Hey Tg, is it better to smite evil or try to redeem It? Nothing morally gray just wondering which one was more good!

Hey Tg, is it better to smite evil or try to redeem It? Nothing morally gray just wondering which one was more good!

Redeem it.

Christ forgives all user. Which also means redemption may be found on the lap of Abraham. So, kill your enemy if you have to, but be sure to always give them hope and an opportunity to do good.

Redemption is always better, but sometimes it isn't possible, or the risks outweigh the benefits. It's often not an easy call, whether to take the risk for the greater good or stick to the reliable end for the safety of others.

Redeeming is a luxury. In a world with objective morality with an active good vs evil fight going on, smiting nets you one fewer evil, while redeeming can net you both one fewer evil and one more good. Redeeming, however, is both risky and time-consuming due to the potential for failure.

>Nothing morally gray just wondering which one was more good!
Which ever one gives you more xp, duh.

Smite.
Once you go black you can never go back.

Redemption is always the better option. In a world with objective morality with an active good vs evil fight going on, redemption breaks the cycle of endless turbomurder and offers a kind of flashpoint for change. When you smite evil, you've reduced the net evil in the world by one. When you redeem evil, you start a ripple effect that could fundamentally alter the universe.

Essentially, depends on the setting

>In a world with objective morality with an active good vs evil fight going on,

Am I being tricked?

Redeeming, as it increases the amount of the redeemed.
Smite someone and they're dead. Redeeming someone means they might go on to redeem someone else. Who might then redeem another, who redeems another, who redeems another etc.
This is why Warforged Paladins are the best.

Pic unironically related. Most anons already pointed out it depends on the situation. "It's easy to be a saint in paradise" as sisko says. The only pragmatic time you can show mercy to others is when you have more power than them.

However redemption is the only way to decrease the overall level of evil. Even if you have literal demons made of evil to banish, you still have evil humanoids and you can't kill them all. Even attempting to kill them all will lead to other good guys or friends of the victims to rise against you. So you have to go with redemption to stop the spread of bad teachings to new generations. Stop the cycle of revenge and all that.

You can't go full batman but you can't go full punisher, you have to straddle the fence.

People tend to confuse the physical substances "good" and "evil" with moral good and evil, which can be separate things in D&D fluff and its derivatives.

Take things like fallen Planetars, which are still composed of the physical substance good, and exude an aura of good, but are massive cunts (which translates as Chaotic Evil).

>You can't go full batman but you can't go full punisher, you have to straddle the fence.

So you go Superman. Save human bad guys. Obliterate evil space gods.

>you still have evil humanoids and you can't kill them all
Is that a challenge?

Superman leans more towards full batman. He has the power to catch repeat offenders in the act and know they will not change, but he will just let the human authorities jail them again. Atleast batman cripples people and makes them fear running into then. Superman might catch you but he won't hurt you if you just give up.

Unless they are alien, like you pointed out.

>redeem evil
What the fuck are you guys talking about? When the party captures a serial rapist do you lock him up and roleplay the PCs giving him years of counselling and therapy then release him and hope he doesn't reoffend? What does "redeeming evil" even look like in the context of an RPG session?

Offer redemption but smite if declined

>When the party captures a serial rapist

Why is there a serial rapist in your magical realm

Fuck is this, France?

Its impossible. New people are born and become evil due to various factors (genetics, environs, parenting, etc) even if your omnipotent and can just kill all rapist in the same second.

Hopefully nobody is saying try to redeem everyone. Serial murderers that enjoy killing get the axe. Serial murderers that killed in self defense can be redeemed.

What are you doing to offer redemption? What specifically does your character do to help the mass murderer? Prison? That's not redemption since you're forcing him to go there or die. That's a selfish decision. How are you going to offer him absolution for all the people he killed?

We're talking about evil. Somebody who kills in self defence is the definition of neutral. This is an EVIL being not a troubled teen.

>Somebody who kills in self defence is the definition of neutral

Objectively false. Killing is wrong, and bad. Clearly there needs to be a stronger word, that defines how wrong and bad killing is.

I disagree. Killing in self defence is fine. Murder is bad.

Time to go full Hitler against those with negative karma

Context context context.

In the case of demons and undead? Smite evil and pray later. They can infect communities and take over minds to readily. They sow corruption and discord in their wake and self propagate.

If you see an individual struggling to be good who does evil, where redemption is possible and evil not a part of their weft and weave then yes, attempt. Try and try and try insofar as you believe it may succeed and they do not harm those you are charged to protect.

An individual who revels in misdeeds in whatever form? Offer them an opportunity, explain to them why and how you offer them it.

If they refuse, smite and pray.

That is however just my opinion. As many people in this world are as many examples of good, and of evil that you will find.

Redeem

Though this often makes for extremely boring and lame games. Use it sparingly in your sessions.

>D-don't kill plants guys! You'll be EVIL!

Redemption creates more total goodness in the world.
It is not always an option though, while smiting is.

Look at it this way: if you try and redeem evil and it doesn't work out, you can smite later and get one less evil. If you try and it does work out, there's one less evil but one more good, or at least neutral.

>A stronger word

You mean a word like badwrong? Or badong?

So...murder? But murder has a lot of implications behind it, where you can accidentally kill someone.

Smite.

Your GM will thank you. Taking enemies alive just wastes time, because the party will pump him for all kinds of irrelevant information. More, redemption plots are boring and tedious to play through.

Kill, and your GM will thank you.

Redemption is always a greater feat, but not necessarily as practical.
Practicality may rule that smiting is the proper course of action.

Call me old-fashioned, but I really dig the whole "save them before they can commit evil again" angle that GG goes for. Absolutely brutal.

I agree with you...

But that's not what he asked, he asked what was more good not more convenient.

On pure idealism redemption IS desireable. Trun bad guy good is both removing and evil and adding a good.

HOWEVER.

Repentence is never an excuse to forgive all past crimes. That's a holdover from the heel/face turn in wrestling where 90% of the fans can't remember more than three months of storyline anyway. AnitPaladin mass murderer falls to his knees weeping at the glory of goodness and gets redemeed, full level conversion and everything? Then gets executed for being mass murderer.

You've also got to take into account just how hard it is for a person to change. Addicts wont seriously seek help for their condition until they hit rock fucking bottom, and Evil chars can be expected to be at LEAST that hard to turn.

This is why Smiting is even a thing. Words alone are rarely enough.

>Serial murderers that killed in self defense

Depends on the evil. Trying to redeem Asmodeus is pointless. Smiting a mugger is also pointless.

>kills first person in self defense
>relatives or accomplices of first person wishes to kill first person for revenge
have you ever read any of humanity's history?

Redeem it, then smite it before it can backslide!

But if the point of smiting is to prevent backsliding, why not just smite everyone? No one is ever going to be perfect.

>No one is ever going to be perfect.
You don't understand simplistic objective morality meant for Good vs. Evil fantasy, do you?

I would say redeem it. Redemption is always the better alternative to death.

So if everyone is going to stay fixedly as they are, then there's no need to worry about backsliding and redemption isn't possible. Just Smite.

Redeeming the evildoer is better, except when they will not be deterred from their path that brings them to destruction.

If they are not deterred from their destructive path, then they need to be put down, to cure this sick world of the disease that they represent.

Plants did nuffin wrong

the evil cannot be redeemed, only the misguided
mercy and kindness shown to evil will be repaid only with betrayal