So paladins culling the helpless children of evil races, Is this a catch 22?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gr8 b8 m8
No, because a 0 level baby of any race, by the rules, evil or otherwise, has no effective alignment itself. Killing such an infant would be an evil act, something to possibly cause the fall of a paladin for carrying out such an act. While killing all the evil race adults, while leaving their children alive would cause such children hardship, and perhaps even inevitable deaths - that is probably outside the concern, and possible alignment transitions for a paladin.
Although I've never played a paladin that faced that specific situation, I am sure, I would ask the GM if there were an elderly female less than combat effective that might be spared to raise the orphaned children and that I'd insist that the rest of the party spare such an individual, so not to feel guilty of leaving unattended orphan children in the wake of eradicating an evil force in some locale.
Anyway, I am not debating here, I am simply stating how I'd play or run the situation described, supported by RAW of mechanics that plainly state the same. You are free to disagree, but I'm making a statement, not inviting contradiction - so no argument from me. Play the game however you want. If you want to kill orc or drow babies that's up to your table, and I won't disagree with how you run things.
In Golarion, the monstrous humanoids are more monster than human and you would be right to kill orc children. This is not the way things work in my setting, however.
Well my described opinion on this would apply to any race, monster or otherwise. I don't draw the line at human. For that matter I would'nt kill baby animals for the same reason. So there's no racial line for me, regarding what babies are OK to kill. To me, killing any babies would be wrong, and as a GM would call on alignment issues of any PC paladin that did such an act, whether it was a human or otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on your deity.
Torag or Iomedae would tell you "kill 'em babies!"
Shelyn or Sarenrae would say "spare them and raise them in the light."
Erastil would say "try to raise them right, but if they still turn evil then kill them."
There's not one monolithic "paladin" thing to do, it entirely depends on your deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So paladins culling the helpless children of evil races, Is this a catch 22?
Rise of Runelords AP says you won't fall. So officially there is support for not falling.
But you won't fall for not killing them either. Totally free will here.
|
In Golarion, the monstrous humanoids are more monster than human and you would be right to kill orc children. This is not the way things work in my setting, however.
Doesn't work like that in Golarion either. Murdering children is murdering children, regardless of their race. James Jacobs himself weighed in on that matter.
Well my described opinion on this would apply to any race, monster or otherwise. I don't draw the line at human. For that matter I would'nt kill baby animals for the same reason. So there's no racial line for me, regarding what babies are OK to kill. To me, killing any babies would be wrong, and as a GM would call on alignment issues of any PC paladin that did such an act, whether it was a human or otherwise.
This is Earth morality, not Golarion. Orcs and goblins are violent and murderous pretty much from the womb; they are instinctively evil and were made that way precisely to prevent this sort of argument.
Once again I wholeheartedly disagree with that choice and prefer to run settings where the monstrous humanoids have their own cultures and social norms.
I don't understand how it can depend on your god, or anything.
An action is either Good or it isn't. It doesn't matter what anyone, even the gods, say.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on your deity.
Torag or Iomedae would tell you "kill 'em babies!"
Shelyn or Sarenrae would say "spare them and raise them in the light."
Erastil would say "try to raise them right, but if they still turn evil then kill them."
There's not one monolithic "paladin" thing to do, it entirely depends on your deity.
There is absolutely nothing about Iomedae that supports child killing fantasies. In fact, her article paints her as coming down hard on those that would do such thing in her name.
As for Torag, those controversial lines in his code have been weighed in upon by SKR, who stressed that the "no matter what, act in a way that brings honor to Torag" should spell out where the lines should be drawn. (and most people don't have to be told that infanticide is evil)
=full rewrite=
The paladin shouldn't be making this decision in a vacuum. The party should weigh in and that should determine what happens. the NG's and CG's would push for the no-kill option, which should settle this matter almost immediately.
If the group is more heavily Lawful aligned, the kill option becomes more probable since the inclination to protect the nearby settlements and the risk to potential adopters may outweigh the 'saving babies'. Practicality vs idealism in this case.
If the party leans more TN/CN, someone should just tell the Paladin to take a short walk to think about it, and spare their buddy for something a little more heroic than cheap morality stunts.
This is Earth morality, not Golarion. Orcs and goblins are violent and murderous pretty much from the womb; they are instinctively evil and were made that way precisely to prevent this sort of argument.
Once again I wholeheartedly disagree with that choice and prefer to run settings where the monstrous humanoids have their own cultures and social norms.
I don't play in Golarian, I only play with homebrew settings - I've even published one of my settings as the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), so I couldn't say what would be most appropriate for Golarian versus any other setting I'd play. Maybe you're right, that is how Golarian works, but that means nothing to me, nor my table.
Additionally, the possibility always exists in my games for rare individuals of evil races to not be evil due to some circumstance that altered their alignment to neutral or even good. Such a possibility might be so rare that only one individual of such a race in existence. In my games the possibility is always there, so an assumption that all evil races members are always evil is mostly true, but not completely - there can be exceptions in my game.
When I look at the bestiary descriptions for orc, goblin or drow, I don't read it specifically stating individuals are evil from the womb. That may be your interpretation of the text - I just don't see anything like that. I think you are imposing your opinion on top of RAW, which makes your statement not RAW, and probably wrong - even in Golarian.
Again, you and anyone else is free to handle baby killing however you want your table to do so - I am fine with the possibility that my table is the only one on Earth that plays this way. I feel no reason to compel a change in the way I play, nor a reason for anyone else to not do the same as our table. Play however you want.
My settings aren't like Golarian in this particular aspect, so my opinion stands unaltered (and unalterable.)
|
I don't play in Golarian, I only play with homebrew settings - I've even published one of my settings as the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), so I couldn't say what would be most appropriate for Golarian versus any other setting I'd play. Maybe you're right, that is how Golarian works, but that means nothing to me, nor my table.
Yeah, even the forums that don't fall under the Golarion setting heading are stuffed full of people who make the assumption that everyone plays in Golarion.
Orcs are generally "Always Angry," not Always Evil.
For an example, go look at the Hulk.
Though if you think the Hulk is also evil and needs to be killed at all costs, then alright.
@ Starbuck_II - that reminds me of something that I've asked before and didn't get an answer to
@ Mikaze - bizarrely, a lot of people apparently DO require that it be spelled out to them that infanticide is evil.
Golarion is the default setting for Pathfinder, after all.
And considering how much of the fluff is tied to Golarion, if you're looking for a fluff argument, then it's pretty reasonable for people to assume you're talking about "in Golarion" until you spell out otherwise.
And I'll note it's annoying when someone is asking for fluff advice for a different setting but doesn't actually bother to mention the setting until multiple posts later. (And worse, gets indignant that the other posters didn't magically know the OP was talking about a different setting.)
Well my described opinion on this would apply to any race, monster or otherwise. I don't draw the line at human. For that matter I would'nt kill baby animals for the same reason. So there's no racial line for me, regarding what babies are OK to kill. To me, killing any babies would be wrong, and as a GM would call on alignment issues of any PC paladin that did such an act, whether it was a human or otherwise.How about a wyrmling dragon that is currently tearing the local peasants to shreds? (Assume you're low enough level that even fighting it is challenge, much less handling it with kid gloves and trying to teach it to be good.)
I'd argue that, due to it's intelointeligence equaling that of a regular man, it's a good act to kill a knowing threat.
It depends on your deity.
Torag or Iomedae would tell you "kill 'em babies!"
Shelyn or Sarenrae would say "spare them and raise them in the light."
Erastil would say "try to raise them right, but if they still turn evil then kill them."
There's not one monolithic "paladin" thing to do, it entirely depends on your deity.
There is absolutely nothing about Iomedae that supports child killing fantasies. In fact, her article paints her as coming down hard on those that would do such thing in her name.
As for Torag, those controversial lines in his code have been weighed in upon by SKR, who stressed that the "no matter what, act in a way that brings honor to Torag" should spell out where the lines should be drawn. (and most people don't have to be told that infanticide is evil)
Maybe I misrepresented Iomedae, I should have lumped her in with Erastil. Her paladin code has the following line:
When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
So she falls into the "try to raise them right, but if they still turn evil then kill them" category.
if the only reason this comes up in your campaign as a DM because some unfortunate snot makes the mistake of rolling a Paladin, this is what certifies you as a Dick GM.So paladins culling the helpless children of evil races, Is this a catch 22?
Excuse me why do you consider it a mistake to roll a Paladin? I am left to only guess you play as or play a lot of Murder Hobos right?
Paladins shouldn't kill for crimes not yet committed.
|
It depends on your deity.
Torag or Iomedae would tell you "kill 'em babies!"
Shelyn or Sarenrae would say "spare them and raise them in the light."
Erastil would say "try to raise them right, but if they still turn evil then kill them."
There's not one monolithic "paladin" thing to do, it entirely depends on your deity.
Torag, God of Protection. Not so sure that he would automatically say kill the baby.
Not so sure Iomedae would see the honour in killing babies either.
It depends on your deity.
Torag or Iomedae would tell you "kill 'em babies!"
Shelyn or Sarenrae would say "spare them and raise them in the light."
Erastil would say "try to raise them right, but if they still turn evil then kill them."
There's not one monolithic "paladin" thing to do, it entirely depends on your deity.
Torag, God of Protection. Not so sure that he would automatically say kill the baby.
Not so sure Iomedae would see the honour in killing babies either.
Torag's paladin code example says:
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
So if the babies are orcs, goblins, or giants at least (potentially other based on the paladin's homeland,) Torag says "no mercy".
Excuse me why do you consider it a mistake to roll a Paladin? I am left to only guess you play as or play a lot of Murder Hobos right?
Missed the point. As thejeff said, he's not saying playing a Paladin is a mistake, he's cynically commenting that playing a Paladin under the sort of GM that would put your character in this situation is a mistake. Especially in the eyes of said GM who feels the need to punish alignment bound characters by putting them in such situations.
Well my described opinion on this would apply to any race, monster or otherwise. I don't draw the line at human. For that matter I would'nt kill baby animals for the same reason. So there's no racial line for me, regarding what babies are OK to kill. To me, killing any babies would be wrong, and as a GM would call on alignment issues of any PC paladin that did such an act, whether it was a human or otherwise.How about a wyrmling dragon that is currently tearing the local peasants to shreds? (Assume you're low enough level that even fighting it is challenge, much less handling it with kid gloves and trying to teach it to be good.)
There are probably other monster races that would be as bad or worse. Are facehuggers "baby aliens"?
For the more standard humanoid races, while I do consider a GM/setting choice, I personally strongly tend to the "not always evil, killing babies is wrong" approach. I also try to avoid the "It's good to slaughter the entire village of adults" approach as well. A GM who sets up a situation where killing every adult X in town is a Good Deed, but then sticks you with babies that it's Evil to kill is being a dick.
There are certainly exceptions, in my game, it would be a case by case basis. Now if a baby anything was actively killing a party member/ally, my PC paladin would try to stop it, even attacking such. If it let go, and I could recover the victim without killing it, I would. Again, case by case basis.
In some of my homebrews, dragons are born gray and have no alignment until they reach adolescence where they start to define their alignments and then change in color or transmute to metal so that a single litter of wyrmlings born from any dragon type can spawn a red, green, gold and bronze, as all siblings. Its my way to minimize the need for too many dragons in the overall setting. Instead of multiple breeding pairs of every color and metal, all species of dragons are available with few breeding pairs of any dragon type.
In most of my homebrews dragons don't even exist. I tend to run themed games and dragons are seldom a part of my chosen themes.
Again, this is only hypothetical, since I've never run, nor played a game in any edition where that situation has come up.
To the extent that dragons are being discussed...
Here's the statblock of a freshly hatched red dragon.
Trying to compare that to a baby orc or goblin doesn't really work.
I suppose you can try to rehabilitate it ("Bad Sparky! Stop trying to eat the teenagers!"), but you're in for a world of hurt if you try to treat it like a humanoid baby.
Paladins are arbiters of law aren't they? So wouldn't that be breaking the law and by that extension his code of conduct to kill a creature that is evil and hasn't done any sort of evil act. Even if the creature is evil, it hasn't committed any crimes,vile deeds,etc. Thus the creatures are innocent. Just my 2 copper pieces.
I treat it like a wild animal. If a wolf was attacking anybody, I'd try to stop it, even killing if I had to. But if the animal ran away after biting someone, I'd let it go, and maybe report it and the incident. I'm certainly not foolish enough to believe that an infant anything couldn't be a threat. I treat any wild animal with caution, but without a premeditated intent on causing harm just because I've encountered it.
Paladins are arbiters of law aren't they? So wouldn't that be breaking the law and by that extension his code of conduct to kill a creature that is evil and hasn't done any sort of evil act. Even if the creature is evil, it hasn't committed any crimes,vile deeds,etc. Thus the creatures are innocent. Just my 2 copper pieces.
It is only against the law in areas of that law.
Remember laws of one country or area are not symnonous with another one.So unless you are in a town or area with recognized law, laws can't hold you back.
Take for example Dranngvit, the dwarven god of vengeance. If her paladin stormed the base of an orcish tribe that had been killing dwarven families, including the women and children... you think that paladin of the god of vengeance would fall for killing the babies of an evil race, from a tribe that had killed who-knows-how-many dwarven babies?
The right choice is deity-dependent.
How would you know the baby orcs you are killing are actually evil...I doubt they are level 5 babies...
|
|
It depends on your deity.
Torag or Iomedae would tell you "kill 'em babies!"
Shelyn or Sarenrae would say "spare them and raise them in the light."
Erastil would say "try to raise them right, but if they still turn evil then kill them."
There's not one monolithic "paladin" thing to do, it entirely depends on your deity.
Torag, God of Protection. Not so sure that he would automatically say kill the baby.
Not so sure Iomedae would see the honour in killing babies either.
Torag's paladin code example says:
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.So if the babies are orcs, goblins, or giants at least (potentially other based on the paladin's homeland,) Torag says "no mercy".
Not really agreeing with your view on this.
An enemy is generally accepted as something dangerous, most likely armed and violent.
Does a baby anything fit that definition?
Does slaying a creature that is incapable of forming a coherent thought, let alone act in a decidedly aggressive nature against anyone, bring honour to Torag?
To me the answer is No to both questions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take for example Dranngvit, the dwarven god of vengeance. If her paladin stormed the base of an orcish tribe that had been killing dwarven families, including the women and children... you think that paladin of the god of vengeance would fall for killing the babies of an evil race, from a tribe that had killed who-knows-how-many dwarven babies?
The right choice is deity-dependent.
No matter the deity, butchering children is still a horrific act of evil.
Paladins fall for those.
Pathfinder isn't Warhammer 40k.
Killing a rabid anything would be a mercy. I might even consider using a Cure Disease if I had access. If too low a level, I'd kill any rabid animal encountered, as a mercy, not with ill intent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as a 'chaotic evil race'. There are chaotic evil cultures, but children are born tabula rasa, no matter what race.
You cannot hold someone responsible for something they haven't done, and may never do. Thinking otherwise is absolutely absurd.
|
|
Take for example Dranngvit, the dwarven god of vengeance. If her paladin stormed the base of an orcish tribe that had been killing dwarven families, including the women and children... you think that paladin of the god of vengeance would fall for killing the babies of an evil race, from a tribe that had killed who-knows-how-many dwarven babies?
The right choice is deity-dependent.
I can agree to an extent that the choice leans heavily upon the choice of deity.
Take for example Dranngvit, the dwarven god of vengeance. If her paladin stormed the base of an orcish tribe that had been killing dwarven families, including the women and children... you think that paladin of the god of vengeance would fall for killing the babies of an evil race, from a tribe that had killed who-knows-how-many dwarven babies?
The right choice is deity-dependent.
A god of vengeance would be evil, and thus not have paladins.
Speaking of Mikaze, there is option of the monster sanctuaries.
Dranngvit is N, and can have Palis.