|
A god of vengeance would be evil, and thus not have paladins.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.
Dranngvit...LN
Though:
Dranngvit is a dwarven deity but is seen as a necessary evil rather than a beloved deity. Most pay her worship only when they know they have wronged someone. The only dwarves who choose her as their actually patron deity are normally those consumed by hatred and nothing else.
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.
Let's look at the description of dwarves. The very first sentence is:
Dwarves are a stoic but stern race, ensconced in cities carved from the hearts of mountains and fiercely determined to repel the depredations of savage races like orcs and goblins.
The final sentence of that first paragraph:
constantly at war with giants, goblins, and other such horrors
Further down the page:
dwarves throughout the world are characterized by their... fierce hatred of giants, orcs, and goblinoids.
Dwarves and orcs have long dwelt in proximity to one another, and share a history of violence as old as both races.
Hatred: Dwarves gain a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against humanoid creatures of the orc and goblinoid subtypes because of their special training against these hated foes.
I think it's fair to say that orcs and goblins are considered "enemies" of dwarves.
|
A god of vengeance would be evil, and thus not have paladins.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.
Dranngvit...LN
Though:
Dranngvit is a dwarven deity but is seen as a necessary evil rather than a beloved deity. Most pay her worship only when they know they have wronged someone. The only dwarves who choose her as their actually patron deity are normally those consumed by hatred and nothing else.
By contrast, Ragathiel is LG, can have paladins, and has a vengeance fixation. He's one of the darkest examples of Team Good.
And he still wouldn't murder children. He himself is a child an archdevil and, being Good, would have the empathy coupled with his perspective to understand what it means to have someone try to hold you accountable for the sins of your parents simply for having been born.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because dwarves hate orcs and goblins doesn't somehow make killing babies not evil. Can a dwarf be evil? Doesn't that mean that killing dwarf babies is a good act incase it becomes evil? In fact maybe orcs are the good guys then since apparently dwarves are so evil they kill helpless babies.
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.
The baby red dragon will cheerfully disagree with you over a side of roasted virgin, but well, that's a freaking dragon.
There actually can be exceptions to "there's no such thing as evil babies," but those exceptions (dragons, rakshasa, etc.) can be well defined.
And none of those exceptions are actually humanoids.
Re: Dragnvit: "consumed by hatred and nothing else?" I suspect a paladin of Dragnvit probably doesn't follow all of the deity's tenants. They wouldn't be able to remain paladins if they did. (Paladins have to keep a LG alignment, after all.)
Just because dwarves hate orcs and goblins doesn't somehow make killing babies not evil. Can a dwarf be evil? Doesn't that mean that killing dwarf babies is a good act incase it becomes evil? In fact maybe orcs are the good guys then since apparently dwarves are so evil they kill helpless babies.
Paladins of Torag are sworn to protect dwarfkind and dwarven culture from its enemies. Orcs, goblins, and giants are a direct threat to both of those things.
Dranngvit is N, and can have Palis.True neutral gods do not sponsor Paladins unless it's specifically called out otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because dwarves hate orcs and goblins doesn't somehow make killing babies not evil. Can a dwarf be evil? Doesn't that mean that killing dwarf babies is a good act incase it becomes evil? In fact maybe orcs are the good guys then since apparently dwarves are so evil they kill helpless babies.Paladins of Torag are sworn to protect dwarfkind and dwarven culture from its enemies. Orcs, goblins, and giants are a direct threat to both of those things.
I remember a very angsty teen acting somewhat like this...turns out he went evil and lost his limbs too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because dwarves hate orcs and goblins doesn't somehow make killing babies not evil. Can a dwarf be evil? Doesn't that mean that killing dwarf babies is a good act incase it becomes evil? In fact maybe orcs are the good guys then since apparently dwarves are so evil they kill helpless babies.Paladins of Torag are sworn to protect dwarfkind and dwarven culture from its enemies. Orcs, goblins, and giants are a direct threat to both of those things.
Evil orcs, evil goblins, and evil giants are a direct threat. Not non-evil ones, which exist. And not the children, who are innocent.
Good people don't do genocide. Nor do they twist the nature of Good in order to justify getting to indulge in it.
Well you've already broken your oath to Torag by leaving the dwarven kingdoms to go loot dungeons for profit.Just because dwarves hate orcs and goblins doesn't somehow make killing babies not evil. Can a dwarf be evil? Doesn't that mean that killing dwarf babies is a good act incase it becomes evil? In fact maybe orcs are the good guys then since apparently dwarves are so evil they kill helpless babies.Paladins of Torag are sworn to protect dwarfkind and dwarven culture from its enemies. Orcs, goblins, and giants are a direct threat to both of those things.
You know what they say about the best defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good offense doesn't involve murdering babies.
If you're not attacking the direct threats to your kingdom, then you can't claim the "good offense" excuse.You know what they say about the best defense.Well you've already broken your oath to Torag by leaving the dwarven kingdoms to go loot dungeons for profit.Just because dwarves hate orcs and goblins doesn't somehow make killing babies not evil. Can a dwarf be evil? Doesn't that mean that killing dwarf babies is a good act incase it becomes evil? In fact maybe orcs are the good guys then since apparently dwarves are so evil they kill helpless babies.Paladins of Torag are sworn to protect dwarfkind and dwarven culture from its enemies. Orcs, goblins, and giants are a direct threat to both of those things.
How are orcs, goblins, and giants, from clans that have been consistently invading your kingdom for generations, not a "direct threat" to your kingdom?
How are orcs, goblins, and giants, from clans that have been consistently invading your kingdom for generations, not a "direct threat" to your kingdom?If you're not attacking the direct threats to your kingdom, then you can't claim the "good offense" excuse.You know what they say about the best defense.Well you've already broken your oath to Torag by leaving the dwarven kingdoms to go loot dungeons for profit.Just because dwarves hate orcs and goblins doesn't somehow make killing babies not evil. Can a dwarf be evil? Doesn't that mean that killing dwarf babies is a good act incase it becomes evil? In fact maybe orcs are the good guys then since apparently dwarves are so evil they kill helpless babies.Paladins of Torag are sworn to protect dwarfkind and dwarven culture from its enemies. Orcs, goblins, and giants are a direct threat to both of those things.It's nice the way you keep using "orcs are a direct threat" to justify killing orc babies that are at the least not a direct threat.
Orc babies grow up to be orc adults.
Members of evil races that have a deep-seated cultural hatred of your race, especially ones whose parents were slaughtered by the race who their culture tells them are the enemy, generally don't grow up writing love sonnets about dwarves. They grow up ready to get their vengeance, and that vengeance is against the kingdom that you are sworn to protect from its enemies.
Think maybe the point is being missed a little. ..we're playing a game here, not a real life training exercise! It is supposed to be fun! Would you still be having fun when you said to your DM, in front of your friends, "I raise my sword and plunge it through the chest of the helpless baby"? I know people play evil characters and I have too (a certain DuergarJuju Zombie Cleric-Thief of a Death God, called Heartless springs, no sidles sinisterly, to mind), but we're often talking about anti-heroes not actual out and out evil. These characters are cool, badass, like leather n chains, take advantage of some feats n stuff that our good characters destroy. These characters though are still adventurers and are still the people who end up saving the world again. To give you a further example, my Heartless character was secretly (well pretty much everything was a secret about him) a serial killer, the other players didn't find out, but the DM made pretty sure that there were consequences and we realised that they were not just in game consequences. ..it's one thing to watch Dexter, its another to play him! BUT Heartless got redemption when he helped save the multiverse and his friends!
Roleplaying is a hobby that can get obsessive...it is also us enacting stuff that we can't do in real life, but that doesn't include certain things as an unspoken rule...and that includes infanticide and genocide! Other posters are correct when they say that the DM should see it as part of their role to ensure these situations aren't encouraged.
Now before I get accused of preaching...just take a minute to think about what you're defending. Freedom of Speech and such doesn't mean anything you want. Think on as well why you can't find any specific 'you can't kill babies' rules!
In the Core Rulebook, Evil is defined as
hurting, oppressing, and killing others.So yes, the paladin does fall for killing the baby orcs, and does not fall for not killing them. It really is that simple.
By that reasoning, a paladin also falls for killing a full-grown red dragon.
Golarion is the default setting for Pathfinder, after all.
Actually the default for Pathfinder is what is in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Bestiary, because those are the core rules. The core rules contradict the Golarion books on multiple occasions, including concerning paladins. For example, in the core rules, paladins are lawful good warriors not necessarily tied to a particular religion. As others have cited in this thread, though, Golarion paladins are closely tied to a patron deity.
In the Core Rulebook, Evil is defined as
hurting, oppressing, and killing others.So yes, the paladin does fall for killing the baby orcs, and does not fall for not killing them. It really is that simple.
This is the Pathfinder RPG forum, not the Pathfinder Campaign Setting forum. So when you say
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.)That applies to Golarion as well (unless you are in the Golarion forum, which this thread isn't).
Ah, well, we usually assume the main setting is used in discussions sometimes because it is the main one.
Same as Godless Clerics. Main rules they are cool, but not in main setting.
In the Core Rulebook, Evil is defined as
hurting, oppressing, and killing others.So yes, the paladin does fall for killing the baby orcs, and does not fall for not killing them. It really is that simple.
To be fair, you left part of that out...
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
"Evil implies killing." Killing does not imply evil.
By that reasoning, a paladin also falls for killing a full-grown red dragon.In the Core Rulebook, Evil is defined as
hurting, oppressing, and killing others.So yes, the paladin does fall for killing the baby orcs, and does not fall for not killing them. It really is that simple.
You keep saying this but I do not think it means what you think it means.
An adult red dragon is evil it is actively harming and eating people...pretty sure the baby orc was just sleeping. Killing a baby should always be considered evil.
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.)That applies to Golarion as well (unless you are in the Golarion forum, which this thread isn't).
Indeed, which is why I never post in threads on the Pathfinder Campaign Setting forums (well almost never do), nor the PFS forum for the exact same reason. I don't assume Golarian as the default Pathfinder setting at all, just as I didn't consider Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms as defaults for previous editions - I've never used any of those settings in almost 40 years gaming.
I've written and did some cartography for an AP, Jade Regent, credited as a contributing author, even though I've never played any of the APs myself. Like I said, I only homebrew - both settings and adventures. I haven't used any published modules since 1e.
I really don't assume any setting is default in any rules discussion ever. As far as settings go, I "assume" they can be ported to any edition or ruleset - settings tend to be ruleset agnostic, except for whatever specific rules are built into a setting (many have them, mine do.)
The only honourable choice is for the Paladin to fall upon his sword to escape the machinations of the twisted and conniving DM.
|
|
It's a game. If your DM derails it into a discussion on ethical philosophy more suited for a bunch of lit majors discussing Dostoyevsky than trying to have a good time, he's breaking the unspoken social contract of "everyone at the table is there to have fun." And if he's doing this to screw someone who's trying to play a Paladin for the sake of screwing them, he's in dereliction.
If it comes up at all as a storytelling device in any context other than backstory, it's probably needlessly divisive (as this thread demonstrates) and doesn't contribute much to the gaming session. In other words, red flag of DM dickishness.
You don't have to play a game with no winning moves.
Whoops, another thread where the OP dumped Wis and rolled 1 on Knowledge (Internet).
Actually, I'd bet the OP got the result he was after.
Though the OP may have been hoping for more acrimony =P
Just to point out, in all my posts regarding paladin, it was from the point of view of playing paladin, not enforcing draconian alignment rulings as a GM. When I play a paladin encountering evil race babies, I make case by case distinctions from a player point of view only. Fallen paladins are rare in my games, though the struggle to maintain the code does cause situations where paladins must repent every now and again. I'm not as harsh regarding paladin alignment as a GM, I am much more critical regarding alignment as a paladin player, however.
|
|
Only way I'd bring it up in game would be if a party was slaughtering the adults with no reason other than "they're orcs". They'd have to fight their way past a desperate rear guard trying to buy the non-combatants time to escape and then deal with the mothers and older children begging them for mercy and throwing themselves in front of the babies.
The paladin, assuming there was one, would have fallen long before reaching the babies.
Posting under the name of my half-orc paladin of Erastil who long ago made the choice to spare the goblin babies outside Sandpoint.
At that point it's less "would this make my paladin fall" and pretty much all the way into "I'm going antipaladin, how sweet can I make the deal for my new patron fiend?"
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".
I'm pretty sure babies aren't his people's enemies.
I cant believe this thread was started without the OP knowing how it would turn out.
|
|
I'm pretty sure babies aren't his people's enemies.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".
Unless his favored weapons are a bottle of whiskey and a coat hanger.
What a needless topic. Everyone knows Paladins don't kill Orc and other evil race's infants. They just kill their caretakers and walk away. Nature takes care of the rest.
Damn, Paladin threads suck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The truly lawful good warrior of god would leave the babies to die in the wilderness, grow up hating humans/dwarves, and wait until they were full-grown rapist-bandits to kill them.
Or you can pretend Orc babies don't exist like any sensible person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh Paladin threads, how I had missed thee.
How long has it been, two maybe three days?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
