Lamashtu's best interests to encourage her many many goblinoid followers to breed like rabbits, overhunt areas, squabble with each other like caged rats and die off in terrible famines and plagues that could have been avoided, because it provides her a fat harvest of souls.
The Nidalese practice of 'culling' members of their own society, purportedly to eradicate the weak and strengthen their nation, sends power straight to Zon-Kuthon.
Erastil encourages his followers to 'be fruitful and multiply,' and is all about the big families.
Other gods don't seem as interested in such matters, and may tap into other power sources (like the sun, for Sarenrae, or the stars, for Desna), to explain why they seem less focused on raw numbers.
Perhaps Iomedae gets more power from a single Paladin and Irori gets a more useful soul out of a Monk (Nethys from a Wizard, etc.) than Lamashtu gets from her hundred screaming goblins.
I don't think you'd end up with the spanish inquisition in a game world. The thing is, if you convert someone through torture, it's not really a conversion. It's them lieing to stop the pain. Which means the soul is really just going to go to strengthen team evil anyway. In fact, because it went through all that, it's probably stronger than it was before. So the spanish inquisition would be boosting team evil two-fold, committing evil acts and then sending the evil soul on to strengthen team evil. In a universe where the gods are very very active (some might say they can't keep their fingers off the mortal realm) there's going to be a pack of very upset paladins hunting down any inquisitions and then explaining to them with very sharp pointy things just why they are not helping.
As to the killing them before they can make a choice... it might be a gray area. Depends on which god get's to handle the undecided souls. That god might take a personal dislike to having their job interfered with on a large scale, and send a few justicars to deal with any paladin that's decided to slaughter all children before they can become evil (come to think of it, I'm quite certain there'd be that same pack of very upset paladins from other gods all coming to explain with sharp pointy things why this is not an acceptable practice for a paladin).
|
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.
While it may appear that I did so in the post you are quoting, I quantified my statement later on down the line (the first bolded segment was meant to be snarky more than my hardline stance...hence my use of the word "gooder"). So, feel free to keep posting (and posting, and posting) that quote if you feel the need to do so but, barring a failed will save on my part, I am done with this thread.
I have always believed that all children of all races are evil..
Just take a look at how a bunch of elementary schoolers treat eah other (or worse...pre-schoolers) and there is definietly some evil going on...
I have always believed that all children of all races are evil..
Just take a look at how a bunch of elementary schoolers treat eah other (or worse...pre-schoolers) and there is definietly some evil going on...
I have to question whether or not the "all children are evil" actually HAVE children.
All children are selfish, or have selfish tendencies. They are not evil -- their selfishness doesn't derive from a desire to hurt others at their expense. When my youngest wants a toy another child has, he isn't seeking to get the toy at the other kid's expense -- he just wants the toy.
In order to have an alignment (other than N, I suppose), the character has to make a conscious decision, a moral decision before taking the action.
From the PFRPG:
"Lawful Evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil."
"Netural evil represents pure evil without nonor and without variation."
"Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend."
None of those statements depict children's behavior.
Now at some point, the child is able to determine between action & consequence and make a moral judgement. For example, an abused child blindly lashes out in anger and if questioned is unable to express why they did it. The act may have been evil, but the motivation isn't and the consequence likely wasn't even a consideration. Fast-forward a few years and having never received help or been removed from the abusive environment, the child may shift to someone who inflicts violence upon another intentionally. The child is now consciously making evil choices and is aware of the cause-effect relationship of violence = harming another. In game terms, the child's alignment is now evil, or at least on it's way to getting there.
As for the goblins? Perhaps, depending upon your view of psychology & genetics, you could argue a genetic predisposition towards evil. But to arbitrarily say all are evil and to further suggest they can be killed outright as a result? Better establish that mentality at the beginning of the campaign. I would think adventuring in cities must be terribly boring, however, if paladins can walk down the street using Detect Evil as grounds for execution.
It's like the Minority Report, mentality. I can charge you/imprison you/kill you on the basis of what you MIGHT do.
Are kids capable of selfish, and perhaps even evil acts? Sure. They're human, too. But to blindly blanket all children as evil for being immature and selfish? That's an even greater oversimplifcation that in-game representation of alignment.
I have always believed that all children of all races are evil..
Just take a look at how a bunch of elementary schoolers treat eah other (or worse...pre-schoolers) and there is definietly some evil going on...
I have to question whether or not the "all children are evil" actually HAVE children.
All children are selfish, or have selfish tendencies. They are not evil -- their selfishness doesn't derive from a desire to hurt others at their expense. When my youngest wants a toy another child has, he isn't seeking to get the toy at the other kid's expense -- he just wants the toy.
In order to have an alignment (other than N, I suppose), the character has to make a conscious decision, a moral decision before taking the action.
From the PFRPG:
"Lawful Evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil."
"Netural evil represents pure evil without nonor and without variation."
"Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend."None of those statements depict children's behavior.
Now at some point, the child is able to determine between action & consequence and make a moral judgement. For example, an abused child blindly lashes out in anger and if questioned is unable to express why they did it. The act may have been evil, but the motivation isn't and the consequence likely wasn't even a consideration. Fast-forward a few years and having never received help or been removed from the abusive environment, the child may shift to someone who inflicts violence upon another intentionally. The child is now consciously making evil choices and is aware of the cause-effect relationship of violence = harming another. In game terms, the child's alignment is now evil, or at least on it's way to getting there.
As for the goblins? Perhaps, depending upon your view of psychology & genetics, you could argue a genetic predisposition towards evil. But to arbitrarily say all are evil and to...
+1
I would never consider my child to be evil.
All children are selfish, or have selfish tendencies. They are not evil -- their selfishness doesn't derive from a desire to hurt others at their expense. When my youngest wants a toy another child has, he isn't seeking to get the toy at the other kid's expense -- he just wants the toy.
You obviously missed the part of the thread where it was proven beyond any doubt that selfish is the definition of evil. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but anyone that is selfish, for any reason, is evil.
All children are selfish, or have selfish tendencies. They are not evil -- their selfishness doesn't derive from a desire to hurt others at their expense. When my youngest wants a toy another child has, he isn't seeking to get the toy at the other kid's expense -- he just wants the toy.You obviously missed the part of the thread where it was proven beyond any doubt that selfish is the definition of evil. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but anyone that is selfish, for any reason, is evil.
Sorry to break to you but then the whole world is populated with evil because everyone is selfish to some degree at one time or another. :)
And my point further in the post still stands. Such an oversimplistic application of defining evil will result in nonsensical situations in-game.
I removed some posts. Things were getting excessively personal.
Unless you treat evil as some a priori thing - which, I think, is the point of hesitation that started this conversation off - or think that evil is a sort of cackling, Snidely Whiplash sort of thing, selfish is a pretty good definition of evil.
You do probably have to parse it some because it's not the only definition. It's not hard to think of evil altruism ("here, Bobby, take this gun. It's yours!") and good selfishness ("No, I'm not giving you all my money, because you're already high as a kite and I'm about to die of starvation.") There's some degree of self-interest that's wholly unavoidable.
The question really turns on whether or not you follow the ideals of self-interest when it is wholly avoidable, and in general how much you care about other people.
...and this is exactly why it's so tricky to bring in the Goblin children. Contra St. Augustine, it hurts most of us to call them evil, because they haven't done evil. Sure, they're selfish, but a child has to be selfish. A child can't rightfully fend for itself, nor is a child emotionally mature enough to really make decisions.
|
This sort of logic, in the real-world, led to a practice during the Spanish Inquisition of torturing Jews and Moslems until they repented and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and then stabbing them to death, so that they died in a state of grace, their souls bound for Heaven, and didn't have time to backslide into 'heathenry.' I'd hardly call that good behavior, but, in a game-world where souls explicitly do exist and can travel to upper or lower planes, and become outsiders, or become power sources for good or evil powers, that sort of logic would be even *more* likely to manifest than it was here on Earth.
Abso-friggen-lutely, That gives me an idea for an awesome campaign ark with a fallen paladin that hides his fallen status and has been spearheading a church initiative to do just that.
It's not hard to think of evil altruism ("here, Bobby, take this gun. It's yours!") and good selfishness ("No, I'm not giving you all my money, because you're already high as a kite and I'm about to die of starvation.")
The first example is not altruism, and the second is not selfishness.
Altruism is helping another person for no other reason than to help them. Your example above isn't altruism because there's clearly a motive behind it other than helping Bobby.
Selfishness is being concerned only for yourself. Your example above isn't selfishness because you're clearly concerned for more than just yourself ("you're already high as a kite" implies that you're aware the other person would spend the money in a harmful manner). Also, it's not selfishness to keep resources you need for your own survival for yourself.
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.
Regardless, it would work exceptionally well with the exact same skill set of a paladin, right down to the detection and smiting of evil, and all the way up to the capstone ability.
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.
Nope. A lawful execution is an act. You need to know the motivation of the executioner to decide whether it is an evil act. If he knows the criminal is innocent, but carries it out, probably not good (no personal sacrifice to protect an innocent person there). If he doesn't care who the criminal is, but got the job because he likes to kill people, hmmm. Was the lawful conviction a LE conviction? Is this execution justified because the criminal's only crime was accidentally dropping a bowl of rice when his master was really hungry? Or perhaps the evil criminal has to be put down because he keeps escaping and murdering innocent people, and the motivation of the executioner is to stop the evil criminal from killing more innocent people. Then the executioner might be good, as evidenced by his motivation for performing the execution. The defining trait of good is that you will protect the innocent, and will even make personal sacrifices to do so.
So, you can apply an alignment to an executioner. Some acts are unaligned, in that alignment is not implicated, but a neutral act is one that is taken by a person with a neutral moral motivation. A lawful execution is no different. A neutral executioner would probably carry out a lawful execution because it is his job.
Killing someone who has surrendered also requires consideration of the motivation of the executioner. It makes no sense to say it is evil without considering why the execution is carried out. I was glad for the Geneva Convention when I was in the military, and am not a fan of torturing people who have been taken into custody (surrendered). However, despite the fact that I think torturers should be tried for war crimes, that does not color the fact that some of them could have believed they were saving innocent lives by their actions. That makes them criminals, but not evil.
Wow long thread. Here's my take:
Some creatures in the game are supernaturally evil. Supernatural evils lack the free will to be anything but evil. Demons and Devils are evil as incarnate spirits of the concept of evil. Dragons are supernaturally tied to their alignment, an evil dragon has no choice but to be evil. Most undead are supernaturally compelled to commit evil acts (or alternatively their very existence opens the door to negative energy that is so destructive that the undead must be destroyed).
Orcs and Goblins started out as supernatural creatures. A goblin from myth is evil. A goblin is a creature of evil magic and has no free will to be anything but evil.
The issue comes in that 3.x treats Goblins as a humanoid creature, not a supernatural creature born of evil magic. This implies that the Goblin has free will and that "evil" simply means "ugly [to us] creature that we would like to practice genocide against."
My answer, if Goblin's have free will not to be evil then the Paladin has a problem. If they're the product of magic that gives them no choice but to be evil then kill the spawn.
No doubt this thread will continue on in a sickening display of faux-philosophy for another hundred posts, but I'll chime in anyways.
For myself, the goblin babies get killed, paladin or not.
Y'all can play paladins however you want. The rest of us can play paladins however we want.
Put on your big-boy pants and accept those two sentences.
A dwarf wakes up early. Goes down to the market and purchases some cookies from a nice halfling woman. He haggles some, pointing out his party did save the town, he got an extra cookie for his trouble. He gets back to the inn and goes off and eats most of the cookies. His allies wake up a bit later and after eating a bland but nutritious breakfast notice the cookie crumbs in the dwarf's beard. They ask if there are anymore cookies they could have. He says no, if they want cookies they will have to buy their own, these cookies are his. He then eats the rest before the rogue can pilfer any.
This dwarf is evil, merely because he selfishly didn't want to share his cookies? If it is merely an evil act but not enough to change the dwarf's alignment, does this mean if the dwarf had been a paladin, he would have fallen for not sharing his cookies?
It could quite easily be argued that refusing to share a luxury (sweets) with someone who has the capability to acquire that same luxury without problem (let's face it, even 1st level adventurers can easily afford a handful of cookies) isn't selfish. It's merely practical.
Now, if the party was starving and penniless, then it would be selfish and an argument could be made for it causing the paladin to fall.
|
|
Give a man a cookie, he has a cookie.
Teach a man to get off his whiny entitled arse and get his own darned cookie, and he can go get them himself.
Or something like that.
Kill a goblin, you've killed a goblin.
Convert a goblin to the worship of Cayden Cailean, and now you're cooking with gas. What could be more fun than a bunch of drunken goblins?
Just don't stick goblin babies there to be killed. Problem solved ;p
Just don't stick goblin babies there to be killed. Problem solved ;p
Where's the fun in that? These guys have been roleplaying for years and a more unusual encounter should be a welcome change from the standard dungeon crawl. Sometimes it's good to challenge the players with something more difficult. Ofcourse, it really depends on the players involved and the group dynamic.
I think people have missed the point that human children are born chaotic evil as well ;)
totally selfish and have no interest in the needs of other let alone what is right or wrong
Are goblin babies and goblin children evil? If they aren't evil when they're born, when do they become evil?
Without taking the time to read all the posts, here are my thoughts:
1. Goblins are not always evil. Whether a particular goblin becomes evil depends on instincts and upbringing. Goblin instincts may make it more likely that a goblin will turn evil, while goblin upbringing makes it almost a sure thing.
2. When writing up a race in my own notes, I usually make it a point to expand on the "alignment" field. Goblins are usually chaotic evil, but what kinds of goblins would have a different alignment. What would make a goblin turn out lawful or good, and how would such a goblin be likely to see the world and her own philosophy?
3. (On a related note, is there a sexual dimorphism in psychology. I have determined, for example, that female hobgoblins are usually true neutral instead of evil, being too pragmatic to get caught up in disputes between good and evil, law and chaos.)
Applying these ideas to your problem:
A. Obviously, we have a case where their upbringing is bound to make them evil. I have not thought of the question of whether children are or are not evil. In the context of an RPG I think I have to consider the following:
A.1. I think the Baptist idea that there is an age of innocence must be applied. Maybe these goblin children are annoying, but until they reach a certain age they are not metaphysically responsible for their behavior, so they probably would not register as evil to a paladin.
A.2. This probably wouldn't apply to a race that is "always" evil, such as demon children, which would register as evil from the moment they are born/hatched/etc. But goblins are "often" evil, so a DC 15 Religion check would tell someone that the Paladin's Detect Evil ability won't detect evil until they reach the Age of Responsibility.
A.3. I might have the paladin detect that these goblin kids are thinking nasty thoughts, and are likely to become evil if allowed to grow up.
B. At least in my game, detection of evil does not mean the party has the right to eliminate the creature. A farmer might be mean, nasty, surly, and register as evil, but as long as she goes about her business, does not violate any of the serious laws, a paladin can't just kill her.
C. In my own game, paladins are specifically prohibited from killing goblin children. Even though there is a 99.99% chance the kids will grow up to be evil, they have to be given the 0.01% chance that they will not. That is the rule. If they do become evil, they can be dealt with then.
I'll go back to look up your spoiler and see if I can come up with specific advice.
Are goblin babies and goblin children evil? If they aren't evil when they're born, when do they become evil?
** spoiler omitted **
So, should I make all/some/or none of the goblin children evil? And how would you GM this encounter?
The situation you presented does not seem as difficult as I had thought.
There are few enough children that they could be brought to the surface for the Church/Temple to deal with. Then the paladin is off the hook. The Church/Temple could either hand the children off to another goblin tribe (perhaps just by releasing them in an area where there are other goblins), or try to raise them to be decent citizens.
If the paladin PC is up to the challenge, he can try to raise the children himself. But I think he'd be within his rights to just bring them up to the temple (perhaps in an unconscious or tied up condition), and let the temple deal with them.
I think people have missed the point that human children are born chaotic evil as well ;)
totally selfish and have no interest in the needs of other let alone what is right or wrong
I think most people who spend time with children might just disagree. Children actually seek boundaries; they only appear chaotic when you don't stop them from overstepping. I think children like to know what the rules are, and like to follow them if you teach them to do so. So they appear to prefer lawful. Children who can't seem to figure out the boundaries are not happy children, IMO. So I'd say, assuming they have the ability to make moral choices at all, that they are neutral with a preference for lawful.
I have never heard of a very young child actively trying to kill another child. Get angry and throw a tantrum when the don't get what they want? Sure. I just don't see the murderous intent in my kids, though. In fact, they seem to enjoy sharing and experiencing the world together. Initially they play side-by-side, and eventually learn to play together. They don't seem to like it when their playmate is sad, and actually will cry out of sympathy if their playmate starts to cry. So I think children are neutral with a preference for good.
Then again, I love my children. So bias is possible. ;)
Are goblin babies and goblin children evil? If they aren't evil when they're born, when do they become evil?
** spoiler omitted **
So, should I make all/some/or none of the goblin children evil? And how would you GM this encounter?
The situation you presented does not seem as difficult as I had thought.
There are few enough children that they could be brought to the surface for the Church/Temple to deal with. Then the paladin is off the hook. The Church/Temple could either hand the children off to another goblin tribe (perhaps just by releasing them in an area where there are other goblins), or try to raise them to be decent citizens.
If the paladin PC is up to the challenge, he can try to raise the children himself. But I think he'd be within his rights to just bring them up to the temple (perhaps in an unconscious or tied up condition), and let the temple deal with them.
I think the situation is not difficult for you because you decided the goblin children are not evil. If that is the determination, it's a no-brainer. The difficulty arises when you decide the goblin children are evil. Then you have to decide:
1) If you come across an evil creature trapped in a cage (particularly if you kill the caretakers), do you have to free it/move it somewhere else if you are good?
2) If not, do you apply a different standard for evil children?
I think everyone would agree that it would not be good to kill the caretakers of a non-evil slave, then leave the slave in a cage with no food and water. So if children are not evil, then leaving the goblin children in the cage is at best neutral (not willing to take on the responsibility). DMs who wave this issue away are simply deciding that goblin children are evil, even if not explicit in the determination.
Are goblin babies and goblin children evil? If they aren't evil when they're born, when do they become evil?
** spoiler omitted **
So, should I make all/some/or none of the goblin children evil? And how would you GM this encounter?
The situation you presented does not seem as difficult as I had thought.
I think the situation is not difficult for you because you decided the goblin children are not evil. If that is the determination, it's a no-brainer. The difficulty arises when you decide the goblin children are evil. Then you have to decide:
Actually, the reason why I didn't think that the situation was difficult was because it seemed easy enough to just wrap the problem up and throw it to the temple, thereby forcing the DM's NPCs to solve the problem.
Just pack the cages up and deliver them to the temple. Let someone else solve the problem :-)
As for the evil person in a cage problem, that could be a dilemma.
I think the situation is not difficult for you because you decided the goblin children are not evil. If that is the determination, it's a no-brainer. The difficulty arises when you decide the goblin children are evil.
As for the evil person in a cage problem, that could be a dilemma.
I have a question for both of you. Why is it a dilemma if they're evil? If an evil creature dies, where does there soul go? Either Baator or the Abyss. Why would a Paladin wish to increase the amount of souls in either?
They wouldn't IMO. It would be much more beneficial to convert an evil-doer to the cause of righteousness. Not only do you deny the Lower planes power, but you increase the power of the Upper planes.
I think the situation is not difficult for you because you decided the goblin children are not evil. If that is the determination, it's a no-brainer. The difficulty arises when you decide the goblin children are evil.
As for the evil person in a cage problem, that could be a dilemma.I have a question for both of you. Why is it a dilemma if they're evil? If an evil creature dies, where does there soul go? Either Baator or the Abyss. Why would a Paladin wish to increase the amount of souls in either?
They wouldn't IMO. It would be much more beneficial to convert an evil-doer to the cause of righteousness. Not only do you deny the Lower planes power, but you increase the power of the Upper planes.
Part of respecting the dignity of sentient beings is accepting the consequences of their choices. These beings chose to go to those lower planes, even if the choices was only on a subconscious level, where is it the paladin's place to try to brainwash these beings into another path for their soul.
I never said brainwash. I said convert. And we're talking about kids here, so it's ok to be paternalistic. I'm sure given the opportunity they'd love having 3 warm meals a day and a safe home, with the opportunity to learn about the world. Then they can make their own decision on whether they want that.
Of course if we're talking about adults, then if they don't want to convert then I'd respect their opinion - and then kill them. If I didn't do everything in my power to stop the spread of evil, whilst strengthening the forces of good, I wouldn't be a Paladin - I'd be a Fighter without feats.
I think people have missed the point that human children are born chaotic evil as well ;)
totally selfish and have no interest in the needs of other let alone what is right or wrong
I think most people who spend time with children might just disagree. Children actually seek boundaries; they only appear chaotic when you don't stop them from overstepping. I think children like to know what the rules are, and like to follow them if you teach them to do so. So they appear to prefer lawful. Children who can't seem to figure out the boundaries are not happy children, IMO. So I'd say, assuming they have the ability to make moral choices at all, that they are neutral with a preference for lawful.
I have never heard of a very young child actively trying to kill another child. Get angry and throw a tantrum when the don't get what they want? Sure. I just don't see the murderous intent in my kids, though. In fact, they seem to enjoy sharing and experiencing the world together. Initially they play side-by-side, and eventually learn to play together. They don't seem to like it when their playmate is sad, and actually will cry out of sympathy if their playmate starts to cry. So I think children are neutral with a preference for good.
Then again, I love my children. So bias is possible. ;)
Heh think about what you've just said
Will learn to, are taught.
who's doing the teaching ? most of the time someone with tenancies towards the scale of Law and Good. did you without thinking encourage your children to share ? to play nice ? do you think they would have come to the same conclusions about it without you in their ear ?
you perceive children have a tenancy to grow towards what you consider good and lawful, becuase thats what you are.
Humans are genetically wired for mimicry , monkey say monkey do
If of society was a stable an functional D&D equivalent of lawful evil then all children who are born would have the tenancy to develop towards being evil. however everyone living in a lawful evil society would hardly consider themselves "evil".
If you want a classic example of arguably evil instinctual behavior of humans look at any of the numerous occasions "mob" mentality has taken over. What would consider the alignment of a "mob" to be ? Chaotic Neutral ? Chaotic Evil ?
most mobs attack and destroy everything in their path for no other reason that its in their path, sounds pretty close to chaotic evil behavior to me. However a mob is a special situation that breaks down the barriers that are learned during childhood.
As much as I or you may want to think we've evolved beyond a point where we naturally tend towards law/order and being good, its simply not true. break down the self imposed barriers of society well insert favorite apocalyptic movie outcome ;)
|
|
Part of respecting the dignity of sentient beings is accepting the consequences of their choices.
Where does this stop being 'respecting dignity?'
"Sorry miss. You knew when you got on that boat that it could sink, and yet you didn't bother to learn to swim. It would be improper for me to deny you the valuable lesson you are about to learn about choice and consequence by tossing you this rope. Buh-bye."
I think the situation is not difficult for you because you decided the goblin children are not evil. If that is the determination, it's a no-brainer. The difficulty arises when you decide the goblin children are evil.
As for the evil person in a cage problem, that could be a dilemma.I have a question for both of you. Why is it a dilemma if they're evil? If an evil creature dies, where does there soul go? Either Baator or the Abyss. Why would a Paladin wish to increase the amount of souls in either?
They wouldn't IMO. It would be much more beneficial to convert an evil-doer to the cause of righteousness. Not only do you deny the Lower planes power, but you increase the power of the Upper planes.
Well, I'd like to keep this close to the original problem of having goblin children in cages. However in my own homebrew this is already clarified because I've established that goblinoids can be good -- the princess Risotta has three goblin maidens as ladies-in waiting; humans have an alliance with the hobgoblins against the gnolls; the PCs are just about to encounter members of a tribe of "renegade" hobgoblins ruled by priestesses who worship the same goddess the humans worship. So if they were to find goblin children in cages, the obvious thing to do would be to rescue them and try to have them brought up as good.
But to the question I am responding to, about "an evil person in a cage", there are problems here:
1) is it just for that evil person to be in the cage. A person could detect as evil just for wanting to screw as many people out of as much money as possible without breaking any laws. Maybe a lot of people would *like* to see this evil person in a cage, but is it *just*?
2) If an evil person is left in a cage without anybody to take care of him, might that lead to more punishment than is just? A person could just be caged up for stealing, but leaving that person in a cage at this time could be tantamount to condemning him to death.
3) If an evil person is let out of a cage, might he go on to commit more evil?
One example of point 3 might illustrate what I am talking about. While not evil, per se, there was a case where General Grant defeated a Confederate force, and wanted to take them all prisoner. But the Confederate commander pointed out that Grant didn't have enough men to guard them all, and to take them back behind the front as prisoners. So Grant had no choice but to let them all go, even knowing that many of them could take up arms again and continue to fight the Union armies.
(He did, of course, require them to leave all their guns behind, but it certainly was possible that many of them got new guns later and continued fighting. It is also certain that a large number of them decided to go home and never fight again -- desertion was a big problem for both sides.)
Actually on a side note I'm reading a really interesting sci-fi book series at the moment called "The Lost Fleet"
I think the writer has a really good grasp of what we're discussing.
basically over the course of 100 years of total war and the older generation being killed off faster than the younger generation was able to learn everything they had to teach thing started to get lost and warped along the way.
Until it got to a point where killing captured prisoners in cold blood was not only acceptable, it was just what was done, it was beyond the point of even thinking about it.
I think the best example of all time which was done on chimps but also applies to humans just as well was this.
Put nine chimps in a room.
Put an electrified box in the middle of the room
Put a bunch of bananas above the box
First chimp climbs to box to reach the bananas get shocked and runs away. a couple more try with the same result. eventually either through observation or experience none of the chimp try to reach the bananas.
You take 1 chimp out replace it with a new one
The new chimp sees the bananas and goes for the box and the other chimps stop him.
That chimp learn that he shouldn't climb the box to get the bananas he doesn't know why but he's learned not to try.
Take another of the original chimps out and put a new one in, again the same thing the chimps already in the room will stop the new one from getting shocked.
Oddly enough even the new one who has never been shocked will try and stop the new chimp with his fellow chimps.
Keep taking 1 old out with 1 new in until there are 9 chimps in the room who were not there to begin with
None of these chimps has ever been shocked, none even know why the shouldn't climb the box, all they know is you DO NOT climb the box to get the bananas.
The reason for the behavior is lost but the current generation perpetuate the behavior regardless.
Now how many examples can you think of where the majority of humans reject new ideas because they clash with the old for the simple reason its different to what they were taught ;)
original question
As to your original question I propose an addition to your gaming world.
for the purposes of alignment the young of creature which have not yet achieved sufficient intelligence to be considered to "understand" what they are doing.
the same way children in our society are not subject to the same laws as adults, esp really young children like 4-8 years old.
if someone casts a detect evil spell on any child creature human or not the result is distinctly different than what you'd get from an adult.
instead of a clear aura or evil or good , you instead get a weak sense of where they could be headed, but the reading is inaccurate and can fluctuate as the spell tries to latch on to an aura which has not yet developed.
in the case of the goblin cages
a detect evil spell would see a mild evil taint in some cages but maybe not as stong in others, it would also shift with the aura dissapearing and then reappearing.
a detect good spell may even detect traces of good aura on the same cages where evil was detect but a moment ago.
you should emphasize the unclear nature of the auras explaining they seem to be in flux indicating these creature could potentially go either way depending on how they were raised, pretty much like the young of any creature.
uncertainty might just make things more interesting and far less black and white than if you stamp the evil stamp on them.
sensible stuff
A well-reasoned response.
I think the situation is not difficult for you because you decided the goblin children are not evil. If that is the determination, it's a no-brainer. The difficulty arises when you decide the goblin children are evil.
As for the evil person in a cage problem, that could be a dilemma.I have a question for both of you. Why is it a dilemma if they're evil? If an evil creature dies, where does there soul go? Either Baator or the Abyss. Why would a Paladin wish to increase the amount of souls in either?
They wouldn't IMO. It would be much more beneficial to convert an evil-doer to the cause of righteousness. Not only do you deny the Lower planes power, but you increase the power of the Upper planes.
I think that is also good. However, a good person could believe that criminal justice should primarily be to rehabilitate and another good person could believe that criminal justice should primarily be general deterrence (i.e., to teach other would-be criminals what happens to you when you break the law) and yet another good person could believe that criminal justice should primarily be specific deterrence (i.e., to teach the criminal not to keep being a criminal) and yet another good person could believe that criminal justice should incapacitate the wrong-doer either by execution or incarceration. I suppose a good person could also believe that you need to extract an eye for an eye, but that feels a little more neutral to me. There is more than one way to be good.
I think the best assumption about what kind of power boost the Abyss gets when a CE creature dies is that it is actually a decrease in power. If net power increases every time a creature dies, then the best thing you can do to advance your alignment is mass suicide. So we should assume that there is some kind of power associated with being alive and spreading your alignment around the prime material that is lost if you die. There's no particular RAW reason why this would be the case, but I think it is the most workable. Devils like to corrupt you on the prime material because it spreads LE there, and collecting your soul when you die is just a bonus. Just a thought.
Another thought is that there are so many souls in the Abyss and in Heaven and everywhere else, that sending a few goblins or miscreants there isn't going to make a lot of difference.
I think that is also good. However, a good person could believe that criminal justice should primarily be to rehabilitate and another good person could believe that criminal justice should primarily be general deterrence (i.e., to teach other would-be criminals what happens to you when you break the law) and yet another good person could believe that criminal justice should primarily be specific deterrence (i.e., to teach the criminal not to keep being a criminal) and yet another good person could believe that criminal justice should incapacitate the wrong-doer either by execution or incarceration. I suppose a good person could also believe that you need to extract an eye for an eye, but that feels a little more neutral to me. There is more than one way to be good.
But in D&D to have a Good alignment is to be compassionate. Let's not confuse dnd & RL.
I think the best assumption about what kind of power boost the Abyss gets when a CE creature dies is that it is actually a decrease in power. If net power increases every time a creature dies, then the best thing you can do to advance your alignment is mass suicide. So we should assume that there is some kind of power associated with being alive and spreading your alignment around the prime material that is lost if you die. There's no...
There are good reasons not to kill a damned soul, as is explained in the Fiendish Codex II. I'll put them in this spoiler:
CORRUPT NOW, ADVANCE LATER
Devils are rewarded for causing mortals to shift to lawful evil alignment. Credit for a particular mortal’s corruption goes to the
devil most responsible for the action finalizing that shift. However,
a soul harvester earns credit, and thus a greater chance for advancement, only when the subject dies and is conveyed to a
torture chamber for processing. Thus, a devil can gain credit for
a mortal it tempted long ago, while in a previous form. An ice devil might, for example, gain the final nudge toward promotion to horned devil status when a soul it harvested decades ago, while in the form of an imp, finally expires and is conveyed to its proper place in the Nine Hells.
As if this delay in receiving credit were not incentive enough, devils have an even more compelling reason to bring about their victims’ deaths as soon as possible after conversion—namely, the dread possibility of subsequent atonement. Nothing frustrates a devil more than a soul that refuses to stay damned. Even so, powerful lawful evil mortals are often more valuable to devilkind as living beings operating on the Material Plane. While alive, they can bring about the damnations of hosts of other souls, or pursue other goals of the hellish hierarchy. Devils must therefore seek authorization from the hierarchy
before scheming for the premature demise of potentially useful
minions.
But can you explain how more evil souls in the Abyss creates a decrease in power please? I can't get my head around that.
Another thought is that there are so many souls in the Abyss and in Heaven and everywhere else, that sending a few goblins or miscreants there isn't going to make a lot of difference.
The crux of the matter is what is the driving force behind a creature's actions: compassion; or convenience?
I never said brainwash. I said convert. And we're talking about kids here, so it's ok to be paternalistic. I'm sure given the opportunity they'd love having 3 warm meals a day and a safe home, with the opportunity to learn about the world. Then they can make their own decision on whether they want that.
Of course if we're talking about adults, then if they don't want to convert then I'd respect their opinion - and then kill them. If I didn't do everything in my power to stop the spread of evil, whilst strengthening the forces of good, I wouldn't be a Paladin - I'd be a Fighter without feats.
Again, I think you are describing a good person or paladin. However, there is more than one way to be good. A paladin has to spread his resources in such a way that he does the most good. He's not omniscient, though. He also understands that good temples and towns have limited resources. So he might decide that stretching his or a temple's resources in order to try to save some goblin children is not worth it because the resources could be used in such a way to accomplish more good elsewhere in an endeavor with better odds of success. That's why I think it is best to give players some leeway in how they want to do good.
Take this example: The paladin can see the future and knows that if he spends all day every day for the rest of his life, he can influence a goblin child to be good, and stay on the straight and narrow. However, if he is not able to spend all day every day, the goblin will become evil. Is it worth it for the paladin to make that kind of sacrifice for one goblin when he could instead be out doing paladiny things? It's an extreme example, but it is exactly the issue. Who is to say the smartest way to spend your limited resources? And are you really less good if you try to spread them to do the most good (even if you err)?
I do think it is problematic for a paladin to leave the goblin children hanging in cages if he knows goblins are capable of being non-evil and cannot determine whether the children are evil. However, the players might not want to deal with the issue, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to let the player of a paladin say he thinks goblins are vermin and are not capable of being redeemed (assuming the DM doesn't call him on it). The reason for mercy killing would be for game expedience, rather than because it is the actual moral thing to do. It's really just the equivalent of running away from an encounter. It is also possible that the group enjoys a little dark comedy, where goblins are treated like annoying vermin. Ooops! The goblin just ran into the fire and burned himself up! Everybody laughs. Sick, I know.
I think that is also good. However, a good person could believe that criminal justice should primarily be to rehabilitate and another good person could believe that criminal justice should primarily be general deterrence (i.e., to teach other would-be criminals what happens to you when you break the law) and yet another good person could believe that criminal justice should primarily be specific deterrence (i.e., to teach the criminal not to keep being a criminal) and yet another good person could believe that criminal justice should incapacitate the wrong-doer either by execution or incarceration. I suppose a good person could also believe that you need to extract an eye for an eye, but that feels a little more neutral to me. There is more than one way to be good.But in D&D to have a Good alignment is to be compassionate. Let's not confuse dnd & RL.
I think the best assumption about what kind of power boost the Abyss gets when a CE creature dies is that it is actually a decrease in power. If net power increases every time a creature dies, then the best thing you can do to advance your alignment is mass suicide. So we should assume that there is some kind of power associated with being alive and spreading your alignment around the prime material that is lost if you die. There's no...There are good reasons not to kill a damned soul, as is explained in the Fiendish Codex II. I'll put them in this spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **...
In D&D, good persons tend to be compassionate. In the alignment section where good and evil are described, there are some implications, but the defining statements about good are protection of innocents and personal sacrifice to help others. There are 5 classical justifications for criminal punishment, which I listed above, and which I think a good person could believe in. Just because you think punishment should be used as an instructive tool to teach others not to break laws (general deterrence) does not mean you are not compassionate, and you might even get a lump in your throat when the lash hits the skin, but do it because you believe that is what needs to be done for the greater good.
Anyway, if you can't apply alignment IRL, then you don't have a very good alignment system. If you know a person's thoughts, you should be able to apply an alignment to every human being.
Fiendish Codex II explains that a devil, who is rewarded for a soul being damned only upon the death of the creature, would want a person to die quickly after being converted to LE. That impacts the power of the devil, but not necessarily some metaphysical alignment power. Like I said, if it was better for hell for everyone to die as soon as possible, Asmodeus should just order all of his priests to commit suicide. And paladins should fall on their swords as soon as they get the ability to smite evil. So I argue that for some world-specific reason that would have to be made up by the DM, since it is not in the rules, there is some reason why alignments are better served by having representatives on the prime material. I don't have a specific reason why that would be the case. Perhaps it takes resources to send devils to the prime material, and the net cost is greater than the net increase in power when a soul is harvested.