blackbloodtroll |
Aren't 90% f all humans some shade of True Neutral? They may lean towards one alignment or another, must most of them lack the conviction to become Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic with a capital letter.
I any case... Babies are jerks! Kill'em all!
(I also find it funny that someone considers talking about a different crime to be offensive, but a whole a thread about murdering babies is a-okay!)
Yeah.
Heard that Hitler joke? I love making fun of Hitler! That genocidal bastard!
Wait, did you joke about John Wayne Gacy? That guy raped people, you can't make fun of him.
ಠ_ಠ
gamer-printer |
Luckily, I have not been in a situation where babies of any race were present in any encounter in over 30 years to have to decide whether to kill them or not. Its never come up in play, neither has the philisophical question of doing so or not. Besides most of PCs have been neutrally aligned, so it wouldn't be a serious question should it ever occur.
bookrat |
Luckily, I have not been in a situation where babies of any race were present in any encounter in over 30 years to have to decide whether to kill them or not. Its never come up in play, neither has the philisophical question of doing so or not.
It just has, right now. WHAT DO YOU DO?!?
Lord Foul II |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back on OP's topic... The Paladin should take all six babies back to. lawful good temple to be raised as Paladins, anything else is a fall and results in all levels converted to Anti-paladin immediately.
aah but then if he doesn't kill the babies train them to antipaladin hood, sacrifice them to a demonic or otherwise evil god, or eat them then he falls up and become a paladin of freedom.
I assume he also gets an eagle animal companion two pairs of mirrored shades (one for him one for the bird), a cape with a red/blue/white design with stripes and stars on it, and shotgun proficiency.LazarX |
EXPLANATION: my party just beat some bandits (humn) and came to their nursery only to find six babies there. we have a paladin in the party which I am playing. I said we should kill them but the GM says it's evil so I told him the thing in the title so logically we should be finee with killing HALF the babies
so how do we tell which???
Thx for your supportive messages which you will post, NO thanks for trolls and spammeers who post other things especially you mizake GO AWAY MIZAKE
** spoiler omitted **
Somehow I doubt you would have found ANY babies, if the party complement did not include a Paladin. To all you GMs out there, these setups get old REAL fast.
Lord Foul II |
Lemmy wrote:Aren't 90% f all humans some shade of True Neutral? They may lean towards one alignment or another, must most of them lack the conviction to become Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic with a capital letter.
I any case... Babies are jerks! Kill'em all!
(I also find it funny that someone considers talking about a different crime to be offensive, but a whole a thread about murdering babies is a-okay!)
Yeah.
Heard that Hitler joke? I love making fun of Hitler! That genocidal bastard!
Wait, did you joke about John Wayne Gacy? That guy raped people, you can't make fun of him.
ಠ_ಠ
hitler? You mean time magazine man of the year (I wanna say 1938), the famos vegetian statesman?
none of what I said was a lie.blackbloodtroll |
blackbloodtroll wrote:Lemmy wrote:Aren't 90% f all humans some shade of True Neutral? They may lean towards one alignment or another, must most of them lack the conviction to become Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic with a capital letter.
I any case... Babies are jerks! Kill'em all!
(I also find it funny that someone considers talking about a different crime to be offensive, but a whole a thread about murdering babies is a-okay!)
Yeah.
Heard that Hitler joke? I love making fun of Hitler! That genocidal bastard!
Wait, did you joke about John Wayne Gacy? That guy raped people, you can't make fun of him.
ಠ_ಠ
hitler? You mean time magazine man of the year (I wanna say 1938), the famos vegetian statesman?
none of what I said was a lie.
I know.
gamer-printer |
gamer-printer wrote:Luckily, I have not been in a situation where babies of any race were present in any encounter in over 30 years to have to decide whether to kill them or not. Its never come up in play, neither has the philisophical question of doing so or not.It just has, right now. WHAT DO YOU DO?!?
The same as I'd always do - nothing.
As a neutral character, I don't have to make any decision - let nature takes its course. If the babies live they live, if not, they die, but not by my hand. I've got no problems creating orphans, but no perceptible reason to kill a baby evil or not. Besides I generally don't attack someone based on alignment, rather if they're trying to kill me or not, otherwise, in most cases I avoid combat unless absolutely necessary.
Lemmy |
Lord Foul II wrote:blackbloodtroll wrote:Lemmy wrote:Aren't 90% f all humans some shade of True Neutral? They may lean towards one alignment or another, must most of them lack the conviction to become Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic with a capital letter.
I any case... Babies are jerks! Kill'em all!
(I also find it funny that someone considers talking about a different crime to be offensive, but a whole a thread about murdering babies is a-okay!)
Yeah.
Heard that Hitler joke? I love making fun of Hitler! That genocidal bastard!
Wait, did you joke about John Wayne Gacy? That guy raped people, you can't make fun of him.
ಠ_ಠ
hitler? You mean time magazine man of the year (I wanna say 1938), the famos vegetian statesman?
none of what I said was a lie.I know.
Isn't the "man of the year" thing based on influence and impact on the world, rather than on morality? If so, it makes perfect sense...
As evil as he was, no one can deny that Hitler had a huge impact on the world... The fact that he's the internet's go-to "real life super villain" is proof of that.
LazarX |
I don't know, I don't make decisions for time.
If I did I would probably choose people on a whim.
Though you forgot about him beig a vegeterian, that's totes important
You're trying to say that his being a vegetarian was important? He also liked kids, and to both of those, I'd say, so what? His greater context overshadows both factors.
Lemmy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would the penalty for using the babies as sling ammunition be?
Don't be silly, Sissyl! There would be no penalty! That's just nature working as intended!
Babies naturally evolved to be catapulted over long distances!
Issac Daneil |
I find claiming 50% of humanity is good or evil cheapens both elements.
I find it more likely that 85% are neutral with leanings towards either direction, and the remaining percent are the more extremes and actually count as Good, or Evil, to the extend to spells would actually affect them different.
born_of_fire |
blackbloodtroll wrote:Lord Foul II wrote:blackbloodtroll wrote:Lemmy wrote:Aren't 90% f all humans some shade of True Neutral? They may lean towards one alignment or another, must most of them lack the conviction to become Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic with a capital letter.
I any case... Babies are jerks! Kill'em all!
(I also find it funny that someone considers talking about a different crime to be offensive, but a whole a thread about murdering babies is a-okay!)
Yeah.
Heard that Hitler joke? I love making fun of Hitler! That genocidal bastard!
Wait, did you joke about John Wayne Gacy? That guy raped people, you can't make fun of him.
ಠ_ಠ
hitler? You mean time magazine man of the year (I wanna say 1938), the famos vegetian statesman?
none of what I said was a lie.I know.
Isn't the "man of the year" thing based on influence and impact on the world, rather than on morality? If so, it makes perfect sense...
As evil as he was, no one can deny that Hitler had a huge impact on the world... The fact that he's the internet's go-to "real life super villain" is proof of that.
In 1938, before WWII, Hitler was still perceived as neutral, perhaps even good considering that he was a very influential public speaker who motivated a nation crippled by WWI reparations into a world leading, industrialized powerhouse in just a few short years. He unified the government through sheer force of personality (and a little arson). Well into the 40's, Hitler was not viewed by Americans as evil, rather he was respected for being a win at all costs, no such thing as cheating, small town Vienna success story.
He was on the cover of Time because Time was reporting according to contemporary attitudes rather than rewriting history and denying culpability, which is what the majority of Hitler's demonization and status as the greatest evil to have ever walked the planet amounts to IMHO.
Regarding the babies, a gladiatorial contest to the death will separate the wheat from the chaff is short order. Chunderdome: six babies enter, one baby leaves. Who runs Bartertown? Paladins run Bartertown!
bookrat |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
bookrat wrote:gamer-printer wrote:Luckily, I have not been in a situation where babies of any race were present in any encounter in over 30 years to have to decide whether to kill them or not. Its never come up in play, neither has the philisophical question of doing so or not.It just has, right now. WHAT DO YOU DO?!?The same as I'd always do - nothing.
As a neutral character, I don't have to make any decision - let nature takes its course. If the babies live they live, if not, they die, but not by my hand. I've got no problems creating orphans, but no perceptible reason to kill a baby evil or not. Besides I generally don't attack someone based on alignment, rather if they're trying to kill me or not, otherwise, in most cases I avoid combat unless absolutely necessary.
You're just going to abandon innocent little babies to the elements with no one to take care of them, likely to die of starvation or thirst within a few days, if not environmental exposures?
Man, that's just evil.
Lord Foul II |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a great idea cast holy word that way even if the babies get killed, it's still a "good" act, because the spell has a good descriptor,
Just like summoning up a skeleton to defend innocents, say an orphanage for aasimars, or an old folks home for the good aligned retired adventurers, from demons would be an evil act.
born_of_fire |
I have a great idea cast holy word that way even if the babies get killed, it's still a "good" act, because the spell has a good descriptor,
Just like summoning up a skeleton to defend innocents, say an opus age for aasimars, or an old folks home for the good aligned retired adventurers, from demons would be an evil act.
Brilliant! The babies will only die they're non-good anyway, in which case, they got what they deserved...bunch of evil and/or wishy-washy babies!
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider |
do we really need another thread on babykilling. killing infants is not something a holy knight of honor and justice should be doing. if those children were 6 year olds pointing crossbows at you with hostile conviction, then you can kill them. because they post a legitimate minor threat that could cost you your life if you leave them without interference. but for infants, just put them in a bag of holding and deliver them to the orphanage at the next town you find.
Finn Kveldulfr |
Oh and the math on it, having reviewed things a little bit-- if you go on the presumption of how many of them will grow up to be evil, you only get to kill 1 of them. Good luck figuring out which one.
The true figures out of six seem to be 1 will grow up to be evil (maybe-- 16 2/3% become evil might be a little high), 1 will grow up to be good (maybe-- same problem as with the "destined to be evil" baby), and 4 will be neutral when they grow up...
But only if "nature" outweighs "nurture". :P Then it's back to "You need to take them somewhere that will raise them up on the paths of the righteous!"
(oh yes, this whole thread is satire-- enough so, that I, who have triggering issues related to real-live experiences in war zones regarding infanticide among other crimes against humanity, am not overly bothered by the "discussion" here-- but don' start taking any of this thread too seriously, and take the advice given earlier: walk away if it starts getting to you...)
Ms. Pleiades |
Lord Foul II wrote:blackbloodtroll wrote:Lemmy wrote:Aren't 90% f all humans some shade of True Neutral? They may lean towards one alignment or another, must most of them lack the conviction to become Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic with a capital letter.
I any case... Babies are jerks! Kill'em all!
(I also find it funny that someone considers talking about a different crime to be offensive, but a whole a thread about murdering babies is a-okay!)
Yeah.
Heard that Hitler joke? I love making fun of Hitler! That genocidal bastard!
Wait, did you joke about John Wayne Gacy? That guy raped people, you can't make fun of him.
ಠ_ಠ
hitler? You mean time magazine man of the year (I wanna say 1938), the famos vegetian statesman?
none of what I said was a lie.I know.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
- VoltaireI for one approve of this thread's satirical leanings after having seen a few of the latest doozies.
LazarX |
In 1938, before WWII, Hitler was still perceived as neutral, perhaps even good considering that he was a very influential public speaker who motivated a nation crippled by WWI reparations into a world leading, industrialized powerhouse in just a few short years. He unified the government through sheer force of personality (and a little arson). Well into the 40's, Hitler was not viewed by Americans as evil, rather he was respected for being a win at all costs, no such thing as cheating, small town Vienna success story..
By 1938 it had already been five years since Albert Einstein had emigrated to the United States, fleeing persecution because of his Jewish heritage, his honors tripped from him, and Einstein Tower which had been granted him because of his scientific honors, taken back by the German State. By this period or shortly afterward, the United States and other Western countries would start deporting Jewish refugees back to Germany. Yes I'm sure there were Americans that viewed Hitler as a hero, specifically the Nazi Bunds that were forming in various backwood lodges across the country, as well as other Fascist sympathisers.
Hitler unified his government by promising an end to the chaos his own stormtroopers were causing. His ascension to power was on the back of people that can only be described as thugs in brown shirts.
I suppose you're probably a Holcaust Denier as well. The murdered bodies of six million Jews, 2 million Gypsies, Gays, and others labeled as "undesirable" would challenge your opinion.
It's not that Hitler wasn't a fitting choice for Time's Man of the Year, he was, but not for the reasons you seem to believe. He had already re-armed the Whermacht, militarised the Rhineland, and was sponsoring the future dictator of Spain, Francisco Franco in his crushing of the monarchy and what freedom Spain had. In Spain, there were already Americans and other freethinkers joining together in a doomed fight against history.
So yes, by 1938, it was already clear that Hitler was a potential threat to world peace.
Scythia |
do we really need another thread on babykilling. killing infants is not something a holy knight of honor and justice should be doing. if those children were 6 year olds pointing crossbows at you with hostile conviction, then you can kill them. because they post a legitimate minor threat that could cost you your life if you leave them without interference. but for infants, just put them in a bag of holding and deliver them to the orphanage at the next town you find.
I so want to have this in a game now. I'm pretty sure the result would be laughter, not a feeling of being threatened. :P
Kobold Catgirl |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Okay, Pharaoh, we killed all those babies you wanted."
"What?!"
"Yeah, it was a bit tricky, but we searched everywhere but the Nile for babies. No way did any of them survive."
"Why? Why would you ever—oh. Oh, s&!$."
"We followed this decree you made—"
"No. Please no. S++!."
"It was on this tablet we found lying around. We figured it was like your wishlist. Well, happy birthday!"
"..."
"...so, do we deserve a promotion, or what?"
Kobold Catgirl |
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:do we really need another thread on babykilling. killing infants is not something a holy knight of honor and justice should be doing. if those children were 6 year olds pointing crossbows at you with hostile conviction, then you can kill them. because they post a legitimate minor threat that could cost you your life if you leave them without interference. but for infants, just put them in a bag of holding and deliver them to the orphanage at the next town you find.I so want to have this in a game now. I'm pretty sure the result would be laughter, not a feeling of being threatened. :P
That laughter dies one round later when they're shot full of holes by the room full of Childlike halfling slayers.
David knott 242 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would the penalty for using the babies as sling ammunition be? I mean, setting aside the issue of murdering, we know at least that not recycling is more evil than recycling...
Actually, there should be rather severe penalties for using babies as sling ammunition. At the very least you should impose the improvised weapon penalty (since babies are nnot streamlined for flying through the air) and the innappropriately sized weapon penalty (since a sling large enough to sling a baby is way too big for a size Medium character to use one handed).
Scythia |
Scythia wrote:That laughter dies one round later when they're shot full of holes by the room full of Childlike halfling slayers.Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:do we really need another thread on babykilling. killing infants is not something a holy knight of honor and justice should be doing. if those children were 6 year olds pointing crossbows at you with hostile conviction, then you can kill them. because they post a legitimate minor threat that could cost you your life if you leave them without interference. but for infants, just put them in a bag of holding and deliver them to the orphanage at the next town you find.I so want to have this in a game now. I'm pretty sure the result would be laughter, not a feeling of being threatened. :P
When I read the idea to my housemate, that was his first guess as well.
Imagine the look on the players faces when after the first round of firing (which misses by a mile), the little ones can't even operate the winch to reload the crossbow.
demontroll |
Meh, put a potted plant in with 'em. That'll give 'em oxygen, for, like...a while...
When plants are not exposed to light, they convert their sugar reserves to energy, and when they do so they convert O2 into CO2.
So you would need some sort of continual light spell to supply the plants with light. Too bad Continual Light isn't a spell anymore.
ShroudedInLight |
Why not just detect Evil and then kill the evil babies while sparing the good ones?
Seems reasonable to me, especially kill any of the babies holding lead sheets. Totally halflings in disguise.