Is it justifiable to slay evil in it's infancy even if it hasn't committed any crimes?

Lesser evils are preferable than ignoring the issue.

By the color of it's skin or the shape of it's snout, or all the other signs.

Detect evil isn't that black and white though, there can be none, faint, moderate, strong, and overwhelming. In PF an evil non undead/outsider under level 5 won't show up under detect evil.

All of this can be fixed without the shitty alignment system.

>b-but it gives players an incentive to act out their characters!

Play with better players.

There's already the crime of "being a goblin"; so the punishment is timely.

Yes this is why abortion exists.

If it hasn't committed any crimes, how can it be evil?

because in certain DND-flavored settings, good and evil are objective forces that have their own energies associated with them. things can literally be born good or evil, and will be those for their entire lives with the rare exceptions.

Theoretically there should not be a problem with killing it if it's a creature that's inherently harmful, we do this shit with mosquitoes all the time, the problem is that almost no setting including D&D is entirely consistent about this, for example they keep telling you how wicked mind flayers are then the BoED comes along and presents you with a converted one.

>Is it justifiable to slay evil in it's infancy even if it hasn't committed any crimes?
Yes? we do it all the time to invasive/potentially harmful species.

In a setting where "evil" is a quantifiable thing and "evil" monsters exist, you fucking bet people would be completely justified exterminating them.

Yes, of course. Evil alignment is quantifiable, objective and tangible (detect evil, negative energy, etc etc etc etc etc). They are born evil. Someone moved to pity might try to arrange circumstances for them that can generate an alignment change event.

If you have a problem with that, you're playing the wrong game.

>born evil
What fucking setting are you in where people are born level 5 or higher?

When is it acceptable to not kill your enemies?

No, give them to the Church so they can be raised non-evil.

I was born into a world you may not undestand.

When you want them to lose?
>If you kill your enemies they win.

In Goblin Slayer's case, letting goblins at any age live is a mistake because they come back more cunning and devious than ever. They're objectively evil creatures and even a single one can create a new nest of goblins. There may be good ones, but since there's no way to tell them apart, you're better off just killing them all just to make sure.

>he hasn't learned the ancient Anglo-Saxon wisdom of American frontier lawmen or their kingly Briton ancestors as vouchsafed by Gary Gygax, the paladin preserver.

Nits make lice.

>Consider the following....

>ITT: Applying real world philosophy on morality to a tabletop dungeon delving simulator.

The short answer is that dnd and fantasy in general is and always has been a game meant to entertain. And like most modes of entertainment there usually should be a clear "good guy" and clear "bad guy". Orcs are evil because Tolkien needed villains. Drow are evil because Gygax wanted some behind-the-scenes sneaky murder elves Etc.

But the fantasy consensus has changed since then as we've had several decades of stories of "evil" race heroes like Drizz't or Ren and likeable neutrals like Deekin. The idea of evil cultures and not races is very much something that has been made entrenched in D&D for good long while.

What might have been cool in the 70's or 80's no longer is today. People are just a lot more weary of having inherent alignments as it some rather wonky morality like how it's made morally correct to put a pregnant gnoll to the sword 'to save their children's souls from becoming gnolls'
>Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable -- anything, that is, that the DM thinks should be changed... The purpose of these 'rules' is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them.

Nobody is forcing DMs to obey the vanilla lore. Whether it'll be fun to everyone who might sit at your table is what matters. When you start endorsing fantasy genocide because the lore says it's right and expecting everyone to take you seriously as a fellow player, you are severely limiting the sorts of people who are going to be comfortable sitting next to you in any context, dice and miniatures or no.

this question doesn't have to involve an alignment system

>"justice"
>"evil"
>"crimes"
lmao at ur characters

A newborn child hold's no sin.

Exactly, that's why they all go to hell if they die before baptism.

Oh, wait...

Play with different rules then

Ambiguous morality doesn't have a place in a setting where "good" and "evil" have definitive meanings and forces behind them. That's why the "baby x evil creature" problem is so fucking stupid.

Depends on whether or not the evil in question is inherently evil.

>evil
>hasn't committed any crimes

What?

tell that to the Catholics

If we’re talking objective knowledge here, yes. You don’t show mercy to weeds just because they haven’t choked out your garden yet.

Yes, it's called mercy

Not really. Everyone is born evil, good has to be taught.

Goblins are always evil in that setting. It doesn't matter how you raise them, how you treat them, how you work with them. they are hardwired to be evil. They will turn on you, rape you, and kill you. They cannot be civilized, they cannot live with other beings.

Yes, it is perfectly justified to kill these goblins.

All other cases depends on setting, just like this one, you stupid shitspamming moron.

Evil =/= Criminal. Good =/= Lawful. I thought we understood this.

Selfish=/=evil.

more specifically
selfish ⊂ evil

>Tell religious people their religious ideals are stupid and wrong
Breaking news

Well that's a fucking shit Detect Evil spell then, isn't it? I thought D&D concepts of good and evil were SUPPOSED to be fairly clean-cut.

Welcome to ttrpg's we try to make abstract concepts easy and clear cut but we always find a way to fuck it up.

Yes.

In dnd Selfish=evil

>what is Chaotic Neutral

People who want to play evil charactes

No. Because because we judge others by their action and not by their character. To do otherwise would make us no better than the beasts.

In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least it is true that man has no control; even over his own will.

I agree. And grown-up creatures that almost always end up with an evil alignment also hold no sin. They are evil because of their nature and should only be killed if their behavior harms creatures around them to an intolerable degree.

Don't hold a grudge against something that is naturally evil. If you kill it you are just doing what needs to be done, they didn't choose to be born as something that will turn into a monster because of their instincts.

So these goblin babies are already level 6? Holy shit, we need to kill them immediately!

So if someone is characterized as objectively evil, it means they are an objectivist?

yes

The difference is Hitler isn't inherently evil he is simple (presumably) fated to do evil acts.

Yes. If it wasn't inherently evil then you're not slaying evil.

...

Wait, what if killing evil kids will send their souls to *evil plane* and thus it makes evil outsiders more powerful?

t. retard

So, what about paladins that are that black-and-white if you're running a greyish morality tale? Would you pull the Veeky Forums trope of Paladin falls, or can you be justified as a humanocentric-, xenophobic- pally?

Then either communication wasn't clear in how the setting worked, or they are literally incapable of thinking of a paladin that isn't deus vult for one reason or another. Personally I'd talk to them and point out that whole they and their order may believe they are doing right, others might disagree completely and there maybe consequences for that.

Everyone, even gods, is answerable for all their deeds, and is being watched over by the great laws of cause, effect, distribution, and retribution, at all times and all places.

You will, definitely, answer for any evil deed, no matter who or what you are.

It may be in the present life, it may be in the next life, but it will, absolutely definitely will, happen.

At the same time, beings such as demons and devils, who are literally born from evil so intense it is a physical substance, they are a grayish exception area because killing them is technically releasing evil from physical existence, thus 'expending it' (it is gone afterward), so it isn't exactly the same as killing a goblin.

Make several orders with different ideas of "the right thing to do", but such code applies only to paladins. Also,
>grey morality
>only self-righteous fascists can be sure of anything ever

and the crime here is aiding evil

I'd probably have paladins not exist, at least not precisely as written in D&D.

Larger than 50 percent chance baby will grow up evil constitutes an evil baby.

The true Paladin engages in the Sisyphean task of trying to raise them to do good.

It's not morally justifiable, but it can be pragmatic

Follow with me here.
>Good and Evil are objective forces of the universe
>Good is better than evil.
>Free will means humanoids can freely choose Good or Evil
>Free Will is thus the ability to choose evil and is thus evil in and of itself
>Therefore, the greatest Good possible is to eradicate free will and prevent people from exercising it in any capacity
>Then, everyone will be Good and Orc Baby dillemmas will be meaningless
Who's with me?

>he doesn't purge the dungeon of every living thing before taking everything that isn't nailed down and destroying the rest

what magical realm is this

No because by that logic you simply change "the ability to choose good..." And all evil to good, good to evil and you have why Free will is good.

It's the reason why, in DnD at least, you can't charm a paladin, have them do evil and then they loose their powers because of it. They did not choose to do such, they were stripped of their free will and forced, therefore they can not be held accountable even if they feel regret over it. That same can be said for an evil being, I can bind it and force it to do good, that however doesn't actually empower good in the setting because it is done without free will.

>>Free Will is thus the ability to choose evil and is thus evil in and of itself
But it's also the ability to choose good, and thus is also good in and of itself. Acting on "evil in potentia" also strangles the potential for the individual to choose good, which is DEFINITELY evil.

Until someone commits an act of evil - or can be predicted with absolute 100% certainty to commit an act of evil i.e. a version of Minority Report where the precogs are always right and in perfect agreement - they're not evil YET and shouldn't be treated as such.

Assuming we're not working on Gygax's crazy "orcs are evil beause I said so" logic, that is.

Hit it with a large hammer. If it splatters, it was evil.

Hitler did nothing wrong you kike.

is the baby kike dilemma

>species has committed evil crimes through its existence
>no single confirmed good deed
>not justifiable to wipe them out
He is entirely justified to kill them by that alone, not even touching on his own personal motives

If the creature was spawned with resources gathered from evil acts, then it doesn't deserve to live.

>if it doesn't, use a larger hammer

That would be racist
We all know racists are wrong because reasons

Depends on the setting.

>it's never a crime just to exist.
is it a crime to make a bomb while near other people?
why wouldn't it be a crime to make a sentient bomb while near people?

>but the bomb has the purpose of killing, the sentient one doesn't.
the purpose of the bomb is to make an explosion, it just happens to kill people if there're certain circumstances, the same way the purpose of the sentient bomb is to live its life, it just happens it will kill people if there're certain circumstances
the creation of the bomb is criminous, the existence of the bomb is the crime.

>but then everything is a crime because everything is potentially dangerous.
people arbitrarily decide which degree of risks they are willing to put themselves into and create laws regulating what is and what is not criminous accordingly.

>so it is criminous because it is criminous, nice circular logic.
that's how it works, if you want to make a bomb, a sentient bomb or a goblin, go making it where it is not criminous doing it or convince people what you're making has a risk they shouldn't be worried about.

>what if it's criminous to do it everywhere and none wants to change?
sucks to be you, but I wonder how you ended up wanting to make it or why everyone decided against it in the first place.

It's still shit. Of course you can always invent reasons why clubbing babies to death is the righteous thing to do in the context of that particular setting but that doesn't make it any less edgy.

>What fucking setting are you in where people are born level 5 or higher?

What setting are you playing where you think the specific in setting rules apply universally?

In 5e they follow the moral relativist method of good and evil (aka the marxist cuck school of thought)

>good and evil are objective, and if you disagree you're a cuck

What a dumb faggot.

Yes. Orcs etc are inherently evil. Humans and other civilized races or whatever you call them have different natures.

Anyone with half a brain will arrive at the logical conclusion that good and evil have objective grounding.

Here we go again.
Depends on the setting.
Are you using a Gygaxian intrinsic morality system, where Good and Evil are more or less cosmic forces intrinsic to things/people? Then yes. Vampires/goblins/whatever are born innately Evil, and a Good person will kill them because Good is in diametric opposition to Evil.
If you're in a relativist system: then it depends on who's judging. If you're a paladin, and its your god judging, you better hope god's on your side.

You are right, it would take a halfwit to come up with that.
Anybody with a compete, working brain can see that morals vary over time, between cultures, and between individuals. It used to be that blacks in America were slaves, and that was all moral and fine, now most people would say that was immoral. Others still would want to go back to that way. In some places the Death Penalty is seen as a just punishment, and in other places it isn't. Some people have been kept in solitary confinement for decades, and nobody had any problem with it,but now the views on that are changing.

Having a set of morals is fine, it's fine, too, if they line up with the current consensus, but there are other viewpoints that are equally valid.

Oh boy, he doesn't even know the difference between ethics and morals and he is galloping into an argument about relativism like a 12 year old edgy atheist.

Hey user, can you offer any sound logical proofs demonstrating the objectivity of good and evil?
I'm afraid I must be missing half my brain. So are quite a few people, unfortunately. If you can do this, or you know somebody who can, I would suggest that you immediately present it to the Berggruen Institute and cash in your million dollar check. Of course, publishing it as a book would be far more lucrative.
Surely if you can jeer at those of us unfortunate to be trapped in the cave, you can also offer us some of your light.

If it's another race you are at war with it's expected.

Don't buy into the ''genocide is evil'' narative.
Without genocide nation-states are unable to form at all and society would remain at a perpetual feudal level.

First question, how do you know that it is evil ?

I wish we stayed in the 80s and 70s though. Imagine how cool things would be if they became hugely popular but kept the old themes and aesthetic instead of trying to be serious.

Who cares if it's justifiable, Imma do it anyway.

Only if you rape it. Then it’s ethical.

Add to that that the Alignment system was used as a guidline for in-character behaviour that got out of hand, and didn't start where it is now.