Is it an evil act to attack an evil race, conquer and enslave

>>53063435

The West generally considers the Crusades one of the Great Mistakes committed by their ancestors, so yes.

>>53063435
What game is this?

>>53063497
Age of Wonders 3, but I used it because I didn't have a better image. I would use Age 1 or 2.

In Age of Wonders 1 and 2 you could hold an evil race city and it would pay you tribute as long as you keep soldiers to prevent revolts.

It's usually better migrating in game for a friendly race, but in my OP scenario you literally occupied all the evil race territory so there is nowhere to migrate them to.

Enslaving them is definitely NE. Genocide is CG though.

>>53063486
Only because we didn't finish the job

File: 1463043320420.jpg (59KB, 500x618px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x618px

>>53063587
>genocide is chaotic good

>>53063609
This. So fucking this. It's also why it's going to turn into a shit storm if anyone ever invents a time machine.

>>53063435
Depends on whether "evil" is an objective cosmic force in your setting.

>>53063587
As weird as it sounds, this is correct if you use the standard objective morality.

>>53064931
Genocide is never good, regardless of who it is targeting because the method of targeting is based on genetics and not deeds. So, yes, killing millions of evil people who have done evil things is "good" by DnD standards, targeting them because by they are of a certain race is not.

>>53063587
>slavery is more evil than murder

Fucking americucks

>>53065364
>Dnd Good and Evil are objective.
>Entire Race of people is Neutral Evil
>it is a Good act to destroy Evil
>Genocide of entire Evil race is Good.

Remember, kill ALL the Goblins.

>>53065364
>is based on genetics and not deeds
>race literally has genes making them assholes
Ebin.

>>53065429
Give me liberty or give me death.
etc etc etc

>>53063435
>Is it an evil act to attack an evil race, conquer and enslave it to ensure they won't attack other races anymore?

Yes, it's lawful evil.
If you wanted it to be "good", you'd only enslave/eat/rape the war criminals and get to work culturally indoctrinating/assimilating the survivors into your superior culture.

>>53063587
Genocide is Neutral Evil: as an animal, your instinct tells you to rape, kill, and eat the competition, but it's your sapience that gives you the drive to deliberately take it too far and completely remove them.

>>53064796

>Liberals flock back to document the poor innocent and peaceful Muslims of the Middle East before the Crusades came
>Get seized in Jerusalam because they're European
>Suffer endless tortures and suffering
>The few who survive manage to flee back to Christendom by way of Rome
>Word reaches the Pope of the sufferings these people have endured
>Pope calls for a great Crusade to liberate the Holy Lands

>>53065907
>Genocide is Neutral Evil
>Removing a race that is objectively evil, who only knows how to kill and rape and literally generates evil power from just their existence is evil because I said so

>>53063435
No.

>>53065995
It's the act, not the victim. There's something wrong if you judge the morality of your actions on who you do them to

>>53063486
Only in retrospect. Though it would be fair to say that even the crusaders would've found the idea of literally genociding all the muslims (rather than just destroying the religion itself) evil, but that's different from the question in the OP where muslims are still at the core human, just like the rest of us, hard as that may be to admit. Would be different for an objectively evil race, the murdering of which would be a good thing almost no matter what.

>>53066050

>It's the act
>killing is bad
>except when it's an evil bloodthirst monster tp spare lives, then it's good through
>killing a lot of evil monsters to spare lives is good too
>killing all evil monsters to spare lives is bad however
Yeah, no.

>>53066050
That's retarded. The act isn't what matters; it's why you do it. Otherwise... nothing would make sense. Like, taxing people to pay for only beneficial things that in the long run help absolutely everyone would be an EVIL act, because it's taking money from someone against their will under the pain of imprisonment or death. Or, euthanasia would be evil. You'd rather keep someone whose entire existence is immutable suffering alive than kill them to end their suffering, because killing is always an evil act. Or, giving birth (presumably?) is always a good act, so giving birth to, like, an army of super-powered demons whose all-encompassing need is purely to impose as much misery upon the rest of the existence as possible.

You'd have to be insanely stupid to think that makes sense.

Of course, it's a really EASY way to conceptualize the world, so I can see why it'd be appealing to said insanely stupid people.

>>53066119
Killing sapient creatures is bad outside of immediate self defence, don't pretend genocide is good because "they deserve it"

>>53066178
Give me a scenario in which genocide is unquestionably good

>>53066192
>killing a black or red dragon is bad if he isn't torching a city at the moment
Yeah, no. Take your bullshit subjective morality to your subjective settings.

>>53066211
Not him, but wiping all 5e gnolls.

>>53065969
>The few who survive manage to flee back to Christendom by way of Rome
>Get executed for being heretics and approving of homosexuality and general freedom
Fix'd.

>>53066264
Are gnolls in 5e "always evil" like demons? If the answer is "no", then genociding them is evil because they still have the capacity for good, even if said capacity is severely underutilized.

>>53063486
>The West generally considers the Crusades one of the Great Mistakes committed by their ancestors
Bullllllllllllll shit. No the West does not think that.
>>>/pol/

>>53066119
Self defense is fine. Preemptive self defense can also be fine if you can actually prove there is an imminent threat. Initiating force against beings capable of moral reasoning just because they could maybe do bad things at some point in the future is not fine.

Unless these monsters aren't sapient, or they are walking Evilbots who can't act in any way besides imposing their evil on others, there isn't a valid excuse for an unprovoked attack on them.

>>53066331
*xenociding, rather.

Hell, even the Wiggin knew what he did was evil, and it haunted him for decades, even though he was basically engaged in a war of extinction.

>>53066239
Killing a black dragon because you were tasked to do it is okay, because the quest is almost invariably given because the black dragon attacked and killed someone, or is destroying peoples' livelihood for selfish reasons.

Killing a black dragon because you entered its dungeon is less good, but still not BAD because it decided to kill you instead of demanding that you leave.

>>53066331
Yes, but even if not:

>wiping a 99,99% evil race is bad because the 0,01% could be good
Nope. You are completely justified in removing a race that is a danger to all others.

File: 56465131.jpg (198KB, 1980x1080px)

198KB, 1980x1080px

>>53063435
>attack
It's always evil to initiate a war.

>conquer
It's not evil to win a war.

>enslave
Pic related.

>>53066354
>there isn't a valid excuse to attack creatures who are always murdering others because they haven't done it yet
No.

>>53066368
Even if a black dragon demanded you to leave you would be justified in killing it, since it's an actual evil creature that produces evil karma.

>>53065995
>>Removing a race that is objectively evil, who only knows how to kill and rape and literally generates evil power from just their existence is evil because I said so

The factory setting for every living creature is "kill and rape", anon.

>>53066431
>It's always evil to initiate a war.
Wrong. It's good to initiate a war for the right reasons, such as protecting innocents.

>>53066434
>there isn't a valid excuse to attack creatures who are always murdering others because they haven't done it yet
>No.

So they're walking Evilbots and not actually thinking beings then?

>>53066386
No. You are justified in removing the ones who are an active danger to goodly peoples. Tribes bordering civilization and whatnot, and only if they are an active danger. If they're just minding their own business and you decide to roll in and wipe them out because lol gnolls, that is evil.

>>53066450
The factory setting for every living creature is "do nothing unless hungry or threatened". Malice only comes in when you start to give it more complex instincts and wants.

>>53066450
>The factory setting for every living creature is "kill and rape", anon.
Is this true to high elves?

>>53066459
They think but they think in doing evil, because their biology makes them evil.

>>53066459

>>53063435
How many times has Afghanistan been invaded?

>>53066476
>If they're just minding their own business and you decide to roll in and wipe them out because lol gnolls, that is evil.
>Because they still haven't raped and devoured a little kid, even through they would love to do so and didn't have the opportunity to do so
Lolno.

>>53063486
Your corrupt, history revising mongreloid college proffessors might claim that garbage, but everyone who's not a faggot knows the crusades were justified and should have been taken 100x as far.

>>53065429

> we wuz free

>>53066488
>They think but they think in doing evil, because their biology makes them evil.
That isn't how morality works. A being is either capable of moral reasoning or it isn't. If it is capable of moral reasoning then it's entitled to the same rights as every other morally responsible being on the planet.

>>53065364
Also horseshit, because wiping out a pest isn't evil. It's enivronmental maintenance.

>>53066331
>"always evil" like demons
the closest thing in the prime material to a demon, really. Goodness id literally a sickness.

>>53066513
Thought policing is an evil act. Only the gods can predict the future and, in most settings, even they are usually shit at it.

>>53066544
Suppose the orcs think the same way of humans? Then what would make the orcs any more wrong than us?

>>53066542
>A being is either capable of moral reasoning or it isn't. If it is capable of moral reasoning then it's entitled to the same rights as every other morally responsible being on the planet.
The being is capable of moral reasoning but prefers to biologically do the things that's is evil, because it feels joy in doing evil. Ergo no, it's not like every other being and thus doesn't deserve the same rights.

>>53066513
Lolyes.

What you're advocating is Orwellian Thought-Crime bullshit. If killing someone is ok because they had a badthink that you don't approve of, then I'm equally justified in killing you because I disapprove of your badthink about killing people who engage in badthink.

>>53066562
It wouldn't make them more wrong than us. Now, you're seeing my point. Morality does not factor. All that matters is survival in said instances of wars of genocide. Applying morality is how a species or sub-species commits suicide, which is what is currently happening to the west.

>>53066211

Tumblr becomes a full fledged culture

From the Book of Vile Darkness.

THE OBJECTIVE APPROACH
This is the straightforward approach taken in the D&D
game, and it is the one stressed in this book as well. From
this frame of reference, evil can be judged objectively. The
evil nature of a creature, act, or item isn’t relative to the
person observing it; it just is evil or it isn’t. This clear-cut
definition allows spells such as holy smiteto work.
Conversely, an objective definition of evil exists because
the detect evil spell works. Want to know what’s evil?
Don’t study a philosophy book, just watch who gets
hurt when the cleric casts holy smite. Those creatures
are evil. The things they do, generally speaking, are
evil acts. If your character still isn’t certain, he can
summon a celestial creature or cast a communespell
and simply ask, “Is this evil?” The higher powers are
right there, ready to communicate.
The Player’s Handbook says, “ ‘Evil’ implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and
kill without qualm if doing so is convenient.
Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or
out of duty to some evil deity or master.”
This objective approach to evil works well for
fantasy roleplaying games. Evil is a thing that a
hero can point at and know he must fight. An
objective concept of evil allows players (and
their characters) to avoid most ethical or moral
quandaries, particularly the kinds that can
derail a game session. If you run an adventure
about fighting gnolls, you don’t normally want
the entire session consumed by a philosophical
debate about whether killing gnolls is a good
thing or a bad thing.

>>53066555
>Thought policing is an evil act.
Genetic objective facts and literally oozing bad karma aren't through.

Also good gods approve the destruction of evil.

>>53066570
Where does it say this is the case?

>>53066570
>>53066595
I bet you think muslims are also biologically inclined to evil.

>>53066578
>I'm incapable of seeing the difference between a chaotic evil race and a neutral one
>having a clear and objective tendency to evil is just a badthink
Not how it works fag.

>>53063486
Most people who know anything about the crusades in the west know that they're an extremely varied set of cases. Christians had definite grievances but a lot of 'crusading' turned into invading and fucking up other Christian nations anyway, because Christendom was not monolithic.

>>53063609
>>53064796
>>53066521
t. people who know nothing about history, religion, or sociology.

>>53066605
Are you saying that dark elves don't enjoy doing evil? Go read your DnD books.

>>53066657
>Are you saying that dark elves don't enjoy doing evil?

No. Are you saying this is biological rather than cultural? If so, then what is Drizzt?

>>53066621
I'm not one of the /pol/fags so completely irrelevant.

>>53066640
t. A man who pretends to know and understand any of those subjects just to score brownie points with sjws and attempt to get laid by spewing what is classified as the "correct" answer.

>>53066570
Preference is not an act. You don't get to attack someone because of hypotheticals that exist only in their head. If they're actually attacking people or planning to attack people then sure, but just because they have an impulse to do so doesn't mean they have to act on that impulse.

>>53066583

> definitions of evil exist to not derail entire sessions

Yet here we are, going full autismo-9000

>>53066657
Drow are explicitly evil due to social and religious norms in their environment. If they weren't, they wouldn't be capable of changing - which they can, according to canon.

You're free to change this in your campaigns, of course.

File: 27521[1].jpg (74KB, 640x349px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x349px

>>53063435
well you see, I saw this evil guy.
so I attacked him, conquered him.
Then locked him up in my basement.
but you see, he's not attacking anyone any more.

>>53063435
as long as you don't mind when someone dose it to you for the same reasons

>>53066705
Typically it's within context of a game where gnolls are actively attacking and raiding and doing stuff, and you get to fight back and beat them up until they stop.

Generally speaking, most games will stop there rather than keep going until every single gnoll is dead. I suspect many in this thread would not agree.

>>53066673
>No. Are you saying this is biological rather than cultural?
If babies tick on detect evil.

>If so, then what is Drizzt?
A token character created to go against the previous concrete race persona, which would fall into the 0,01% figure I mentioned earlier.

>>53066622
Exactly how it works. If a thinking being is just minding it's own business it's morally wrong to attack it. As long as it has the capacity to choose not to do evil and is not engaging in evil, you don't get to preemptively fuck their shit up.

I know 100% for a fact that my neighbor would LIKE to punch me in the face, but that doesn't give me the right to go burn down his house because he's not currently doing it or planning to do it.

>>53066683
>Preference is not an act
Because there wasn't the chance.

>You don't get to attack someone because of hypotheticals that exist only in their head.
Except that those are very concrete hypotheticals on the setting.

>>53066682
If I were looking to score 'brownie points' with SJWs, I wouldn't say they were varied, but that they were bad in their totality. The truth of the crusades is, like most things in history, complicated. There were legitimate reasons for people to go to war, but there were also a lot of people that weren't exactly in it for those reasons.

The fact is, you're a complete retard if you think taking the crusades further would have been better. There'd have been more loss of life, more loss of learning and literature, etc. Not to mention, taking them further would likely have ruined the economies of most western nations involved.

If you're not prepared to look at history with a rational, objective eye, keep your opinions on it to yourself.

>>53065969
>Get seized in Jerusalem because they're European
Are you stupid? The Orientals couldn't care less about some (peaceful) Euros.

>>53066741
>If babies tick on detect evil.

Well, I haven't seen any evidence on this in any books anywhere, one way or the other. Feel free to draw your own interpretations.

>A token character created to go against the previous concrete race persona, which would fall into the 0,01% figure I mentioned earlier.

There are several others I could name in canon - Liriel (or something) Baenre, Solaufein, Zaknafein, possibly Jarlaxle.

>>53066706
They are evil because they were originally fallen elves.

It was changed later, and even so it's doesn't change they are still chaotic evil.

>>53063486
Only really in modern times because of the general masturbating of Muslims by mainstream politicians.

Daily reminder, Muslims attacked first.

>>53066785
>They are evil because they were originally fallen elves.

So? The fact that an elf can fall means a drow can rise.

Or are you saying it only works one way?

>>53066772
There's also Viconia, who can be changed from Neutral Evil to True Neutral through the power of godly dickings and dialogue tree aftercare.

>>53066742
>If a thinking being is just minding it's own business it's morally wrong to attack it.
Because you said so?

>As long as it has the capacity to choose not to do evil and is not engaging in evil, you don't get to preemptively fuck their shit up.
Except that no, people shouldn't be kept in fear because 'maybe that red dragon won't burn your village like his other 99% brethren'.

>I know 100% for a fact that my neighbor would LIKE to punch me in the face, but that doesn't give me the right to go burn down his house because he's not currently doing it or planning to do it.
Oh yeah that's exactly what it means to be chaotic evil.

>>53066772
Outliers do not dictate the norm.

>>53066829
It's enough to dictate it is not a biological urge.

>>53066768
>Except that those are very concrete hypotheticals on the setting.

So Gnolls are not thinking beings capable of making choices? Are they actually Evil elementals? Demons/Devils? Spiritual beings of some sort that are incapable of acting against their nature?

An Evil race descriptor on a biological race is merely an expression of a general trend. It does not turn them into unthinking automata that can't act in any way besides Evil, any more than nominally Good races/cultures are incapable of doing Neutral/Evil.

>>53066772
>Well, I haven't seen any evidence on this in any books anywhere, one way or the other.
Red dragon whelps are chaotic evil.

>There are several others I could name in canon
>Names compared to entire races
>riding the previous popular character
Yes, 0,01%. Thanks for agreeing.

>>53066846
In 5e, gnolls are exactly that.

>>53066829
But they do indicate that the species is not inherently evil. Because if they were, these individuals wouldn't exist.

If evil was literally in their DNA, it would be impossible for them to change alignment. But they do change alignment, and have done quite a few times in canon. So your entire argument can go fuck itself.

Here I'll make it easy for people

Take the Drow

We know for a fact because of Drizzt and the good surface Drow that often exist that they are capable of being the various kinds of Good

Genocide is Evil because as a part it you would kill the Drow who have done nothing but be born a Drow

Drow Paladin?

Dead

Drow baby who hasn't done any?

Doesnt matter their Dead!

Genocide is Evil simple as that

>>53066802
>So? The fact that an elf can fall means a drow can rise.
Cool. We are gonna wait until the drows choose to arise. That does seem smart.

>Or are you saying it only works one way?
Sure, they have the time to arise before the army comes to fuck them up. If they arise before them they no problem.

>/pol/acks think muslims and niggers are objectively and biologically evil
>now argue for this same fact in fantasy where it actually says so in the books

Why are you people bothering to engage them at all? Leave them to their own devices. Sage.

>>53066730
Gnolls live to murder and eat.
They reproduce through slaughter.
Literal demonspawn.
There is one Good Gnoll, and he is sorry for being so.
Poor Kurr
>>53066846
Yes.
It requires demonic mindbreaking to change it.

We're mixing up individualist philosophies with larger scale morality here.
As an individual, there is no inherent "Good" in killing an evil creature, the act is only "Good" if it stopped or prevented Evil acts, otherwise it's probably neutral. There are plenty of cases where creatures are evil by nature but are unlikely to commit significant Evil acts, and divine judgement does not always work as a copout. If this is unclear, consider the very simple example of taking your Paladin to a pocket dimension full of zombies chilling out. They're evil creatures no doubt, but they're locked in a pocket plane and threaten literally no one. They're incapable, in this case, of Evil acts. Killing them is simply neutral. This is a pretty cherry picked example but it should illustrate that even when morality is cosmically black and white, it isn't.
Now the question was about attacking an en entire evil race that presumably did hold some direct threat of Evil acts, bearing in mind that a civilization or army's alignment does not mean the same thing as an individual's. The OP suggests the race in question is common aggressors. It can probably be tipped by more factors, but the large scale war would be made of a lot of Good and Neutral, and perhaps a sprinkling of Evil actions. Slavery is evil mate. Genocide shifts everything further down that scale, and most likely is an overall Neutral act. Again, the individuals participating may get more of one act or another, and especially in the case of Genocide some of them probably did some evil things to take out "eviler" creatures, but the lesser of two evils is still evil.

>>53066846
>So Gnolls are not thinking beings capable of making choices?
What part of: I could choose to do good but I prefer evil because I enjoy evil did you miss?

>An Evil race descriptor on a biological race is merely an expression of a general trend.
Yes, this is why it was 'Always Chaotic Evil'.

>>53066846
Gnolls actually are like that in 5e. Which is why 5e gnolls are retarded.

But you're right in most other cases.

>>53066870
Addendum: such extremes, "I did what I had to do" etc., have always been evil according to the books.

>>53066817
>Because you said so?
Because reciprocal rights are the basis of ethics. If a moral agent is not violating your rights in some way, you don't get to attack it no matter how good of a reason you think you've cooked up.

>Except that no, people shouldn't be kept in fear because 'maybe that red dragon won't burn your village like his other 99% brethren'.
You can defend your village in ways besides preemptively initiating force against beings that have done nothing wrong.

>Oh yeah that's exactly what it means to be chaotic evil.
For a non-supernatural or supernaturally empowered being that's exactly what it means. Mortals have the capacity to choose, which means they have the capacity to act outside their alignment or even change their alignment.

>>53066865
Then that's an entirely different discussion. If that is true, then killing one is no different than killing an unthinking killer robot.

The premise of moral discussions is that both parties are capable of morality. If a being MUST act a certain way then it isn't capable of morality.

>>53066846
>>53066937
Wait, no.
Gnolls actively look and choose the most evil path.

>>53066870
>Genocide is Evil because as a part it you would kill the Drow who have done nothing but be born a Drow
Except that being born a drow already puts it as a huge threat to every other neutral and good natured race, we don't take actions based on exceptions we take actions based on the main problem. So it's a good action to remove it for the protection of other people.

>>53066949
Only in 5e. In earlier editions they have a choice.

>>53066890

Book of Exalted Deeds says killing is at best a Neutral Act I believe

Redeeming them to Good is best Good Act if I remember right

>>53066960
It is a neutral act at best. It says so in every book that's ever bothered to put this thing down.

You're as objectively wrong as you could be.

>>53066967
Book of Vile Darkness says that killing evil to stop evil is good, but killing evil just because is neutral, even if the killer is evil too.

>>53066640
>people who know nothing about history, religion, or sociology.

This is most historians desu, they encourage modern day biases in their publishing, judging ancient peoples with a modern lens is to a historian as a clickbait article is to actual news. It's entertaining to claim muh noble minorities as a historian, but we seriously need to consider stopping this trend when average people are taking it as fact.

>>53066907
>Because reciprocal rights are the basis of ethics.
Reciprocal rights are only for creatures of human morality, ie neutral or good.

>You can defend your village in ways besides preemptively initiating force against beings that have done nothing wrong.
Oh yeah we will risk people dying with less effective ways because someone may get butthurt. Sorry no, that's not the right way to deal with things.

>For a non-supernatural or supernaturally empowered being that's exactly what it means. Mortals have the capacity to choose, which means they have the capacity to act outside their alignment or even change their alignment.
Except that doesn't change the fact they have a biological and spiritual factor that puts them in a tendency for evil. Sorry.

Why don't we ask our gods in our games and be done with it?

>>53066978
>you are objective wrong
>it's not evil anymore, now I will argue it's neutral
Except that if you read those books defeating evil creatures are good deeds.

>>53066996
>Reciprocal rights are only for creatures of human morality, ie neutral or good.

You speak as if humans couldn't be evil.

>Oh yeah we will risk people dying with less effective ways because someone may get butthurt. Sorry no, that's not the right way to deal with things.

According to the books, it is. You're not being good-aligned.

>Except that doesn't change the fact they have a biological and spiritual factor that puts them in a tendency for evil

Spiritual in case of a god, from which they can be converted away. Cultural in case of nurture, from which they can be educated. Biological in case of you talking completely out of your ass, to which we really can do nothing at all.

>>53067007
Why waste a spell slot on Commune when we can spend 6 hours arguing with the GM?

>>53067011
>defeating evil creatures are good deeds

Only if they're actually up to something. If you just go in and pre-emptively murder a village of gnolls that's been only minding its own business, you're being neutral, not good.

>>53066949
>>53066966
I can't look this up myself so bear with me, but is that actually an inescapable compulsion or is it merely a strongly enforced cultural norm?

If it's the former then by all means slaughter every last one of the little shits, but if it's the latter then it still doesn't give you the right to initiate unprovoked aggression (though you should probably fortify the shit out of your border with them).

>>53067031
Cast Commune and argue with your god instead.

>>53067035
When are evil creatures not up to something? If they aren't doing evil right this instant, then they're just planning to do evil later.

>>53067018
>You speak as if humans couldn't be evil.
Humans cannot be 'always chaotic evil'. Humans are neutral.

>According to the books, it is. You're not being good-aligned.
Except that no, paladins for example are allowed to execute outlaws on the spot. Go check that article from one of the creators of DnD.

>Spiritual
Yeah, except that they have been touched by those evil gods since birth.

>Cultural
Yeah, he will pick a thousand orc babies and try to teach them not to rape. Good idea.

>Biological
Oh right? Explain to me how Orks in WH40k are not biologically violent?

GG.

>>53066960

potentially yes

Like I said Drizzt and like are Good

They have the ability to Choose and so killing before they can choose Good or Evil because they "Could Be" a threat is Evil

File: YEENOGHU.jpg (436KB, 1536x1850px)

436KB, 1536x1850px

>>53067048
Compulsion.
They are demonically empowered and mutated hyenas.

File: gnolls.png (969KB, 676x948px)

969KB, 676x948px

>>53067048
In 5e it's the former, in earlier editions it's the latter. You're perfectly free of creating a neutral or even good-aligned gnoll character.

>>53067035
>If you just go in and pre-emptively murder a village of gnolls that's been only minding its own business
That's a good act too, since they are evil creatures. Get it?

>>53067068
Then prove it. If that is true then it shouldn't be a challenge.

>>53066866
Actually, it doesn't disagree at all with what I'm saying. Even the inherently evil can act in ways that go contrary to what is perceived as evil, because there is more than one kind of evil. What you might perceive as good, or changing, may very well be just a temporary survival strategy of an otherwise evil creature to blend in. You'll see outright sociopaths do this in society on a daily basis.

>>53066982

It's been awhile I'd have to read them again

>>53067088
>That's a good act too, since they are evil creatures. Get it?

No, it is not. It's a neutral act, since you were killing them for no reason. Once fucking again, IT SAYS SO IN THE BOOKS.

>>53067072
>They have the ability to Choose and so killing before they can choose Good or Evil because they "Could Be" a threat is Evil
Which doesn't change the fact that wiping their evil race would protect the world far more than keeping them doing evil in the 1d10000 chance they roll a good character.

>>53067088
No, he is right, it's only neutral.
The goodness only comes in if you are actively stopping an evil act.

>>53067048
They are like other evil creatures like hags. Evil is good to them. This is socially imposed, but when your God is a literal demon riding around on a throne of skulls pulled by millions of slaves, they don't really have much choice do they?

>>53067069
>Yeah, except that they have been touched by those evil gods since birth.

So? You can be locked away by some weirdass Amish cult since birth, but you can break free and learn actual goodness.

>Yeah, he will pick a thousand orc babies and try to teach them not to rape. Good idea.

If you start from infancy it'll be even easier. Orc babies raised like humans, perhaps outright as humans, will be fine.

>Oh right? Explain to me how Orks in WH40k are not biologically violent?

40k =/= D&D.

>>53067111
>No, it is not. It's a neutral act, since you were killing them for no reason.
>no reason
Killing them because they tingle on detect evil is a good reason. Your divine magic wouldn't tingle on them just because.

>>53067035

I am Very sure that people that haven't done anything is Evil in Dnd

>>53067069
This man gets it

>Thread being this /pol/

What the fuck happened to you /tg/?
You used to know your history and have civilized and educated discussions about the most gruesome topics without sucking anyone's dick. You cited sources, pointed at errata and presented more than one perspective in the same post.

Imma dissapointed, you're going to get a bunch of semi decent threads closed, soon we won't be able to discuss anything anymore.

>>53067151
Detect Evil also works on evil humans. If you whip it up in the middle of the city and some commoner pings as evil, would you be justified in immediately striking him down?

>>53067143
>So?
So they are full of evil energy, and removing evil energy is good.

>If you start from infancy it'll be even easier.
You are a retard if you think any society would spend resources to try to reform a race who will like 90% of the time betray you later.

>40k =/= D&D.
>I cannot argue so I will dismiss it
GG. Okay, so tell me how Red or Black dragon whelps aren't biologically evil.

>>53067178
>Detect Evil also works on evil humans.
Yes, if they are followers of an evil religion or at least level 5, a feat reserved for clearly not average people. Are you retarded?

>>53066673
By drow standards, a mentally ill sociopath.

File: Book of Exalted Deeds.pdf (4MB, 1x1px)

4MB, 1x1px

You guys are arguing in circles, when the actual Rules for what is and is not an evil act are perfectly clear.

Book of Exalted Deeds, page 10:
>Violence cannot be considered good when it is directed against noncombatants (including children and the females of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the noncombatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless.
Ergo, genocide is evil because it is an evil act to kill someone just because they are evil, when they are otherwise not a threat.

That's the genocide issue. On OP's original question, regarding enslaving the evil creatures, Book of Exalted Deeds page 11 says:
>Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil.

In fact, even the war itself might be an evil act, if the evil creatures have not been causing trouble. Book or Exalted Deeds page 9 says:
>In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation—the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm.

In short, you all cannot resolve your argument unless there is a basis for it. Go to the books, they're clear enough on what is evil and what is not.

>>53067193
>So they are full of evil energy, and removing evil energy is good.

That's only undead and demons. Monstrous humanoids, even evil ones, aren't so soaked up in evil you couldn't redeem them.

>You are a retard if you think any society would spend resources to try to reform a race who will like 90% of the time betray you later.

Irrelevant. The point is that it can be done, and if it can be done, an attempt must be made.

My paladin will take up the task himself if he must. And he will succeed.

>I cannot argue so I will dismiss it

Again, 40k =/= D&D

>Okay, so tell me how Red or Black dragon whelps aren't biologically evil.

I'm not going to, because Red and Black dragons start with most of the required knowledge and motivation from birth. You'd be perfectly correct in describing them as near-objectively evil.

Orc infants do not share that trait, any more than human ones.

>>53067193
You have to remember anon, these people come from the kind of background where throwing billions of dollars into helping parasites is viewed as morally just and inherently good.

>>53067114

What would be even better would be to have the Good Drow lead a revolution and punch Lolth in the face

File: Kzerza.gif (84KB, 485x213px)

84KB, 485x213px

>>53063435

It is compliant with the Path of Now and Forever.

>>53067156
Some of us are unironically quoting the BoVL and BoED.

Also, from Volos.
>Gnolls embody the dark urges of Yeenoghu, the demon lord of slaughter and senseless destruction. Although Yeenoghu has been defeated and cast back into the Abyss more than once, gnolls continue to pursue his horrid, apocalyptic vision of a world transformed into a barren, empty ruin, with only the decaying corpses of the last few surviving gnolls left to mark its passing.

>>53067246
>Go to the books, they're clear enough on what is evil and what is not.

Nah, it's so much more fun to argue with no facts.

>>53067281
>Some of us are unironically quoting the BoVL and BoED.
>I don't like that source because it doesn't support my facts. Better cherrypick for something that agrees with me!

Are you an antivaxxer? A flat-earther, perhaps, or a gamergater?

>>53067246
Right but the OP mentioned the evil race acting as aggressors to other races, so entering the war as a protector is not evil.

>>53067300
What the fuck?
I said it as a good thing, you chucklefuck.

>>53067247
>That's only undead and demons. Monstrous humanoids, even evil ones, aren't so soaked up in evil you couldn't redeem them.
They are still soaked in evil and removing them = removing evil.

>Irrelevant.~
Completely relevant. Who is going to pay for that, you?

>The point is that it can be done, and if it can be done, an attempt must be made.
Not when it would force other people into your delusions.

>My paladin will take up the task himself if he must. And he will succeed.
Or end raped by orcs. Like he deserves for thinking being good == being a dumbass.

>Again, 40k =/= D&D
Which doesn't change canonically biological evil races can exist.

>I'm not going to, because Red and Black dragons start with most of the required knowledge and motivation from birth.
So a red dragon who came from an egg would not tingle evil? Nope.

>Orc infants do not share that trait, any more than human ones.
They do share this trait depending on book. You know, there is a reason why PCs were half-orcs.

>>53067178
If you're chaotic good and in the mood to, sure.

>>53067247
>The point is that it can be done, and if it can be done, an attempt must be made.
You're half-right in the worst way possible. Just because (pre-5e) Gnolls aren't inherently evil doesn't mean it's a moral imperative to attempt to help them. If they want to jack off in Gnoll land enacting mutual evil on other Gnolls then it's nobodies business what they choose to do to each other on their land.

File: Murder - BoVD.png (76KB, 308x357px)

76KB, 308x357px

>>53067247
>You'd be perfectly correct in describing them as near-objectively evil.
>near
Not really.

File: Frostburn.pdf (7MB, 1x1px)

7MB, 1x1px

>>53067316

Yes, of course entering the war as a protector is fine. It is not the same thing as "conquer and enslave it", which is what OP actually said.

>>53067323
>They are still soaked in evil and removing them = removing evil.

Only, again, if they're up to something. Going out on your way to destroy a gnoll camp not doing anything right now is neutral - it says so in all the books, as has been pointed out, yet you still argue, even against all the facts. Are you even serious?

>Who is going to pay for that, you?

Sure.

>Not when it would force other people into your delusions.

They can be convinced without forcing anything. We merely disagree with you on a personal level - there are no objective facts here.

>Or end raped by orcs. Like he deserves for thinking being good == being a dumbass.

An orc raised in goodness from infancy is no more likely to rape someone than a human raised the same way.

>Which doesn't change canonically biological evil races can exist.

In 40k, maybe, but that still says nothing about D&D.

>So a red dragon who came from an egg would not tingle evil? Nope.

He probably would. I was agreeing with you.

>They do share this trait depending on book. You know, there is a reason why PCs were half-orcs.

Care to point us one? We've brought up the Book of Exalted Deeds so far - it contains a redeemed illithid, even. I can't recall any book that says orcs are objectively evil.

>>53065429
If you catch a burglar in your house, it's okay to kill him in defense. Not so much to chain him up in the basement as a slave.

>>53067178
What do you mean by "striking him down"?
If you mean take the lethal option, that's a shitty way to make your character Fall if there are evil characters around with access to Misdirection.
If you mean a confrontation and investigation, you're probably in the solid.

>>53067424
It's probably okay to kill him since you're trying to defend yourself and don't have much time to think. But if you manage to subdue him, then further going on to enslave him is certainly a thought that you must consider, therefore evil.

When you have a while to think about this whole thing beforehand, like in the case of an army about to go beat up some gnolls, these two lines become muddled.

>>53067433
In 5e, there is a good chance that's a cambion.
Now it only pings on Cosmic evil.

>>53066682
This.

>>53067433
>If you mean take the lethal option, that's a shitty way to make your character Fall if there are evil characters around with access to Misdirection.

Why'd you be less justified to outright kill an evil-pinging human than you would be an evil-pinging gnoll?

>>53067100
Except we know from am objective standpoint that these characters go through an alignment change.

Try harder.

>>53067470
Nah, he's got a point.

Even if you -don't- go through an alignment change, you can sociopathically just sort of pretend you're good, do less evil and even help others on account of it bringing you aid as well.

That's all the less reason to outright murder them, even if they still ping as evil.

There is a difference between killing and murder. Every culture throughout history has understood this. Killing can be anything from slaying a combatant on the battlefield, to enacting an execution on the righteously condemned, to defending yourself from an attacker in an alleyway. But murder can never be just killing, murder is always evil and it always comes from an evil intent.

Killing should be a last resort, but when it's time for that last resort it should be handed out humanely and swiftly and without hesitation and you should know that you had no other choice.

t. paladin

Also side note, shoot first ask questions later doesn't really fly when you're a paladin unless Shiv McDaggers comes at you outside of the tavern at night and you have no choice but self defense. You better make sure you have the questions answered before a field execution, but there's a reason paladins aren't just detect good and evil robots and have tools to interrogate and make sure their information is solid.

>>53067512
True, I'll link you to the snippet of BoVD about Murder. >>53067390

File: Complete Divine.pdf (8MB, 1x1px)

8MB, 1x1px

D&D orcs aren't even an "evil race". They are only "often" chaotic evil. As the Monster manual explains, this means that
>A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.

>>53067537
Where are you getting all this >10mb books?

>>53067536

And I'll link you to the BoED's snippet about killing.
>>53067246

The BoVD is right in the general sense, that killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act, killing an evil creature that is a noncombatant or without provocation is an evil act no matter how evil your victim is.

>>53067587
I just linked you if anyone wanted to know more.

>>53066987
Did that post say anything about noble minorities?

Did it imply that Muslims were 'right' or that the Christian were 'wrong'?

Your overexposure to tumblr is causing you to see their arguments and assume their presence everywhere. Most well regarded historian have a much more balanced view than the one you believe they possess.

A bunch of clickbait articles on the internet by poorly educated tumblrites do not represent the intellectual community at large.

>>53067605
So did I.

>>53067551
They probably fell off a truck.

>>53067551

Some of the OEFs are like that, in their original form unbodified. Most aren't, but the ones that are, I post.

>>53063435
No, but it's an evil act to create a fucking setting with "evil races" in them nonironically

>>53067193
>So they are full of evil energy, and removing evil energy is good.

That is not how morality has ever worked in D&D.

You are the perfect Lawful Stupid stereotype for believing so.

The act of enacting a war where you engage in a morally questionable things has a way of being inherently corrupting, no matter how well intentioned.

Those soldiers of yours who have to commit the genocide/enslavement/pillaging of their foes will be forever changed after all is said and done.

It is not a math problem, you can't do a negative to a negative and come up with a net positive. The very concept is steeped in evil, intrinsically.

>>53063486
>The West
You mean, intellectuals and politicians

File: 10e78eb00d2d058319999e04846ffd0cbf9c94ac_full.jpg (5KB, 184x184px)

5KB, 184x184px

>>53065969

>>53067682
>you can't do a negative to a negative and come up with a net positive.
-5 * -5 = 25

>>53067726

Genocide: Mathematically proven to be morally acceptable.

>>53067726
Yes, that is maths. Exactly what the issue was not, as described.

>>53067079
that sounds less like people and more like magical Bio-weapons

>>53067726
Ironically, this sums up the totality of the thread sides. Guys like me think a lot like this, much akin to a machine. We see a threat, something inherently destructive with a tendency to commit attrocities, and we, as our ancestors before us, see that it as being just to remove it.

The other side is people who take feelings into account. People who are trying their best to feel what society has taught them is "more human" and "humanitarian". That ignoring potential threats in the name of mercy constitutes moral fortitude.

>>53066771
"peaceful euros" were constantly raided, children were kidnapped to turn into soldiers, servants, or slaves, and lands were taken.

>>53067921
Basically, you're incapable of higher thinking and your opinion should be disregarded.

Cool.

>>53067921
I see it this way, Forgiveness and the Opportunities for redemption are indeed sublime gifts, but taken for granted, to the point it is forgotten that such things are not earned, it is the discrecion of the wronged to dole that out, and they are fully in their rights to withhold it

>>53067682
>It is not a math problem, you can't do a negative to a negative and come up with a net positive.
Now we're getting into the Immediate Good argument. I'm inclined to agree with you, but /tg/ tends to favor the net results view.

>>53066769
the crusades were nothing more but a response from the decade long mistreatment of christians in the middle east, its zenith was the massacre of pilgrims in jerusalem which news sent the entire europe into a frenzy.

Arguing about fantasy alignments is all very well, but no one here knows half as much of history as they think they do. This is pretty much a fact.

Unless you actually have a degree in these matters, don't even bother bringing any of it up.

In fact you might not want to bring it up anyway, since someone's probably going to dispute your degree and say it's from a too liberal college or whatever.

>>53067972
"Higher" thinking. Right. Keep telling yourself that.

File: Drow of the Underdark-OEF.pdf (8MB, 1x1px)

8MB, 1x1px

>>53067921

You forgot the third side, which pointout that Good and Evil are defined in-game, and thus work exactly as the books say and not any other way.

>>53067988
>I'm inclined to agree with you, but /tg/ tends to favor the net results view.

That right there's the thing - true goodness is difficult, and rare, and not everyone has the mental fortitude for it. That most of /tg/ would go with the net results view only further enforces that that's not what a paladin would do.

>>53068010
True. Depends entirely on the rules of the setting, ingame.

>>53067992
Firstly, there were multiple crusades, which began for different reasons. Some more political than others.

The First Crusade and the actions that lead up to it were more about money and farming rights than anyone's regard for human life.

Secondly, read that post again. It doesn't say people were wrong for going to fight.

>>53068046
Funnily enough, across all the editions of D&D, this whole subject is surprisingly consistent: they all tend to agree in general terms, at most disagreeing in the particulars, such as whether paladins are allowed to execute surrendered prisoners or whether gnolls are actually demons.

>>53063435
>Is it an evil act to attack and conquer evil races?
No
>Is it an evil act to enslave evil races?
Yes, you effectively dehumanize them by doing that. Trying to bring them to the light should be the end goal, but if that is impossible (because they are truly, inherrently evil) they should merely be removed.

>>53063486
>The West generally considers the Crusades one of the Great Mistakes committed by their ancestors
The West made hating itself one of its prime pasttimes. Notice how a German children's tv show blames France for terrorist attacks in France for example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcluMKCndYc
This is what German CHILDREN are learning on a state approved tv channel under the watchful eye of Mutti Merkel: that France is getting what's coming to it. That Bataclan is the end result of France evilly abolishing slavery on a slave filled continent.

>>53067992
Friendly reminder that until the 1080s, Muslims from Napoli were raiding Rome and its outskirts until the Normans finally chased them out.

>>53067976
I (the machine) am inclined to agree with this outlook.

>>53067992
>the crusades were nothing more but a response from the taxes and power/land consolidations the Saracens were doing along trade routes
Let's be upfront, anon, the Crusades began over gold and land like damn near every other conflict humans had.

>>53068070
>The First Crusade was done because of farming rights

the first one in particular is the one that legitimized the practice of crusades SINCE IT WAS DONE BECAUSE of atrocities directed to christians in the middle east. The whole practice was made to ensure that christians had save passage and refuge in their pilgrimages to the holy lands. That was the reasoning of the papacy as the populace of europe were sent a frenzy given the news of the massacre in jerusalem.
This is why the first ever crusade was done by poor volunteers. It was the people's crusade.

>>53067921
There's people like you, who can't understand and don't want to understand anything more complex than thinking and acting in absolutes, because you have a boner for violence and subjugation and mostly seek to excuse your lust for those things by any means necessary. These are the kind of people that fall prey to hate cults like IS or whatever.

Them there's people who can understand complex things. These are the people who have to constantly put the world back together after the first group has one of their idiotic fits. They'll never get rid of people like you, unfortunately, because they're intelligent enough to understand that you're molded by complex systems and just killing you would be wrong.

the /swg/ is queit because all the empire apologists are in here.
IN B4"
"the orcs/alderaan had it coming!"
"pALPATINE DID NOTHING WRONG"
yOU ACTUALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FASCISM?, YOU SNOWFLAKE!"

>>53067921
>The other side is people who take feelings into account.
Ethics have absolutely nothing to do with feelings. If a being is capable of moral reasoning and decision making then you have to treat it as such, so unless we're talking about 5e's inherently evil demon-gnolls, and you don't get to maintain a moral high ground if you initiate unprovoked attacks against others because you FEEL they might be a danger in the future.

>>53068160
>like ever damn near conflict humans ever had
humanity has had conflicts that transcended material wealth.
the war in Iraq is a good example. The war was a war of revenge brought from sudden outburst of bloodthrist after the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
the "oil meme" is a stupid way for guilty people to hide the ugly truth of why and how the war effort got to its feet in the first place. The U.S needed public support to even start a war in the first place and the public was demanding for blood.

>>53068254
also, in very few circumstances, we do occasionally need people like him

>>53068263
>do not make an absolute statement
>proceeds to treat it like an absolute statement
Good job, anon.

>>53068262
>If a being is capable of moral reasoning and decision making then you have to treat it as such
Only if they are capable of moral reasoning and decision on par with human reasoning or decision.

>>53068275
But only because people like him exist at all.

>>53063486
>one of the Great Mistakes
The only real great mistakes most historians bring up is when crusaders fucked up and killed Christians.

Generally, historians try not to moralize.

>>53068280
>like ever damn near conflict
is same as
>99.99% of germs are eliminated
stop being a pendantic freak. everyone knows what you infer when you use grandstanding chains of adjectives.

>>53068254
>anon makes a neutral statement
>another anon go into full insult mode
>if you don't think as I do you are unintelligent

Gassin niggers is fine, yes

>>53068286
Moral reasoning is a yes/no thing, it's not a continuum. A dog isn't simply less good than a human at morality, it's incapable of it to begin with.

>>53068293
Because you won't ever get rid of people like me. Simply put, people like me are the ones who make the push to change the circumstances of the world. People like you maintain the status quo and the bureaucracy of the day to day. Both are needed. Despite how much I may dislike it, I acknowledge that both must exist.

>>53068353

It isn't a comparison of a human to a dog. Its more like comparing a normie to an autistic person or a person with down's syndrome

>>53068353
>Moral reasoning is a yes/no thing, it's not a continuum.
>I can say that for sure in a fictional setting where other beings clearly work differently from our world

>>53067843
Now you get it.

>>53068183
Your lack of historical accuracy is shocking.

Firstly? The People's Crusade was not actually part of the First Crusade. It was just before it, and achieved very little beyond killing a whole bunch of Jews along the Rhine. It was motivated by three big things: the desire of many to get the fuck out of Europe, a bunch of cosmological events that were interpreted as signs, and the strong belief at the time that the end of the world was coming and therefore Jerusalem must be taken by Christian hands.

Urban II launched the actual Crusade for purely political reasons - i.e. Alexios I Komnenos requested military aid. Retaking Jerusalem actually arose later as a secondary goal to relieving the pressure on the Bryzantines. That was never the primary aim of the First Crusade.

Learn your history mate.

>>53067843
Depends on the edition.

>>53066454
You can protect innocents without a full-on war.

>>53068359
>people like me are the ones who make the push to change the circumstances of the world.

I would argue that you simply perpetuate mankind's mistakes.

People like Thomas Paine and Charles Darwin create real change. You guys bog us down in pointless wars and constantly seek to undo any changes the true innovators make.

>>53068608
How would you stop the holocaust with sanctions?

>>53068710
Not that guy, but a war for the right reasons it's, in D&D, possible on paper.
Problem comes when you stop the holocaust. Do you stop there?

>>53068683
I share the views of people like Charles Darwin and Thomas Paine. People can hold more than one set of values simultaneously. Also, holding a particular set of values does not imply acting upon them indescriminately like a sperg.

>>53068710

The Holocaust (or most of it, anyway) could have been prevented by letting the Jews in. The Final Solution wasn't called this because "final" as in "death". It was "final" as in "the last of several tried". The Nazis were willing to be judenfrei by way of exile instead of murder, but other countries were like "nope! I don't want so many refugees!"

The history of it is quite shameful, and not just for the Germans.

>>53068760
Doesn't change you need war sometimes to protect innocents.

>>53068803
In theory, yes, but in practice wars have a tendency to get out of hand.

>>53068787
>I share the views of people like Charles Darwin

Probably.

>and Thomas Paine

Almost certainly not, seeing as you're advocating genocide and slavery in this thread.

File: Complete Arcane [OEF].pdf (6MB, 1x1px)

6MB, 1x1px

Indeed, was can be justified, even Good, in D&D. Just not the war OP was proposing, with enslavement, or the war some posters suggested, with genocide. If somebody is harming innocents, you can invade their country and kill all their soldiers and subject them to foreign rule, all while retaining your Paladin vows and Exalted feats. There are, however, some lines you cannot cross.

>>53068803
I dunno.
I know a party of five perfect for the job.

>>53068878
I never advocated slavery. I advocated selective genocide againsy inherently evil opponents.

You can share components of a world view without it becoming your sole defining gestalt of personality.

>>53068710
Very different situation from what's being proposed.

In that example, the bad guys are actively tormenting and aggressing. And the Allies, you'll notice, didn't just genocide the Germans after the war, like people here are proposing as the correct course of action.

Going to war to save people being oppressed can be a good cause. Going to war on a people with the intent on wiping them out/enslaving them, because they ping your Detect Evil, is not.

File: Ur-Quan_Kohr-Ah.gif (85KB, 485x213px)

85KB, 485x213px

>>53067268
>Path of Now and Forever
This path is flawed. The Eternal Doctrine is all that shall be. Exterminate every orc, especially their children.

>>53068952
>I advocated selective genocide againsy inherently evil opponents.

None of them are inherently evil though.

>>53068585
Firstly, I did not say that the expedition sent by peter the hermit was part of the first crusade sent by urban, the people's crusade was a crusade of its own.
Secondly, I extensively talked about the PRACTICE of crusading, not the official start of the crusade, which means that the people's crusade was the first to start the practice.
lastly, the motivation spiked after the news of the massacre in jersualem. In events before that, people all around europe were asking to occupy jerusalem for christianity but they were the minority given that most people were fine with just undertaking pilgrimage into the holy lands. it was after the news of the massacre that fueled the people's crusade.
What you are quoting as the reasons for urban's crusade was made by rubenstien in his book Armies of Heaven: The First Crusade and the Quest for Apocalypse. which in prose he says that "the crusaders filled their saddles with the heads of the fallen and ate them"
are you really gonna believe an author that takes the creative license this far into making personal anecdotes as part of his "in-depth analysis" of the situation?
the first official crusades were part and parcel political in nature but that doesn't remove why it was generally accepted by the large host of nations in europe and that again can be attributed to the recent massacre in jerusalem and the stories of their brothers in anatolia

>>53068952
Your definition of 'inherently' is flawed, though.

You're saying that because a person's culture generally produces evil individuals, they should all be wiped out. This is... dumb. And highly exploitable.

Multiple real life governments have used some variant of this excuse to indulge themselves in ethnic cleansing, and we don't look favourably upon them, because we know that people cannot be quantified and simplified in the way you do so with your beliefs.

>>53068960
I was replying to an anon who said that war was inheriently evil.

>>53069011
Not him, but evil races are as the name says evil.

>>53069084
Usually with "often" or "usually". Only demons and undead and shit get the elusive "always" you're seeking.

>>53068585
>>53069012
(cont)
there is a difference between a person making a petition to it being accepted and there's a reason why the practice of the "crusade" only happened in that specific time. people need to realize that events leads over to other events and the massacre of the 1000 pilgrims in jerusalem led to the possibility of the pope to call for the crusade as he saw the efficacy of how it rallied people into one cause as shown by peter the hermit. without the massacre, without the sudden stringent expulsion of christian pilgrims in jerusalem, without the constant harassment of christians in the middle east. the crusades might never have happened. heck komnenos might have just received the western mercenaries he originally sought for in the firstplace.

>>53069118
Depends on edition.

Evil aligned races should however be dealt differently than neutral ones.

>>53069163
>Evil aligned races should however be dealt differently than neutral ones.

I disagree. An evil orc is no more evil than an evil human. The alignment of evil simply means he's more likely to be such as the human is.

The human bandit and the orc bandit, if both are indeed evil, deserve the exact same treatment. You can't just arbitrarily execute one and put the other to jail.

Now if the human bandit actually -is- neutral, individually speaking and not just by how humans as a whole are more likely to be neutral, then that's a whole different matter.

>>53063435
Maybe, but hey once they're dead, that's a moral quandary you won't have to ponder anymore.

>>53069214
>I disagree. An evil orc is no more evil than an evil human.
An evil orc is however completely different from an evil human, because the human tendency is neutral and the orc is tendency is evil. If the orc tendency was neutral you would have a point, but the moment his tendency is evil it needs to be treated in par with his tendency. It's closing the eyes to concrete facts to imply both are the same when they objectively aren't.

>>53069012
>Secondly, I extensively talked about the PRACTICE of crusading, not the official start of the crusade, which means that the people's crusade was the first to start the practice.

Considering that the other Crusades were all official, politically motivated affairs, Urban's Crusade is in fact the originator of the practice.

The People's Crusade was a fizzle.

>What you are quoting as the reasons for urban's crusade was made by rubenstien

Also by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Robert Chazan, Norman Cohn, Jaspert, etc. The links between the People's Crusade, Millenarianism, drought, ergotism, etc, are extremely well documented and explored.

>>53069320
>An evil orc is however completely different from an evil human, because the human tendency is neutral and the orc is tendency is evil.

Wrong again. All this means is that he was more likely to be evil-aligned to begin with, prompted that way by culture, religion, and other such circumstances. No biological incentive is forcing him to that path, nor forcing him to stick there if given a chance to be a better person.

>>53069320
>It's closing the eyes to concrete facts to imply both are the same when they objectively aren't.

That's not what's being implied. Nobody's saying that.

But they are equally capable of being good or evil.

Once has a tendency a certain way, due to the way he is raised. They however have equal capacity for changing and are equally able to be different if brought up differently. If you advocate the killing of all orcs, then you must also advocate the killing of all humans in an evil aligned kingdom, as they have a tendency toward evil as well.

>>53069360
>Wrong again. All this means is that he was more likely to be evil-aligned to begin with, prompted that way by culture, religion, and other such circumstances.
That's not how tendency in DnD works through, unless you say that human culture causes people to think neutrally.

>No biological incentive is forcing him to that path, nor forcing him to stick there if given a chance to be a better person.
Evil creatures often enjoy being evil through. And there are races who are biological evil in different settings.

>>53069424
>That's not how tendency in DnD works through

This is exactly how tendency in D&D works.

>unless you say that human culture causes people to think neutrally.

D&D simply assumes that most human cultures are neutral.

>>53069442
And that elves tend to Chaotic Good and dwarves to Lawful good.

>>53069424
>That's not how tendency in DnD works through, unless you say that human culture causes people to think neutrally.

There's no such thing as "human culture": there's a whole pile of them, ranging the full gamut from lawful good to chaotic evil. Humans are only neutral in the books because they average to that, not because they'd have any particular tendency to neutrality.

>Evil creatures often enjoy being evil through.

Certainly do. Evil humans are no exception.

>And there are races who are biological evil in different settings.

Undead, demons, chromatic dragons, and 5e gnolls are, yes. Don't bother trying to convert those guys.

>>53069412
>But they are equally capable of being good or evil.
If that was true their tendency would be neutral.

>Once has a tendency a certain way, due to the way he is raised. They however have equal capacity for changing and are equally able to be different if brought up differently.
If they had equal capacity the majority of orcs wouldn't be evil.

>then you must also advocate the killing of all humans in an evil aligned kingdom
Are bandits always/often evil?

File: Kurr.png (345KB, 391x409px)

345KB, 391x409px

>>53069464
This is Kurr.
He is an official 5e gnoll.
Wat do.

>>53069492
Official GOOD.
Important part.

>>53069464
>not because they'd have any particular tendency to neutrality.
They do have a tendency to neutrality through. The majority of humans are neutral.

>Certainly do. Evil humans are no exception.
Evil creatures are more likely to take joy in evil.

>Undead, demons, chromatic dragons, and 5e gnolls are, yes.
And orcs in some settings, and goblins, and trolls.

But even if they could be converted, the fact of the matter is that it should be their job to do better. If they don't they really cannot complain if people consider them a danger and treat them as such.

>>53069480
>If they had equal capacity the majority of orcs wouldn't be evil.

They might not be, if all their gods weren't assholes.

>Are bandits always/often evil?

I'd go for often, yes.

>>53069492
>>53069508
It's possible for even a demon to find redemption and turn to goodness, but odds to that are so astronomically low that under usual circumstances you should hold no hope for it.

>>53069456
Again, this is how tendency works.

Dwarves have a good aligned deity who gives them their imperatives and structures how they will be raised, morally - hence Good. They live in a tightly-woven, rigid system where bonds, grudges, debts, and rituals are extremely important, and exactitude is highly praised - this is where the Lawful bit comes from.

Elves are the same.

There is literally no such thing as evil or good

kys

>>53069526
>Evil creatures are more likely to take joy in evil.

Evil humans are precisely as likely to take joy in evil as evil creatures are.

>But even if they could be converted, the fact of the matter is that it should be their job to do better. If they don't they really cannot complain if people consider them a danger and treat them as such.

True enough, but neither should you go and just massacre them for minding their own business somewhere up in the mountains. Maybe those guys were just about to turn a leaf? You can't know that.

>>53069528
>They might not be, if all their gods weren't assholes.
And their gods are evil, so they tingle for detect for evil. Which means they do are differently evil.

>I'd go for often, yes.
That's untrue through, their aligment is chaotic and varies.

>>53069327
the practice of sallying support for a war via the exaltation of the christian faith especially when in dealth with the holy lands was first progenitated by the people's crusade, Which is why it is the "first" crusade.

>ergotism
I think you meant egotism?
and jonathan RIley-Smith wrote little about the intentions of Urban in his declaration, the vast majority of his works dealt with how the crusaders handled themselves during the first crusades and he was an excellent source when talking about how the crusaders managed to siege areas like Antioch and Jerusalem.
and that doesn't change the fact that the lords and the common people were recruited because of the sentiment to ensure that the pilgrimage to the holy lands remain accessible.

>>53069584
>And their gods are evil, so they tingle for detect for evil. Which means they do are differently evil.

Nope. It just means their gods prompt them to be raised as evil. They're no more inherently evil than a human having been raised by a cult of Asmodeus.

>>53069584
>That's untrue through, their aligment is chaotic and varies.
Non-lawful.
>>53069528
Actually, he is mad.
Guilt is something that gnolls aren't supposed to feel, but he does, and then sends gnolls to die.

>>53069556
>Evil humans are precisely as likely to take joy in evil as evil creatures are.
Not really, evil creatures in general enjoy doing evil for the sake of evil, which this trait is rare even into evil humans.

>True enough, but neither should you go and just massacre them for minding their own business somewhere up in the mountains.
The fact they didn't is reason enough.

>Maybe those guys were just about to turn a leaf? You can't know that.
I can know however that as worshippers of evil gods that defeating his minions will directly affect them.

>>53069624
>Guilt is something that gnolls aren't supposed to feel, but he does, and then sends gnolls to die.

Eh, it's a start.

>>53069607
Cult followers of Asmodeus, like followers of evil gods (such as Chaos on 40k) both are equally an objective threat and should be treat as such however.

>>53069659
Sure, but that still doesn't mean these cultists are inherently and irrevocably evil. There might even be sub-factions within the cult, neutrals who don't care for the god and are just in it for the money and prestige, or even the occasional good guy who's grown disillusioned and wants out.

Your crusade will be served by finding these discontents and turning them to your advantage, rather than just charging in and killing them all.

>>53069597
>the practice of sallying support for a war via the exaltation of the christian faith especially when in dealth with the holy lands was first progenitated by the people's crusade

Except it was organized independently, without the knowledge of many rulers and officials, and was definitely not what people took as precedent when declaring Crusades later. Considering their generally poor showing, you can see why. A lot of people didn't even know The People's Crusade had happened.

>I think you meant egotism?

No, ergotism. It's a disease. Just one of many reasons why people were looking for an excuse to gtfo of Europe at the time.

>and jonathan RIley-Smith wrote little about the intentions of Urban in his declaration

You're right about that. I wasn't talking about Urban II's intentions or his declaration, though.

>and that doesn't change the fact that the lords and the common people were recruited because of the sentiment to ensure that the pilgrimage to the holy lands remain accessible

This is true, but it would be truer to say that SOME people were recruited because of that sentiment. Or that this was simply one of several driving forces. It was a big one, though, more than any humanitarian plea.

>>53069723
>Sure, but that still doesn't mean these cultists are inherently and irrevocably evil.
It does mean they should be removed, because this way you will be hurting the cults and their dark gods schemes.

>There might even be sub-factions within the cult, neutrals who don't care for the god and are just in it for the money and prestige, or even the occasional good guy who's grown disillusioned and wants out.
That would apply if those weren't active gods who knew their followers.

>Your crusade will be served by finding these discontents and turning them to your advantage
Which while I do that they slew a lot of followers of law and peace, so that in the end I can save like one or two lives.

Your point looks nice on paper but it's terribly misguided. You are literally letting a possible lot of innocents die to try to possible regenerate a few bad guys. Nowhere equitable nor lovable.

>>53069644
By gnoll packrules, they obey him without question, and he abhors the deaths he caused before. He thinks getting rid of his murderous brethren is the best idea.

>>53069747
Alot of people who actually studied the crusades know that the first progenitor of the act is the people's crusade, the difference it had with the crusade Urban had declared was the simple fact that urban declared it. its main mission was the same. to occupy jerusalem and keep the pilgrimages open for christians the assault against the muslims and seljuk turks were seen as a welcomed secondary as they retribution for the dead pilgrims.
and it would be truer to say that most people were recruited because of that sentiment.
and the humanatarian aspect was a huge motivated for most of the people who joined hte crusade, the whole hospitalic order was born after the crusade was a order that ensured christians, who under duress from the turks, would be given aid.

>>53069940
>>53069747
sorry, It's getting late so I'm losing my touch.

>>53068982
>you said, hovering over a ceremonial bone pit filled with races you've exterminated, good neutral and evil alike
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?

>>53069832
Would you kill a young child who had been born in that cult and believed its tenets, though?

Anyway, a better comparison would be a nation that worships Asmodeus. Would you consider total eradication of its populace - men, women and children - a good action because living in this nation engenders a tendency toward evil alignments in its people?

>>53070023
>THE WORDS!... the Words... the words
>alien, you have spoken the Words. You have spoken them rightly.
>We will explain to you about the Dnyarri our slavemasters
>the Taalo, our only friends... whom we exterminated and our reasons why we cleanse the galaxy of all other sentient life.
>We have explained this before, over twenty thousand years ago.
>Your words, `Why do you do this thing?' echo that ancient plea.
>You see, alien, we were a proud and mighty race, who were cruelly enslaved.
>For thousands of years, we had no free will.
>We were nothing more than tools.
>Never again will anyone enslave our people.
>We cleanse the galaxy of such threats.

>>53066583
THANK YOU.

The book also mentions the implications of running a game with a less black/white morality system.


Personally I'd say the key difference in the latter would be combatants/noncombants.

Are you attacking an orc raid camp in order to wipe it out? Pre-emptive defense.

Are you burning down an orc town, dragging out all the citizens and executing them? Evil.

The difference between a genocide and a war is that with a genocide you'll be killing people who don't want to fight, or who can't fight back.

>>53063435
evil, no.
excessive? Yes.

>>53070085
>Would you kill a young child who had been born in that cult and believed its tenets, though?
Seeing how his evil god is real and utilizes his followers as tools to increase his power, yes, not because I like it but because it's the most efficient way to limit his power while sparing innocent blood.

>Anyway, a better comparison would be a nation that worships Asmodeus. Would you consider total eradication of its populace - men, women and children - a good action because living in this nation engenders a tendency toward evil alignments in its people?
Seeing how Asmodeus is an evil god who utilizes this nation to spread his evil, I would treat them just like the Imperium would treat a planet who fell into chaos.

>>53070278
Go home, Vengeance Paladin.

>>53070291
After I finish cleaning the evil taint of Asmodeus, Melchior, Medacheus, Chaos or whatever demon like god like entity.

>>53063435
Is it evil to become evil in order to stop evil?

>no no, these are freedom bombs
>oh, by the way, your resources now belong to us
>you was the bad guy anyway

>>53070548
It's exactly why killing evil for benefit of your group is neutral and not good. The world may be better of without some people, but what about your immortal souls?
And becoming Evil is evil, always.

>>53063486
>he thinks christians enslaved all the arabs in the crusades

>>53066300
Why is it that every fucking time someone brings up gay ass where it shouldnt be?
Fucking kill yourself, retarded hairyassfukking SJW faggot

>>53070278
>killing a brainwashed child
>advocating total genocide due to a state religion

Congratulations, you're actually evil, both by D&D and real life measures.

>>53070278
>yes, not because I like it but because it's the most efficient way to limit his power while sparing innocent blood.
>while sparing innocent blood.

Killing a young child is practically the definition of spilling innocent blood, you dumbass.

>>53065429
Americucks

You mean Bongs. Americans loved slavery, it's one of the reasons why they begged the French to get the Bongs off their backs.

>>53066211
Gypsies.

>>53063435
How is this for an approach?

>A country gradually becomes more and more degenerate
>to the point where the population rapes the weak in broad daylight
>murders are a common occurrence
>theft and robbery is also commonplace here
>A neighbouring country feels the effect of this whole mess spilling over into their border
>they go to war with the country
>genocide everyone and burn everything to the ground

Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? (Not the good thing, mind you: the right thing.)

>>53075668
The good thing = the right thing. And it wouldn't be the good thing to do.

I mean it wouldn't be the -wrong- thing to do either: it'd certainly be superior to just leaving them to their own devices. But there are better solutions to the matter, if you have the time and the dedication to really clean up the mess.

That's what being good means: going beyond the pragmatic and logical approach and instead really getting it fixed, with as little violence and death as possible.

>>53075567
>being a follower of Chaos is just minor brainwashing
>following Chaos is just a state religion
Congratulations, you are very stupid.

>>53075809
>Still applying 40k logic to D&D
You are the stupid one in this scenario.

>>53075599
More innocents > a few innocents.

Also you are retarded if you think that young children cannot have alignment.

>>53075822
>like this doesn't apply to all settings where there are evil gods that are actually very real and who use followers for their presence
Nice attempt.

>>53063486

That's just a matter of condemning religions and becoming atheist in the process. Always remember:

"Your previous dynasty was completely evil and had to be deposed. We are here to fix it."

>>53075839
WH40k is a great deal more shitty place to live than even the worst D&D setting. In it, even humans might as well be evil-aligned by default. It's a retarded and nonsensical setting that should be kept out of any remotely intelligent discussion in related to any other campaign world.

That you would seriously apply it anywhere near D&D speaks volumes of how little you truly understand anything of what's going on.

>>53075887
>Ignore the rest of the argument
Epic.

>It doesn't apply because it's more grimdark
Are you retarded?

The fact remains that in the same way you are justified in wiping out followers of evil gods, because this way you limit their presence on the world.

>>53075824
You're right, but having an evil alignment and being innocent are not actually mutually exclusive. A person can believe terrible things and still have done nothing wrong themselves, and we have laws pertaining to diminished responsibility for a reason.

Also, how does killing a child save more innocents than, say, handing them over to an orphanage run by followers of Bahamut or Moradin or whoever? Or taking the responsibility for this person into your own hands?

It doesn't, it's just easier for you. Which is why it's an evil act. That's what evil often is - getting what you want at the expense of others, because it requires less effort than the other option.

It says in the books that genocide is not good. It's been pointed out in this thread many times already.

Anyone that still argues against this is a fucking moron screaming against tangible and undeniable evidence - she's basically on the level of antivaxxers. And anyone that bothers to argue against -her- is even worse. You should just laugh at the fucker.

>>53075839
It really doesn't. The Chaos Gods are pretty much the highest end of corrupting influences in fiction, it's basically impossible to escape their clutches once you've been corrupted by them. Mostly this is because 40K as a setting is not rational or really about how people really act, but about being grimderpas possible.

This isn't the case in most other settings.

>>53075922
>You're right, but having an evil alignment and being innocent are not actually mutually exclusive.
That doesn't apply to following an actual living evil god who feds from that.

>Also, how does killing a child save more innocents than,
Because the time and resources it would take to move 10000 thousand children you could have moved your army to destroy other evil cities, thus sparing lives who would have been lost in this timeframe.

>>53075963
>it's basically impossible
It's not impossible.

And that doesn't change that evil followers still enforce the presence of the evil deity.

>>53075971
Pragmaticism is not good either. Good seeks to aid everyone. If you really honestly can't afford to dedicate your whole life to raising this child, then give him up to a trusted priest who can look into the matter themselves.

Don't just kill him. That shit's evil however the way you put it.

>>53075971
>That doesn't apply to following an actual living evil god who feds from that.

Yes, it does. If a person is raised to believe a thing, but has never actually done evil themselves, they're still innocent. You seem to not understand the definition of that word.

>lol it's easier to do this so it's good!

Again, this is why your way is evil. Because you're not doing the good thing, you're doing the thing that is simpler for you.

Also I find it kinda hilarious that you assume there's an infinite supply of other evil cities to use as an excuse for doing things as quickly and brutally as possible. I guess you assume this because your argument falls apart without them.

>>53075996
Good doesn't seek to aid people at the cost of others. If you spend your whole life raising someone you will be losing the chance of helping a lot of other people.

Killing isn't evil when it's done for the common good. It's a necessity.

>>53075999
>Yes, it does. If a person is raised to believe a thing, but has never actually done evil themselves
They have done evil by providing power to their evil deity.

>Again, this is why your way is evil.
The way is evil because it takes less blood? Good work.

>Also I find it kinda hilarious that you assume there's an infinite supply
Not really. The exactly point is to wipe them out. The fact remains that it should be done as fast as possible because their very existence is already a danger.

>>53076032
>If you spend your whole life raising someone you will be losing the chance of helping a lot of other people.

Not really, you can be a dad and still help people. In fact, you're helping a person by doing that.

>Killing isn't evil when it's done for the common good.

It is when there are other ways. Killing invading orcs is not evil. Killing an orc child because you can't even be bothered to hand them over to a local church or whatever is pure evil.

>>53076048
>They have done evil by providing power to their evil deity.

Are you such a miserable servant of "goodness" that you can't stop a child from praying to a god without killing them?

>The way is evil because it takes less blood? Good work.

It still takes a bit of blood that you could easily not take by applying at least some thought and dedication to the matter. Just killing them all and moving on to the next battlefield is not goodness: you're not even fucking trying, you're just doing the least possible thing you can to sate your bloodthirsty soul.

>>53063435
>Attack
No
>Conquer
Nope
>Enslave
Yes

You don't commit evil to stop evil. If they are truly evil and not just against you for being different, and can truly can not be reformed, put them to the blade.

>>53076053
>Not really, you can be a dad and still help people.
You can't be playing dad when you are out fighting.

>It is when there are other ways.
Not when those ways will get other people hurt.

>>53076079
>Are you such a miserable servant of "goodness"
I could do other ways, but while I do that the god is getting more power from a lot of other people.

>It still takes a bit of blood
And what of the innocents who are dying while you making an attempt at your shenanigans? Let me guess, not my problem because I'm not the one killing them?

>>53076048
>The way is evil because it takes less blood?

It didn't take less blood though.

In your own example, you killed 1000 thousand children.

>>53076116
>I could do other ways, but while I do that the god is getting more power from a lot of other people.

By this logic, it is an evil action to do anything but constantly be killing evildoers. Sitting down for a few minutes is evil because you're not killing evildoers. Helping a person on the road is evil because it takes you a few more hours to get to the next evildoer.

This is retarded.

>>53076149
>This is retarded.
That's actually the Oath of Vengeance.

File: Arthas.jpg (207KB, 685x1032px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 685x1032px

>>53076116
>I could do other ways, but while I do that the god is getting more power from a lot of other people.

Well, if your actions aren't directly powering this particular brand of evil god, then some other evil god is surely looking down at you and laughing. Your "pragmatic" evil acts are surely powering them up far more than a few petty children saying their evening prayers to Asmodeus ever could.

>And what of the innocents who are dying while you making an attempt at your shenanigans?

You don't know what's happening - you're just making assumptions to justify killing this child. You could sit down for five minutes to explain him the truth, then leave him to an elderly priest that couldn't go out to fight anyway, but nooo, sword to the neck, then move on, that's what you do.

>>53076125
>In your own example, you killed 1000 thousand children.
Yes, and I saved an entire city who would have been destroyed while this happened. Needs of many > needs of a few.

>>53076149
>By this logic, it is an evil action to do anything but constantly be killing evildoers.
That is exactly how a battle paladin should act: fight evil wherever they hide.

Unless you want to be fluffier good neighboorhood lv10 paladin who spends time fixing fences.

File: Tenets of Vengeance.png (350KB, 405x361px)

350KB, 405x361px

>>53076158
>>53076149

>>53076116
>Not when those ways will get other people hurt.

...Sparing a child is the opposite of getting people hurt.

If you argue that it hurts people by taking up the time of people that could be going out and smiting evil, then having a fucking bath is wrong, because that takes up your time. And frankly, the people who deal with this stuff are generally not the people who are going out and fighting, so even the idea that it takes up too much time is dumb.

>>53066178
>Like, taxing people to pay for only beneficial things that in the long run help absolutely everyone would be an EVIL act
Tax isn't evil.
Tax is often just a cost of using existing infrastructure.
It really doesn't become Evil until the Taxes isn't used to maintain or improve said infrastructure, even in the more abstract sense.

>>53076159
>Well, if your actions aren't directly powering this particular brand of evil god, then some other evil god is surely looking down at you and laughing.
He won't laugh however when he saw himself out of followers, his altars and churches destroyed, his name fallen into mockery and his powers extremely diminished because there is no more people feeding him.

>You don't know what's happening
I know that the followers of evil gods aren't spending time doing tea parties, that is a certainty.

>>53076174
Note that vengeance paladins who actually follow this oath are neutral, not good.

>>53076204
>He won't laugh however when he saw himself out of followers, his altars and churches destroyed, his name fallen into mockery and his powers extremely diminished because there is no more people feeding him.

Every time you kill a child, you power up an evil god.

>I know that the followers of evil gods aren't spending time doing tea parties, that is a certainty.

So you think these followers are spending their every waking hour sacrificing for evil and brainwashing kids? They need to take breaks too.

You yourself can afford to take a fucking break long enough to not murder a kid in cold blood, surely.

>>53076206
Of course.
And the most prone to Oathbreaking as well.

Few remember the part of helping rebuild after the villain is dead and just go for another evil.

>>53076172
>be paladin
>come across wounded woman in the woods
>ignore her because she's not an evildoer to smite

This is good paladin behavior according to you.

>>53076213
>>53076214
Actually, the stuff about rebuilding and healing is indeed more of a cleric thing. Clerics are the healers. Paladins are the warriors.

In the latter instance, the paladin would just quickly heal her and ask who did this to her, then march on to smite the bastard.

>>53076186
>...Sparing a child is the opposite of getting people hurt.
Losing time with a child because feelings is actually letting other people get hurt.

>If you argue that it hurts people by taking up the time of people that could be going out and smiting evil, then having a fucking bath is wrong
Hello? If you have the chance of taking a bath or stopping a criminal what you would do? Correctly you would only do the former when it's necessary, when it's affecting your perfomance.

Also unless you somehow bring one hundreds saints to the battlefield (which would be tactically inviable) you are losing time for misguided feelings.

>>53076219
Read the Restitution part of the oath, dude.

A vengeance paladin is oathbound to take personal responsibility for this shit.

>>53076220
All of this only applies if you genuinely know of some evil threat nearby that you must stop right now and can't take a break for it at all. In that case, you could probably leave the kid to someone else for a couple days, go deal with the evildoers, then return to educate the kid and to take that bath.

Some imaginary cult "somewhere" doesn't count.

>>53066478
This. Mankind has dealt with this for a long time.
Some times, you accept that there is a bear den somewhere, and accept that you shouldn't use that area in active way.

>>53076219
Congratulations you just broke every paladin oath but treachery.
And that one is literally evil.

>>53076212
>Every time you kill a child, you power up an evil god.
one act < a living follower. And that's only for gods who actually eat any evil.

>So you think these followers are spending their every waking hour sacrificing for evil and brainwashing kids?
If they do it once then that's enough.

>You yourself can afford to take a fucking break long enough
Yeah, no. Backtracking several kilometers usually take several days.

>>53076214
>be paladin
>be hunting army of daemons
>stop to help a wounded woman
>ops out of lay on hands, time to bring her back to the city
>several days of backtracking later
>she is fine
>but army of daemons torched a city

It's wouldn't be good if he didn't have anything better to do. But if he did, it would be very stupid.

>>53076244
But if they get reformed so they can power up Good gods, isn't that a lot better?

>>53076244
>one act < a living follower.
A couple hundred prayers by children who don't know what they're talking about < a "paladin" deliberately killing a child because he can't be bothered to think about some other solution.

>And that's only for gods who actually eat any evil.
Most of them, actually.

>If they do it once then that's enough.
Are they doing it right now? Do you know for a fact there's a woman being sacrificed the next hour in a den somewhere nearby? If you don't, you're talking out of your ass and have a little while to spare to set a kid straight.

>Yeah, no. Backtracking several kilometers usually take several days.
You can march like twenty kilometers in a day if you're a truly dedicated paladin that won't rest when evil is near!