|
This came up in game when determining a spell affect that was alignment contingent, and the table was divided. Therefore, I am reaching out to the community for clarity.
First let me define two important considerations that must be accounted for:
1. Infant = completely dependent on others for basic survival, and for our discussion, let's assume that this infant is 6 months out of the womb.
2. Parents = stat blocks clearly indicate NEUTRAL alignment.
Secondly, the table was divided into the following two groups:
Group 1 - claimed that the baby was clearly of GOOD alignment.
Group 2 - claimed that the baby was clearly of NEUTRAL alignment.
Discuss!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to allowing people to sleep....
CE
I believe infants have no alignment.
They haven't the capacity to make those kinds of decisions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the "owner" of a five month old girl, I will say that, while she's amazing, as far as any kind of ethos or moral/philosophical worldview?... Nah, she's got nothin'.
As per animals, definitely neutral.
(One exception: if one were running a campaign set in say, historical Europe, ie. "Christendom", babies would be born with "original sin", and thus would be evil until they were baptized, at which point they would be good. Interesting notion!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe infants have no alignment.
They haven't the capacity to make those kinds of decisions.
Oozes are dumber than babies and yet still have an alignment.
Oozes are dumber than babies and yet still have an alignment.I believe infants have no alignment.
They haven't the capacity to make those kinds of decisions.
It doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. It has everything to do with how they live their lives and the choices they make.
They haven't lived their lives or made any decisions at all as an infant.
Oozes are dumber than babies and yet still have an alignment.I believe infants have no alignment.
They haven't the capacity to make those kinds of decisions.
It doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. It has everything to do with how they live their lives and the choices they make.
They haven't lived their lives or made any decisions at all as an infant.
A lack of intelligence prevents making morally relevant choices.
Rot grubs are disgusting creatures that create much misery, but are just stupid things acting on instinct and thus neutral.
Oozes are dumber than babies and yet still have an alignment.I believe infants have no alignment.
They haven't the capacity to make those kinds of decisions.
It doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. It has everything to do with how they live their lives and the choices they make.
They haven't lived their lives or made any decisions at all as an infant.
Wait so oozes *have* made decisions and choices? Err I don't think they have. They may have a rudimentary instinct to hunt and 'eat' but not much beyond that.
Infants are clearly CE...I mean TN. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say neutral. A six-month infant's not really capable of making decisions based on concepts of ethics or morality.
|
|
"All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic." - from SRD
I maintain that infants are NEUTRAL.
Just a question: Why?
If it's one of those mean spells that does harmful things to neutral things, I think that could be evil...
I dunno.
I can't imagine how it could possibly be anything other than Neutral... Alignment is a matter of thought process and/or personal tendencies. An infant really doesn't have much of either at a young age.
Until they can comprehend the consequences of their actions, and understand the difference between right and wrong, I would be pretty much positive in calling them neutral. They're just like animals.
Curiosity begs me ask, what's the rationale for it being Good?
Oozes are dumber than babies and yet still have an alignment.
Aren't oozes True Neutral? To that extent, I'd say they actually sort of don't have an alignment, even if it is listed as N. In the same way animals don't have a moral compass, neither do oozes. (Unless there are non-neutral oozes, in which case, hell if I know.)
The only oozes that I know of with alignments are intelligent, like the brain ooze.
Not all oozes are dumb. The dumb ones are neutral, however.
Brain Oozes are Neutral Evil, but they have 15 Int. The other oozes I can find are neutral.
Spell = Holy Smite
Big Bad Evil Guy standing in the same square as infant is targeted by Holy Smite = dead infant.
I had a feeling it might be something like this. Yep, that's an unfortunate case for the infant.
Edit @ Rynjin: Good to know. Then I'm personally still of the opinion that inability to think or rationalize basically defaults to True Neutral.
Wouldn't be an issue if the infant was alignment-less, only evil and neutral creatures are harmed.
Curiosity begs me ask, what's the rationale for it being Good?So the player can get the spell off and not kill the infant?
Well, I meant more as to the logical reasoning for why it counted as good. Not wanting to kill a baby is all well and good, but I was wondering if there were actual arguments to support the position.
To that end, I could understand it being considered as not having an alignment at all, i.e. it isn't good, evil, or even neutral. Righteous smiting of the unholy and whatnot means nothing to it, until it actually develops into having an alignment, even if that alignment turns out to be neutral.
By that logic though, animals and oozes could be immune too, since they don't think, which makes this a tricky thing.
...And that idea is similar to what Rynjin said ^
|
Curiosity begs me ask, what's the rationale for it being Good?
Presumably that it's innocent. I think it' draws on the Christian idea that being good means being "without sin" and that a baby (once freed of original sin) is sinless and therefore good. PF morality however takes a bit of a more active definition to goodness.
Oozes are dumber than babies and yet still have an alignment.Aren't oozes True Neutral? To that extent, I'd say they actually sort of don't have an alignment, even if it is listed as N. In the same way animals don't have a moral compass, neither do oozes. (Unless there are non-neutral oozes, in which case, hell if I know.)
Color out of Space and Shoggoth and Tear of Nuruu'gal are CN, and Brain Ooze and Vespergaunt are NE, but these are also intelligent.
The 3rd party oozes Undead Ooze and Vampiric Ooze are both mindless and evil, but I think that's because of PF's "even mindless undead are evil" system.
Other than that all oozes are TN, which is by default the designated alignment of things without a moral compass. It's the "animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral" clause, which presumably exists to define how they react to alignment-based effects that can affect creatures of neutral alignment. Namely, yes, that baby, as well as any animals that happen to be in the area, is a dead baby.
Holy Smite would technically also target an alignment-less creature since "The spell deals only half damage to creatures who are neither good nor evil" and a creature without an alignment qualifies for that statement as much as a consciously TN would qualify.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Babies, as utterly selfish beings, are neutral evil. If you don't believe me, read this Cracked article fortunately, they change as they learn and grow.
|
Human babby are neutral, like all races' babby.
I can see why the players were surprised by the holy smite issue though. It is questionable that [Good] spells would harm innocent neutral beings when they seem designed to go after evil, typically to protect the innocent.
There are a number of other [Good] spells that have this issue. Personally, they feel better if they don't target neutral at all, unless there's some damaging factor involved that isn't related to the supposed Goodness of hte spell(like say if one does half holy damage and half fire damage).
Animals are described as having a neutral alignment. They aren't particularly intelligent and mostly operate out of instinct. I'd say babies would also have a neutral alignment, until they grow old enough to make informed decisions.
Then again, every toddler I've ever met is some sort of evil.
Neutral until toddlerhood, then Neutral Evil with variants becoming Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil. ^_____^
The purest thing in the cosmos......chaotic neutral.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules are rules....so I disagree. If I look up "GOBLIN" in the Bestiary, it clearly states EVIL. This is assuming the critter in question is an NPC. Remember, this is a game...and rules are rules.Human babby are neutral, like all races' babby.
Look at the Bestiary again.
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.
Rules.
Also, you can't be of an evil alignment if you've never even had time to develop and then think and do evil, with or without indoctrination into a crap culture those races are typically stuck in to throw the odds out of their favor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean my paladin falls for smiting a sack of babies? They were evil!
Rules are rules....so I disagree. If I look up "GOBLIN" in the Bestiary, it clearly states EVIL.
...
Oy.
*facedesk*
Remember, this is a game...and rules are rules.
So... where does it say that alignment is an invariable part of races?
Erg, before I write up a whole post, I'm just gonna stop there. Sorry if I sound flippant or anything, but there's been a couple threads about the alignment of goblins already (particularly baby ones) and an argument of "That's what it says in the bestiary," doesn't appeal to me.
Edit: +1 to Mikaze.
neutral by default. Humans are generally neutral. When the kid is old enough it makes it own choice, but starts neutral. It can't be smited or adversely affected via alignment.
Why would anyone think an automatic good alignment?
Honey badgers, according to the rules, are "neutral."
I rest my case.
So,....."neutral" wink wink....nod....nod.....paladins can't smite......continue with the dismemberments at will......
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Human babby are neutral, like all races' babby.
I can see why the players were surprised by the holy smite issue though. It is questionable that [Good] spells would harm innocent neutral beings when they seem designed to go after evil, typically to protect the innocent.
There are a number of other [Good] spells that have this issue. Personally, they feel better if they don't target neutral at all, unless there's some damaging factor involved that isn't related to the supposed Goodness of hte spell(like say if one does half holy damage and half fire damage).
I agree, it's a little odd, but remember:
1) They're balanced against the evil versions of these spells that don't really care about bystanders
2) The Arc of the Covenant will melt your face off - the average person simply can't withstand pure holy power and heroes are expected to use discretion when exposing bystanders to an AoE burst of pure goodness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a new father I have to weigh in: Babies are chaotic nuetral. Their statblock is: Str 2, Dex 2, Con 2, Int 2, Wis 2, Cha 20. Their human starting feat is weapon focus (spit up).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Babies do not have Charisma 20. They have an at will charm person spell-like ability (no saving throw), which can only be used upon their close relatives (parents, grandparents, etc). Also, certain people have taken a 1st-level flaw/weakness tied to this ability which means they are also susceptible.
Basically, babies are tiny, under-developed, naked, hobos. They most often behave like drunkards or lunatics.
I like it that this thread about the AL of babies is dominated by oozes...
Some very clever responses folks :)
|
|
Rules are rules....so I disagree. If I look up "GOBLIN" in the Bestiary, it clearly states EVIL. This is assuming the critter in question is an NPC. Remember, this is a game...and rules are rules.Human babby are neutral, like all races' babby.
Look at the Bestiary again.
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.Rules.
Also, you can't be of an evil alignment if you've never even had time to develop and then think and do evil, with or without indoctrination into a crap culture those races are typically stuck in to throw the odds out of their favor.
Thats fine. But this thread is about HUMAN infant NPCs with NEUTRAL parents. The Goblin discussion is not something I'm interested in.
My response was based on my game. If you encounter goblin babies in my game, they are evil.
I would have to side with the neutral camp on this one. It is unfortunate, but the babies would get killed off by a holy smite. But that's what happens when PCs indiscriminately use area based spells without thought of collateral damage and then try to argue the point to cover their mistakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules are rules....so I disagree. If I look up "GOBLIN" in the Bestiary, it clearly states EVIL. This is assuming the critter in question is an NPC. Remember, this is a game...and rules are rules.Human babby are neutral, like all races' babby.
Look at the Bestiary again.
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.Rules.
Also, you can't be of an evil alignment if you've never even had time to develop and then think and do evil, with or without indoctrination into a crap culture those races are typically stuck in to throw the odds out of their favor.
Thats fine. But this thread is about HUMAN infant NPCs with NEUTRAL parents. The Goblin discussion is not something I'm interested in.
My response was based on my game. If you encounter goblin babies in my game, they are evil.
I really hope this doesn't come over as an attack or offensive - to me this is just a philosophical discussion, but...
Are you a monarchist?
I ask this because monarchies depend on the perception that what's in your genes, the blood that runs in your veins, is infinitely more important than what you've been taught, the environment you were raised in, the general life experiences you've had, and your actual abilities and decisions - you're displaying a viewpoint that bases itself in heredity rather than environment. That those in royal lineages deserve to rule because their lineage, their genes, make them instantly and inarguably better and more capable than the rest of the non-royal population. A viewpoint, I might add, that is very similar to that of the racist.
The racist believes that his/her race is intrinsically better than another race. Say, if they're white, they believe that they are better than a Chinese person. Or, if they are human, they are better than a goblin. Because of their blood.
Please note, I'm definitely not calling you a racist. I don't know you from a bar of soap. I don't even assume that you might be racist. I'm just trying to compare your in-game assumptions with the real world. Which are entirely different things. But goblin babies are not assumed in RAW to be evil; that is your spin on an undefined element of the game. And I would find the philosophy behind your opinion to be repugnant if you held the same opinion in the real world, but of course, Pathfinder is a world of absolute morality, unlike our own, and completely unconnected to it - likewise, your opinions on the Pathfinder universe are probably different to the opinions you hold regarding the real world.
I think goblin babies, having had no opportunity to make any kind of meaningful ethical or moral decision, are also neutral. Their blood doesn't make them evil. Their society usually does though.
I would have to side with the neutral camp on this one. It is unfortunate, but the babies would get killed off by a holy smite. But that's what happens when PCs indiscriminately use area based spells without thought of collateral damage and then try to argue the point to cover their mistakes.
Lol yeah, I can totally see one of my players (or myself) trying to save babies from a thoughtless area attack spell in this way :)
It might be true that environmental factors shape who we are, but there's also a great deal of neurology involved. Humans evolved a sense of morality, but that doesn't necessarily mean other fantasy races have.
I'd think that the races described as evil (orcs, goblins, drow, etc) are more than just the sum of their upraising. There's also neurology involved. Their brains are just wired differently than our own.
There may be exceptions, but I'd say that goblins (on the whole) are evil. A goblin infant has the potential, and some might say predisposition, towards committing dastardly evil acts. Thus, one might have a basis to ascribe them as evil.
The same might be said of a human infant born with mental illness, or brain damage. Many psychopaths lack the capacity for empathy, or compassion, because of an in-born deficiency.
Some people are born evil; whose to say an entire fantasy race might not be?
...this thread is about HUMAN infant NPCs with NEUTRAL parents. The Goblin discussion is not something I'm interested in.
I think most people agree on this one (human infants are neutral). The goblin discussion, though not something you're interested in, seems to hold a lot of peoples' interest. If you'd like, we could move the discussion elsewhere...
|
|
No, I am not a monarchist. And I do agree with the premise that Goblin babies are not inherently evil. I also realize that I made a global sweeping and statement implying that they are, but I still maintain that in my game (for the sake of simplicity and in the interest of not bogging down the game in metaphysical discussions regarding morality) are evil. Therefore, to be clear, a Lawful Good cleric does not risk losing favor by smiting the little bastards. ;-)
Now, having said that, this thread does not question the alignment of goblin babies, and I'm really not interested in discussing that issue any further.
Let me put things into context as they happened in game:
BBEG is taking innocent babies from poor/delusional/misguided villagers under the guise that he is holy and performing good. The villagers willingly give the children to him because they have been fooled and believe they are doing the right thing. Enter the PCs.....who know the evil, nefarious plans of the BBEG and are completely aware of the situation. PCs encounter BBEG with an infant. Any rational person would immediatley assume that the infant is innocent and should be protected. Cleric PC spams HOLY SMITE anyway, claiming "If the baby dies, he is evil!". Paladin in group says nothing and lets it happen because PLAYERS say that infant human NPC's with Neutral aligned parents are GOOD and should not be affected.
/smh
What parent would hand over their infant to a complete stranger? Was there a plague or something and this guy was masquerading around with the only known cure or something?
If not... damn those are some gullible folks (even for a 1st-level commoner with no ranks in Sense Motive)!
That said, they seemed pretty confident and as you didn't really provide them with any sort of warning, I'd say they were in the right. If you foresaw this being an issue, knew what the outcome would be, and did not step in to warn them, then how could they would be killing babies?
Most people seem to agree that human infants are neutral, but I can see why someone might think innocent children are protected against a spell specifically designed to slay evil (and thus protect them). It seems that if the rules got anything wrong... it's this!
There's just one thing that gives me pause, and that's the cleric's statement, "If the baby dies, he is evil!" That's rather disheartening. I'd rather not look too deeply into that phrase, but if I'm understanding you correctly, your party's cleric is operating out of the, "let god sort 'em out" mentality. That's a grim-dark world if you ask me, haha.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it wrong that this thread makes me want to make some sort of baby evil genius bbeg?
"I am Istalv the Fussy! You have interrupted nappie time, for this, quickened enervation spells!! You will soil your pants in fear as opposed to due to lack of appropriate bowel control! Muahahah!"
"Paladin! Defeat him!"
"I can't! Its a baby!!"