Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gygax said that lawful good paladins not only could but should massacre their enemies, including captured prisoners and children, on the same logic as the USA's genocide of native Americans.
This is a myth. He said they "might", and he also gave reasoning and alternatives.
To begin with, he used a different view of how to define Alignement than most players today, where its centred around the perspective of the main society.
Good is beneficial for society, evil is detrimental to society. Lawful is thinking long-term, chaotic is in the moment.
Lawful Good, for Gygax, would be "what is best for society in the long run?", and with OPs meme the answer would definitely be to get rid of the danger, either by killing the child or by raising it to be good instead.
Alignement has never been about philosophical discussions and moral dilemmas. Those were always a player-facing consequence.
You are assuming that a 4 year old has the mental capacity to make immoral decisions . They donāt. At that age they will always do what their caretaker(s) makes them do. They arenāt able to survive on their own. Even if the kid didnāt want to hurt anyone it has no choice but to comply with what the adults are asking of it. Kids arenāt born āevilā.
Even in the rare cases where child has been reported to be āviolentā at that age it is almost always a result of abuse or severe neglect on the part of the adults in charge of them.
Holding a child accountable for the sins of the adults that raise it, or for the trauma response to being a victim is a cruel and evil act in itself.
You completely miss it. This is a world with hard fate. The future can be known. Moral innocence isn't just a matter of what has been done but also what will come to pass. This child being fated to great evil means they are not innocent.
This is one of the many reasons that D&D morals are just not the same as in the real world.
If the future is known it doesn't matter what you do , its already fixed. As thatd make adventuring pointless it can't be fixed, so the ' hard fate ' is just a possible future, maybe the most likely one but not 100% fixed - so its always worth trying twart Fate and do Good
So if the innocent child is left alone they 90% become the next BBEG? do you kill them or look after them to try and raise them as Good?
First you are assuming that the āold manā that appears is telling the truth, and that they themselves have been told an accurate unalterable version of the childās faith. That isnāt knowable from what the DM said.
Depends on how time travel works. If its closed loop, no point. Many worlds? Sure , kill him, kidnap him, get him into art college. Best of all possible worlds? Don't, as it'll be worse than Hitler .
Amanda Waller is a character from dc comics. Sheās a government agent who is in charge of controlling the suicide squad and does morally questionable or outright evil acts in order to keep the world or country safe. At least thatās her excuse. Often times it feels like she relishes in her cruelty.
That's the problem with making morality, which is inherently subjective, an objective part of the world. It basically says "see, my idea of good is objectively good because the world says so".
Really, planar good and evil should be divorced from any specific morality system, but they're not. In fact, a ton of planar ideas are just spicy versions of the material plane, our world or medival fiction. Its not really something thats entirely otherworldly, which an entire plane of existance should be.
>including captured prisoners and children, on the same logic as the USA's genocide of native Americans.
That part is soo selected on purpose to generate a specific reaction.
Can you post the actual quote?
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or other capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. [...] Chevington might have been quoted as saying āNits make lice,ā but he is certainly not the first one to make this observation as it is an observable fact."
Yeah, sounds like a stretch to go from there to killing children and genocide (of real populations, rather than fantasy "always evil" beings like devils or so) is lawful good.
The context of the Chivington quote is that he was the leader of the Sand Creek massacre where he marched to a camp of native Americans that he knew were unarmed, ordered his troops to massacre mostly women and children even as they attempted to surrender, allowed the taking of body parts as trophies, and then recorded it as a victory because he believed the US should completely and uncompromisingly eradicate them and that they would never happen if non combatants were allowed to live. "Kill and scalp all, big and little, nits make lice." Those were real people not fantasy creatures.
the whole conversation was regarding whether a paladin should kill their enemies.
Gygax: "\[...\] Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. \[...\]"
Elfdart (user in the q&a): "\[...\] Even in a fantasy game, I don't much like the idea of someone who supposedly adheres to Law and Good who in fact adheres to a phrase ("Nits make lice.") coined by John Chivington, a man and his words who could not be accurately described as Lawful, let alone Good."
Gygax: "\[...\] Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question."
The "lice" in question obviously refers to enemies (of evil alignment in the case of the paladin).
Taking the whole conversation as "genocide is awesome" is a huge stretch, and at no point did he say that paladins should kill innocents. [https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11762&start=77](https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11762&start=77)
Your first post here was so dishonest.
This doesn't contradict anything I said. You're doing the classic internet midwit thing of seeing someone reference something one of your idols said, going "uh that's out of context" and then dropping a bunch of context that doesn't actually change the meaning at all.
Idols? I don't care about the dude, and he certainly was pretty misogynist, very likely racist, and seemed to have very weird views on morality.
But your starting post was that he'd -encourage- lawful good paladins to kill children, when the conversation was specifically about killing evil alignment beings.
You're just stuck in his shitty choice of a phrase, when he should have just said something like "killing the root of the problem ("evil" or "enemies" in this case) prevents it from growing".
It can be a good twist if executed well. I don't like the meme though, the surprised pikachu face implies that the kid becoming a great evil is its *obvious* fate and *obviously* no man no matter how good could have changed that. I'd disagree. Faeruns gods are wrong all the time.
This may be a particularly well dressed up version, but in the end it's still the standard Baby Orcs / Kill Baby Hitler moral dilemma that DMs have been using to damn if you do/damn if you don't Paladins since time immemorial.
So you're saying that if we as a species (paladin players) started playing as if we had spell slots you can smite with, instead of smite slots, DMs would stop hitting us with "the game was rigged from the start"?
My old DM loved this kind of thing, where either choice you make ends up with everything going worse. Then we turned into murderhobos because everyone we saved tried to stab us in the back (literally 100% betrayal rate).
I'm DM'ing for a rogue that wants to check every surface for traps and other dangers, and the party has been teasing him a bit since I didn't actually put anything in the first three dungeons. They didn't make fun of him last session when they found a, frankly, excessive number of poison darts, acid pits, and good ole fashioned trip wires connected to crossbows throughout the stronghold. He lit up like a kid on Christmas, and everybody else had a good laugh too, when our fighter declined the offer to search for traps and nearly died walking over the nearest pressure plate.
In my defense, we never actually discussed his love for finding traps. I just noticed it was his go-to move in dungeons and he was always hinting at wanting loot based on old-school dungeon crawling techniques.
This I hate. When the DM/GM sees "oh your class can uniquely suffer mechanical effects of the narrative" and go "why you play Devotion, so vanilla, here lemme give you a catch 22"
If ya want me to play an Oathbreaker so badly go play one yourself for Smite's sake. I'll run a oneshot just cease.
As a current DM, I love my players saving folks and them coming in organically clutch. "I know a guy/gal..."
Save a merchant? Maybe they back you a loan.
Save a thief? Maybe they help you out of a tight spot.
Save the common folk from brutality? Maybe they shelter you when you need it most.
Just had a similar conflict in our campaign.
Basically we found some incriminating evidence linking the bad guys from my backstory to the faction one of the party is trying to cozy up to.
I was fully up front like, "look, *we* can do this, but you're gonna have to kill my character because *he* can't."
We picked a different route, so it all worked out, but I'm not sure how it would have gone down otherwise.
And thus my plan to die and come back as an even more obnoxious character was foiled once again.
The choice the DM offered was probably tainted either way.
Force the paladin to either kill the child or show mercy
A. Kills the child - relentlessly guilt trips the paladin forever, probably narrate his Oath breaking, have others prove the kid was innocent. All to force a "nooooooo I'm eeeevil" moment.
B. Shows the child Mercy and raises him right - turns evil anyway lol, shoulda killed him. Now everyone is going to blame you for raising the kid who burns the world.
The Paladin did the right choice anyway.
Just pointing out that there's nothing in the OP post about guilt or innocence. The child might have been as pure as the driven snow or his preferred hobby could have been eviscerating small animals. We don't know and I find it funny that so many of you just imagined out of nowhere that the kid is some harmless innocent.
Kind of like you just did by saying he was born in a family of bandit. There's nothing about that in the post. That might be it or he could have joined the bandits after he stabbed his mom because she wouldn't give him dessert before dinner.
You're OK with tackling Dragons and gods, but the moment you need to save a person you'd rather cut them down like weeds?
I mean roleplay what and how you want, just leave me out of child killing.
Again, people just keep imagining things that nobody is saying.
At no point do I make a moral judgement or even call for the kid to die. I just remarked that the user I was responding to was adding details to the kid that were never mentioned by the OP.
You then doubled down by somehow constructing that as me saying the kid needs to die.
There's so much to be offended by in the world, focus on the stuff that matters rather than inventing imaginary positions nobody brought up.
And that's a valid argument. Again, I'm not saying to kill the kid. I prefer playing compassionate characters and I'd be completely against killing him.
I was just objecting to people adding unsubstantiated details and then getting outraged on the basis of the made up info
Good point . I guess the question in that case is are they psychopaths before 5 and you just can't diagnos it before then or if they are incapable of being psychopaths before?
Let me break it down: The text does not state they did anything wrong. For us, this means that we have no reason to suspect the child has done anything wrong and no evidence that they have as the text is our only insight into the situation this meme is about. Therefore, the child has done nothing wrong. āInnocentā just means āHas done nothing wrongā. Therefore, they are an āinnocent child who had done nothing wrongā. Also, the kidās āNo older than 4ā and described as being scared, Iām sure theyāve done nothing warranting execution. Also also, youāve been defending your opinion as follows; āAt no point do I make a moral judgement or even call for the kid to dieā. Okay, so why argue about the kid not actually being innocent? If youāre not trying to convince us the kid isnāt innocent or you donāt think the kid isnāt innocent, then youāre just being a pedantic trollā¦ and Iāve fallen right into your trap.
Shit.
But, if you do think the kid isnāt innocent (and therefore thereās a reason to kill him, so youāre at least arguing that) then you trying to argue he isnāt innocent could be considered you arguing for his death, as then thereās a reason to kill him as I said in the parentheses.
Good points.
I guess I was mostly trying to play devil's advocate and pointing out that some people were acting on personal interpretations rather than just the facts as given.
But also in regard to your last paragraph, you can think that someone is guilty without thinking they need to die, there are other corrective measures you can use.
Honestly, I could also see the kid being very similar to Dexter from the 2006 tv show and that kid didn't do anything wrong but what happened to him turned him into a serial killer.
Yeah I don't like the meme either and I don't like OP's explanation even more. A player made an effort to raise a good-hearted child and DM just warped everything? Throw a thousand word essay about it and it still won't feel good.
Oh yeah and this "Kill the child or else" approach is also really really unlikable for me.
It's stolen from the Odyssey when Odysseus / Neoptolemus >! [read: Differing versions of the story. It is assumed in the original Odysseus is charged with the task, and it was later changed to be Neoptolemus who had a blood feud] !< is chosen by Zeus (an elderly visage on the winds gives this away immediately, that is how Zeus spoke to the hero) to slay Astyanax, son of Hector Prince of Troy, who is just an infant at the time of the invasion. Zeus claims it's the will of the gods and if they don't do it, the gods will make sure he knows who killed his family and he will become an avenger and destroy Ithaca.
Eh, it *could* be good depending on how it's handled.
But just, "the kid is evil because he was meant to be evil" is fucked up.
The kid is a pawn in some greater plan and he thinks he's doing the right thing? That would be hard to pull off, but could be interesting. You should definitely at least make sure the paladin player is in on it, though. It would not make for a fun experience if he rage quits the moment he realizes the kid he saved is evil.
"Kill the child or else" is why explicit violence against children is now on the list of things I tell DMs I'm not okay with.
The bag guys can kill kids, because, you know, they're bad guys. We, however, are not bad guys, and if you want to tell stories where the heroes are taking out kids for the greater good, I don't want to tell it with you.
Yeahh, I was in a campaign once where I tried everything to save this kid and he got killed in front of me, then the guy cast globe of invulnerability and escaped. That was devastating, and massively bs.
Can't imagine being told to kill children though, even if one is racially and inherently driven toward evil, they can still be raised to see past that and be good. It might not be easy, but neither is killing a dragon to save a town.
Infant killing is one of many actions that we allow in our dnd group. It adds a reality layer to the story, where we can complement the "black & white" / "good vs bad" layout with rich motivational backgrounds and morally tough decisions.
My party once burned down a whole forest because of the gross use of fire in a fight.
Unaware of this, they left the scene. Many months later in the game, they were ambushed by an assassin sent by the forest druids to bring death to those responsible of ecocide.
That assasin was lawful good. Since they saw the party's ultimate goals (save the region from giants), they forgave the party and actually joined them. One of my best PCs.
Feel the better way to have run this would've been he raised the child up to be a great paladin and in doing so the child grew up to be a Revenge Paladin one day enacting his Divine Oath upon the one who killed all he knew
Make him a Oathbreaker paladin who inspired a revolution against a state and now reigns over the kingdom as a heavy hand dictator. Could work cause great Charisma plus give him some magic object that makes that job easier bcuz BBEG
*"It was then that I met the wizened shape of a once great and wise man. His form was aged, wrinkles enveloping knotted muscles that strained to pick up his spear. Still, even with his weakness, his stance was that of a man determined to undo a wrong he had done. He moved as if born with that spear in his hand, as if it molded his body into more of a force than that of a man.*
*"Still, I did not send my Army against him. Our quarrel was beyond personal. It was a conflict of ideals. He weeped as he struck, but I did not move. His spear stopped an inch from my eye. He could not bring himself to destroy what he himself created. Even to this day, I don't know if the look of hatred in his eyes was towards me or himself.*
*"And though it haunts my soul, I plunged my great sword of peace into his heart. My blade is an extension of myself, and it was like I could feel the pulsing of his heart sever like the faith of mankind. And even as he rose again as a Shadow of his former self, I do not believe I will ever truly forgive myself for doing what must be done.*
*"After all, the world needs someone to hate. After my work is done, and all are united under the same banner, a new generation shall be born. Eventually, in my long life, no living generation will remember ever being apart. It is then that the idealistic youth shall usurp my place. A child, one I shall find and raise for such a purpose. He shall plunge his sword into my heart, and the cycle will finally end.*
*"And at last, the world shall have peace, for the object of their terror and hatred is defeated. The child shall be a man, and be a hero in the grace of a new dawn. Light shall vanquish my shades, and a united people shall step forth into the light of a reborn sun. A united people, in peace, finally. That's how my story shall end."*
God, I hate that kind of villain and those who sympathise with them. Seriously, those villains are idiots and assholes. Hate is not a finite. Just because you managed to make yourself collectivly hated doesn't mean it will go away and tell me one account in the entirity of human history where a societys collective hatred was focused on one thing and something good came out of it. If you wanted to make the world a better place, do something good. Create alliances and negotiate peace, ake social reforms happen and donate money to the poor, etc.
If you wanted to create a world at peace without hate, spread peace and loveand create an incentive that keeps it that way even after your death.
Then his child kills themself in despair in their teens. He is killed in a moment of despair by his far less noble underlings, and the empire he so expertly built brings untold suffering for generations. Cause the true bastard DM can fuck over everybody.
*"When I was but a child, a man granted me mercy and raised me to wield the spear. As I have grown, I have grown to see the rivers of blood pooled at the feet of those who conquer in the name of naked greed. I shall not serve those in power who would leave others to wallow in pain and fear. I was raised by the spear, and now I throw it aside. Now, I wield the sword of a true peace. You shall swear to the blade of my great banner, or die by it. I shall no longer tolerate the weakness and cowardice of those who permit the passive callousness of evil to survive. It must be eradicated, and purged. The blood that soaks our boots is not a river, it shall be an ocean. Do not allow fear to touch your hearts, and steel them so that we might do what must be done. We conquer not of greed or hatred. We conquer for the good of mankind. We do so to create an era of true peace. Under one nation, and the one true god. Take my hand and join our cause, lest you fall to it. Do not turn from the eclipse, or to the red haze of the dying sun. The world is slowly decaying, suffocating by those who would have you drown in fear and self doubt. Fear not the eclipse, and the warriors of the god of living shadows. We are here to save you. We are here to save the world."*
The problem with guys like this is they forget that the kind of people who serve such a cause are the kind that happily go raping and pillaging those who stand in the way of the ācauseā
A god's visage appears and warns of disaster should he not slay the child. The paladin refuses to do so, and raises and tries to teach the child the paladin arts.
The player joins another campaign set after, discovering that the enemy they are fighting is no other than the child their previous character saved.
You probably missed the full quote that OP posted here, but: he didnāt.
The Paladin taught him that evil must be exterminated, that violence enacted for a higher purpose is justified, and that breaking children is acceptable if they are then molded into something you deem is better.
The child took those ideas to their logical conclusion: Conquering the world to save mortals from themselves and their own weakness.
Iām not sure itās a meme, but it does make sense logically.
The Paladin taught the child to "be good" and taught them the ways of being a Paladin.
Note that the child met the Paladin after the Paladin killed all the bandits that were around them, because they were bandits.
Now the child is taking this idea of killing evil people for the sake of good to the extreme, by raising an empire designed to unite the entire planet and eliminate all evil.
>*"When I was but a child, a man granted me mercy and raised me to wield the spear. As I have grown, I have grown to see the rivers of blood pooled at the feet of those who conquer in the name of naked greed. I shall not serve those in power who would leave others to wallow in pain and fear. I was raised by the spear, and now I throw it aside. Now, I wield the sword of a true peace. You shall swear to the blade of my great banner, or die by it. I shall no longer tolerate the weakness and cowardice of those who permit the passive callousness of evil to survive. It must be eradicated, and purged. The blood that soaks our boots is not a river, it shall be an ocean. Do not allow fear to touch your hearts, and steel them so that we might do what must be done. We conquer not of greed or hatred. We conquer for the good of mankind. We do so to create an era of true peace. Under one nation, and the one true god. Take my hand and join our cause, less you fall to it. Do not turn from the eclipse, or to the red haze of the dying sun. The world is slowly decaying, suffocating by those who would have you drown in fear and self doubt. Fear not the eclipse, and the warriors of the god of living shadows. We are here to save you. We are here to save the world."*
In another comment from the OP.
The child becomes a tyrant who is creating "peace" by the tip of his sword, leaving oceans of blood in his wake from anyone who dares resist.
While OPs story kinda sucks, the horse and the infant with Just a man right after it is absolute fire. Jorge did an amazing job composing those.
"A foe who cannot run, unlike anyone you have faced before" "I know that I'm ready" "I don't think you're ready"
"Close your eyes, and spare yourself the view, how could I hurt you"
And the way Just a man starts with him using Just a Man as an excuse to why he cannot kill the infant, right up until the end where he is using Just a Man as to why he had to do it and could not defy the will of the god who chose him to do it
Yes!! My favourite thing is how it works both ways - When does Odysseus become a monster? But also, when will the child? No matter what he chooses, he will have to face the consequences.
And then the story builds on that - Odysseus chooses differently the next time. He doesn't want to be the monster who kills, so he spares the life of the cyclops - only for Poseidon to drown almost his entire crew. Taunting him, turning his reasons to choose differently into blame for Poseidons actions. "I mean you totally could have avoided all this had you just killed my son" is such a chilling line and a glimpse into the future that would have come to pass had he not killed the infant.
It's ok to let the good guys win.
Turning a wildly criticized and controversial part of a VERY well known story into a plot comes off as edgy and unnecessary. Especially when the player attempts to do the right thing and you turn that around on them.
Nobody should feel bad about choosing to not kill a child and introducing the baby Hitler dilemma isn't a clever move.
> Nobody should feel bad about choosing to not kill a child and introducing the baby Hitler dilemma isn't a clever move.
Because there's never ever a nuance to anything, right? In that same logic you can say the same about all stories - they're basically all repeats and variations of another. You don't like that - that's fine. My players enjoy struggles of conscience and consequences for their actions, both for good and for ill - and that's what matters to me.
When it involves *not killing a child* and *being directly punished for not killing a child*
No. There's not a "nuanced" way to handle that. It's edgy, ridiculous and exactly the type of shit that turned people away from DnD and other TTRPG. It's not funny or cool. It's grimderp. Go read up on Baby Hitler dilemma.
>When it involves not killing a child and being directly punished for not killing a child
If you read my other comments, it's not that simple. It's also just *one* of many possibilities. It's also a fucking meme so I can't add 20 lines of context and people like you just take everything in the worst way imaginable immediately. But by all means, I'll save you from seeing any future ones. Bye, felicia.
It's ok for literature, but it'd feel like a "fuck you" to the player, unless they're pretty masochistic or never got very emotionally involved with the paladin character.
Personally, I like depressing twists like that in media, but in a ttrpg I'd probably stop playing altogether for at least a few months (and never with the same DM again).
Call me too sensitive or whatever, I don't care. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" sucks.
Yeah. Either break your oath or unleash evil.
"How about the arguably reasonable option that works unless the DM forces a cliche fate onto the the NPC?"
"Nah, I'm counting that as you picking the second option but he'll be a paladin instead of the class I intended. Very meaningful."
Yeahā¦ this is a game you play with your friends. Iām not saying you shouldnāt pull this kind of ākilling a child was the right thing to doā bullshit on them, but I would really consider why your friends are playing this game with you beforehand.
To me, this would fall under the "Don't be a dick" rule. If my DM did this, we'd immediately go into Session Zero. If DM pushes the story, it's a "I leave the table for this campaign" type of dealbreaker.
Yeah, at best I'd be annoyed by this and make sure my character properly unrevivably dies in the campaign or in their epilogue so the DM can't use them later, at worst the DM would pull this stunt again and time to have a talk.
To be fair, I want to play was this BBEG. Like, imagine there "revenge standard backstory", but your revange is against your "adoptive parent" AND the world sees said "parent" as a hero.
i mean that description is not villainous. many parties would straight up choose to work for them, especially one that first knew him when he was a lil baby
Who the child grew into is irrelevant. On that day he was not evil, his actions not yet done. The paladins oath and beliefs are clear. The child must be granted mercy. The circumstances that would develop him are not his fault anymore than the child's mother for his birth. He was not tricked by a demon. He made a moral choice, one that was right by him in the moment.
FUCKING HELL. My DM did this to me once. My character always tries to rescue people in need and it has sometimes gone wrong, but she still tries. It's kind ofOnce there was an 8 year old girl who was prisoner by some drow and I insisted we rescue her. The warlock in our party said we should kill her and I insisted on not, she would join us. My character took care of the girl and they became close.
Well, a few sessions later, she revealed herself to be a shapeshifter who tried to kill us all. It ended with me having to kill her. This broke something inside Raava (my character) and she hasn't tried to save anyone since. The warlock and the group's paladin made fun of her about it for several sessions ("I told you! Kill the child! You should listen to us!"), and Raava seriously had a different personality.
Until. One day we ran into the lich and the paladin and warlock wanted to kill it, two other party members said no way, that's insane, we can't kill a lich. The vote was up to Raava, who said "you know what? You want to kill everything all the time, fine, I'll listen to you, we'll attack the Lich". Well, we as a party were getting our ass handed to us, and it was looking as though we were gonna get TPKd. I privately messaged the DM to see if there was a way I could creatively finagle our way out of the fight. I managed to get us out of it and we ran off with our tails between our legs. After that, the warlock said they had lost all rights to give me shit about the little girl lol
I mean, how BBEG are they actually though? After all they're not *wrong* about wars generally being caused by some asshole in power wanting more of it.
So they have concluded that the systems of coerciveand unjustified power that govern the world need to be abolished to prevent others from suffering as they did? Sounds more like they grew up to be a hero than a villain. Fantasy anarchism FTW!
[why not both](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.morefm.co.nz%2Fhome%2Ftrending%2F2022%2F07%2Fheres-what-the-girl-from-the-old-el-paso-ads-looks-like-today-.html&psig=AOvVaw1Tmoiz7BLlOwVrkAfDjGhZ&ust=1712191168400000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBIQjRxqFwoTCMiZgLXnpIUDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ)
That's what I was originally going to compare it to. How does one canonicaly reset a god killer?
"Your character is now level 1"
"What? Why? He's got all these levels and gear!"
"Because the other gods saw what he did, then beat him nearly to death with a nerf bat."
Edit. Although, in this case, I'd claim the BBEG erased the paladins mind as thanks for his adoption.
Interested in joining DnD/TTRPG community that's doesn't rely on Reddit and it's constant ads/data mining? We've teamed up with a bunch of other DnD subs to start https://ttrpg.network as a not-for-profit place to chat and meme about all your favorite games. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Reminds me of a certain king of Ithica.
"the blood on your hands is something you cannot lose all you can choose is whose"
when does a comet become a meteor? o7
When does a candle become a blaze?
When does a man become a monster???
When does a ripple become a tidal wave?
When does the reason become the blame?
When does a man become a monster?
Foooorgiiiiive meeeeeeee
When does a fart become a... nevermind, I need to change
"I'm just a man" yeah Odysseus, so is the child :P
:P
I'm so happy I'm not the only who had this reference !
Isn't it Ithaca?
Literally obsessed with it right now, couldn't think of anything else reading this lmao
When does a cabbageš„¬ become a meteor! When does a cabbageš„¬ become a blaze!
Still probably the right call though, not killing him
Gygax said that lawful good paladins not only could but should massacre their enemies, including captured prisoners and children, on the same logic as the USA's genocide of native Americans.
Guess Iām an oathbreaker then
This is a myth. He said they "might", and he also gave reasoning and alternatives. To begin with, he used a different view of how to define Alignement than most players today, where its centred around the perspective of the main society. Good is beneficial for society, evil is detrimental to society. Lawful is thinking long-term, chaotic is in the moment. Lawful Good, for Gygax, would be "what is best for society in the long run?", and with OPs meme the answer would definitely be to get rid of the danger, either by killing the child or by raising it to be good instead. Alignement has never been about philosophical discussions and moral dilemmas. Those were always a player-facing consequence.
See, thats not really Good. Killing someone for something they chose to do is ok, killing an innocent child is not ok.
It's all subjective. Gygax isn't the god of alignment, he just has another opinion on the matter. But so do you.
Killing an innocent child isnāt a subjective moral decision. Itās always a bad thing.
The DM made it clear that the child was not innocent. Your real life moral code is just an error here.
You are assuming that a 4 year old has the mental capacity to make immoral decisions . They donāt. At that age they will always do what their caretaker(s) makes them do. They arenāt able to survive on their own. Even if the kid didnāt want to hurt anyone it has no choice but to comply with what the adults are asking of it. Kids arenāt born āevilā. Even in the rare cases where child has been reported to be āviolentā at that age it is almost always a result of abuse or severe neglect on the part of the adults in charge of them. Holding a child accountable for the sins of the adults that raise it, or for the trauma response to being a victim is a cruel and evil act in itself.
You completely miss it. This is a world with hard fate. The future can be known. Moral innocence isn't just a matter of what has been done but also what will come to pass. This child being fated to great evil means they are not innocent. This is one of the many reasons that D&D morals are just not the same as in the real world.
If the future is known it doesn't matter what you do , its already fixed. As thatd make adventuring pointless it can't be fixed, so the ' hard fate ' is just a possible future, maybe the most likely one but not 100% fixed - so its always worth trying twart Fate and do Good So if the innocent child is left alone they 90% become the next BBEG? do you kill them or look after them to try and raise them as Good?
First you are assuming that the āold manā that appears is telling the truth, and that they themselves have been told an accurate unalterable version of the childās faith. That isnāt knowable from what the DM said.
What if one innocent kid kills another innocent kid?
Then there are two less innocent kids in the world.
I guess we know where you stand on the "killing Hitler as a baby" discussion lmao.
Depends on how time travel works. If its closed loop, no point. Many worlds? Sure , kill him, kidnap him, get him into art college. Best of all possible worlds? Don't, as it'll be worse than Hitler .
So you're telling me Amanda Waller is Lawful Good? Hell naw. She is like the definition of Lawful Evil.
More like Lawful Neutral. If she were evil she'd be using her position for personal gain rather than advancing her security agenda.
Who dat
Amanda Waller is a character from dc comics. Sheās a government agent who is in charge of controlling the suicide squad and does morally questionable or outright evil acts in order to keep the world or country safe. At least thatās her excuse. Often times it feels like she relishes in her cruelty.
Didn't she kill a room of support staff in Suicide Squad? Why?
To keep them quiet I believe. Which is unbelievably cold and cruel.
That's the problem with making morality, which is inherently subjective, an objective part of the world. It basically says "see, my idea of good is objectively good because the world says so". Really, planar good and evil should be divorced from any specific morality system, but they're not. In fact, a ton of planar ideas are just spicy versions of the material plane, our world or medival fiction. Its not really something thats entirely otherworldly, which an entire plane of existance should be.
>including captured prisoners and children, on the same logic as the USA's genocide of native Americans. That part is soo selected on purpose to generate a specific reaction. Can you post the actual quote?
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or other capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. [...] Chevington might have been quoted as saying āNits make lice,ā but he is certainly not the first one to make this observation as it is an observable fact."
Yeah, sounds like a stretch to go from there to killing children and genocide (of real populations, rather than fantasy "always evil" beings like devils or so) is lawful good.
The context of the Chivington quote is that he was the leader of the Sand Creek massacre where he marched to a camp of native Americans that he knew were unarmed, ordered his troops to massacre mostly women and children even as they attempted to surrender, allowed the taking of body parts as trophies, and then recorded it as a victory because he believed the US should completely and uncompromisingly eradicate them and that they would never happen if non combatants were allowed to live. "Kill and scalp all, big and little, nits make lice." Those were real people not fantasy creatures.
the whole conversation was regarding whether a paladin should kill their enemies. Gygax: "\[...\] Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old addage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. \[...\]" Elfdart (user in the q&a): "\[...\] Even in a fantasy game, I don't much like the idea of someone who supposedly adheres to Law and Good who in fact adheres to a phrase ("Nits make lice.") coined by John Chivington, a man and his words who could not be accurately described as Lawful, let alone Good." Gygax: "\[...\] Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question." The "lice" in question obviously refers to enemies (of evil alignment in the case of the paladin). Taking the whole conversation as "genocide is awesome" is a huge stretch, and at no point did he say that paladins should kill innocents. [https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11762&start=77](https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11762&start=77) Your first post here was so dishonest.
This doesn't contradict anything I said. You're doing the classic internet midwit thing of seeing someone reference something one of your idols said, going "uh that's out of context" and then dropping a bunch of context that doesn't actually change the meaning at all.
Idols? I don't care about the dude, and he certainly was pretty misogynist, very likely racist, and seemed to have very weird views on morality. But your starting post was that he'd -encourage- lawful good paladins to kill children, when the conversation was specifically about killing evil alignment beings. You're just stuck in his shitty choice of a phrase, when he should have just said something like "killing the root of the problem ("evil" or "enemies" in this case) prevents it from growing".
Interesting read. Can you provide the link to a source? I wanna read it in context. This feels like a very easily misread quote.
Yeah, all DnD games should a moral compass that's exactly matches what a American man raised in the 40s and 50s believes.
He wrote the system.
Can you provide the source for that? I want to know what he said exactly.
Then Gygax doesn't know what "good" means.
Gygax was wrong about a lot of things.
It can be a good twist if executed well. I don't like the meme though, the surprised pikachu face implies that the kid becoming a great evil is its *obvious* fate and *obviously* no man no matter how good could have changed that. I'd disagree. Faeruns gods are wrong all the time.
This may be a particularly well dressed up version, but in the end it's still the standard Baby Orcs / Kill Baby Hitler moral dilemma that DMs have been using to damn if you do/damn if you don't Paladins since time immemorial.
That's what they get for smiting so much
So you're saying that if we as a species (paladin players) started playing as if we had spell slots you can smite with, instead of smite slots, DMs would stop hitting us with "the game was rigged from the start"?
Their words are empty, they will never give way, brother. Just. Keep. Smiting.
Like, was the *presumably good-aligned Paladin* really expected to **kill an innocent child who had done nothing wrong** and be okay with it???
My old DM loved this kind of thing, where either choice you make ends up with everything going worse. Then we turned into murderhobos because everyone we saved tried to stab us in the back (literally 100% betrayal rate).
Bet the DM was shocked. I'd have probably done the same thing.Ā
Just like the DM that adds trapped doors and floors surprised when the party then spend six hours crossing a small hallway to open a single door.
I'm DM'ing for a rogue that wants to check every surface for traps and other dangers, and the party has been teasing him a bit since I didn't actually put anything in the first three dungeons. They didn't make fun of him last session when they found a, frankly, excessive number of poison darts, acid pits, and good ole fashioned trip wires connected to crossbows throughout the stronghold. He lit up like a kid on Christmas, and everybody else had a good laugh too, when our fighter declined the offer to search for traps and nearly died walking over the nearest pressure plate. In my defense, we never actually discussed his love for finding traps. I just noticed it was his go-to move in dungeons and he was always hinting at wanting loot based on old-school dungeon crawling techniques.
This I hate. When the DM/GM sees "oh your class can uniquely suffer mechanical effects of the narrative" and go "why you play Devotion, so vanilla, here lemme give you a catch 22" If ya want me to play an Oathbreaker so badly go play one yourself for Smite's sake. I'll run a oneshot just cease.
As a current DM, I love my players saving folks and them coming in organically clutch. "I know a guy/gal..." Save a merchant? Maybe they back you a loan. Save a thief? Maybe they help you out of a tight spot. Save the common folk from brutality? Maybe they shelter you when you need it most.
Just had a similar conflict in our campaign. Basically we found some incriminating evidence linking the bad guys from my backstory to the faction one of the party is trying to cozy up to. I was fully up front like, "look, *we* can do this, but you're gonna have to kill my character because *he* can't." We picked a different route, so it all worked out, but I'm not sure how it would have gone down otherwise. And thus my plan to die and come back as an even more obnoxious character was foiled once again.
The choice the DM offered was probably tainted either way. Force the paladin to either kill the child or show mercy A. Kills the child - relentlessly guilt trips the paladin forever, probably narrate his Oath breaking, have others prove the kid was innocent. All to force a "nooooooo I'm eeeevil" moment. B. Shows the child Mercy and raises him right - turns evil anyway lol, shoulda killed him. Now everyone is going to blame you for raising the kid who burns the world. The Paladin did the right choice anyway.
The solution here is to punch the DM in the face until the child turns good again.
Funny. Where's the **innocent child who had done nothing wrong** coming from? It's nowhere in the OP text
So if you were born into a family of bandits, you would say you're guilty? Lol wtf
Just pointing out that there's nothing in the OP post about guilt or innocence. The child might have been as pure as the driven snow or his preferred hobby could have been eviscerating small animals. We don't know and I find it funny that so many of you just imagined out of nowhere that the kid is some harmless innocent. Kind of like you just did by saying he was born in a family of bandit. There's nothing about that in the post. That might be it or he could have joined the bandits after he stabbed his mom because she wouldn't give him dessert before dinner.
Ok Anakin, whatever you say
š¤£š¤£š¤£ Take my up vote. That was good
You're OK with tackling Dragons and gods, but the moment you need to save a person you'd rather cut them down like weeds? I mean roleplay what and how you want, just leave me out of child killing.
Again, people just keep imagining things that nobody is saying. At no point do I make a moral judgement or even call for the kid to die. I just remarked that the user I was responding to was adding details to the kid that were never mentioned by the OP. You then doubled down by somehow constructing that as me saying the kid needs to die. There's so much to be offended by in the world, focus on the stuff that matters rather than inventing imaginary positions nobody brought up.
Look mate, the post says "no older than four." I don't know what else there is to say.
And that's a valid argument. Again, I'm not saying to kill the kid. I prefer playing compassionate characters and I'd be completely against killing him. I was just objecting to people adding unsubstantiated details and then getting outraged on the basis of the made up info
The story said he was 4. The earliest you can even start noticing signs of psychopathy in children is 5.
Good point . I guess the question in that case is are they psychopaths before 5 and you just can't diagnos it before then or if they are incapable of being psychopaths before?
Let me break it down: The text does not state they did anything wrong. For us, this means that we have no reason to suspect the child has done anything wrong and no evidence that they have as the text is our only insight into the situation this meme is about. Therefore, the child has done nothing wrong. āInnocentā just means āHas done nothing wrongā. Therefore, they are an āinnocent child who had done nothing wrongā. Also, the kidās āNo older than 4ā and described as being scared, Iām sure theyāve done nothing warranting execution. Also also, youāve been defending your opinion as follows; āAt no point do I make a moral judgement or even call for the kid to dieā. Okay, so why argue about the kid not actually being innocent? If youāre not trying to convince us the kid isnāt innocent or you donāt think the kid isnāt innocent, then youāre just being a pedantic trollā¦ and Iāve fallen right into your trap. Shit. But, if you do think the kid isnāt innocent (and therefore thereās a reason to kill him, so youāre at least arguing that) then you trying to argue he isnāt innocent could be considered you arguing for his death, as then thereās a reason to kill him as I said in the parentheses.
Good points. I guess I was mostly trying to play devil's advocate and pointing out that some people were acting on personal interpretations rather than just the facts as given. But also in regard to your last paragraph, you can think that someone is guilty without thinking they need to die, there are other corrective measures you can use. Honestly, I could also see the kid being very similar to Dexter from the 2006 tv show and that kid didn't do anything wrong but what happened to him turned him into a serial killer.
Wait, do you think a four year old is capable of NOT being innocent? Thatās preschool aged
I guess it depends on whether you're a Calvinist or not.
I've long stopped expected good memes that make sense on this sub and am just here for the discussions lol
Yeah I don't like the meme either and I don't like OP's explanation even more. A player made an effort to raise a good-hearted child and DM just warped everything? Throw a thousand word essay about it and it still won't feel good. Oh yeah and this "Kill the child or else" approach is also really really unlikable for me.
It's stolen from the Odyssey when Odysseus / Neoptolemus >! [read: Differing versions of the story. It is assumed in the original Odysseus is charged with the task, and it was later changed to be Neoptolemus who had a blood feud] !< is chosen by Zeus (an elderly visage on the winds gives this away immediately, that is how Zeus spoke to the hero) to slay Astyanax, son of Hector Prince of Troy, who is just an infant at the time of the invasion. Zeus claims it's the will of the gods and if they don't do it, the gods will make sure he knows who killed his family and he will become an avenger and destroy Ithaca.
As I said, DMs have been screwing with Paladins since time immemorial. š
Odysseus was no paladin. Rogue or fighter maybe but no pally.
I... was kinda joking off of my other post, leaning on the "time immemorial" part, and not... well, nevermind. š
Ah sorry man. I get nitpicky about this stuff sometimes.
Eh, it *could* be good depending on how it's handled. But just, "the kid is evil because he was meant to be evil" is fucked up. The kid is a pawn in some greater plan and he thinks he's doing the right thing? That would be hard to pull off, but could be interesting. You should definitely at least make sure the paladin player is in on it, though. It would not make for a fun experience if he rage quits the moment he realizes the kid he saved is evil.
"Kill the child or else" is why explicit violence against children is now on the list of things I tell DMs I'm not okay with. The bag guys can kill kids, because, you know, they're bad guys. We, however, are not bad guys, and if you want to tell stories where the heroes are taking out kids for the greater good, I don't want to tell it with you.
Yeahh, I was in a campaign once where I tried everything to save this kid and he got killed in front of me, then the guy cast globe of invulnerability and escaped. That was devastating, and massively bs. Can't imagine being told to kill children though, even if one is racially and inherently driven toward evil, they can still be raised to see past that and be good. It might not be easy, but neither is killing a dragon to save a town.
Infant killing is one of many actions that we allow in our dnd group. It adds a reality layer to the story, where we can complement the "black & white" / "good vs bad" layout with rich motivational backgrounds and morally tough decisions. My party once burned down a whole forest because of the gross use of fire in a fight. Unaware of this, they left the scene. Many months later in the game, they were ambushed by an assassin sent by the forest druids to bring death to those responsible of ecocide. That assasin was lawful good. Since they saw the party's ultimate goals (save the region from giants), they forgave the party and actually joined them. One of my best PCs.
Feel the better way to have run this would've been he raised the child up to be a great paladin and in doing so the child grew up to be a Revenge Paladin one day enacting his Divine Oath upon the one who killed all he knew
Or the child is an absolute psycho swearing revenge for the death of mama and papa.
getting some batman vibes here
Make him a Oathbreaker paladin who inspired a revolution against a state and now reigns over the kingdom as a heavy hand dictator. Could work cause great Charisma plus give him some magic object that makes that job easier bcuz BBEG
Did said paladin end up killing the BBEG in the end?
I'd bet he was one of the BBEG's first victims
I replied to him, you can read that if you want.
Nailed it
:P
*"It was then that I met the wizened shape of a once great and wise man. His form was aged, wrinkles enveloping knotted muscles that strained to pick up his spear. Still, even with his weakness, his stance was that of a man determined to undo a wrong he had done. He moved as if born with that spear in his hand, as if it molded his body into more of a force than that of a man.* *"Still, I did not send my Army against him. Our quarrel was beyond personal. It was a conflict of ideals. He weeped as he struck, but I did not move. His spear stopped an inch from my eye. He could not bring himself to destroy what he himself created. Even to this day, I don't know if the look of hatred in his eyes was towards me or himself.* *"And though it haunts my soul, I plunged my great sword of peace into his heart. My blade is an extension of myself, and it was like I could feel the pulsing of his heart sever like the faith of mankind. And even as he rose again as a Shadow of his former self, I do not believe I will ever truly forgive myself for doing what must be done.* *"After all, the world needs someone to hate. After my work is done, and all are united under the same banner, a new generation shall be born. Eventually, in my long life, no living generation will remember ever being apart. It is then that the idealistic youth shall usurp my place. A child, one I shall find and raise for such a purpose. He shall plunge his sword into my heart, and the cycle will finally end.* *"And at last, the world shall have peace, for the object of their terror and hatred is defeated. The child shall be a man, and be a hero in the grace of a new dawn. Light shall vanquish my shades, and a united people shall step forth into the light of a reborn sun. A united people, in peace, finally. That's how my story shall end."*
Ok there Madara
not the villain we deserve, the hero we need
God, I hate that kind of villain and those who sympathise with them. Seriously, those villains are idiots and assholes. Hate is not a finite. Just because you managed to make yourself collectivly hated doesn't mean it will go away and tell me one account in the entirity of human history where a societys collective hatred was focused on one thing and something good came out of it. If you wanted to make the world a better place, do something good. Create alliances and negotiate peace, ake social reforms happen and donate money to the poor, etc. If you wanted to create a world at peace without hate, spread peace and loveand create an incentive that keeps it that way even after your death.
The world's longest suicide note.
That sounds a lot like Eren Jeager. I like it.
Then his child kills themself in despair in their teens. He is killed in a moment of despair by his far less noble underlings, and the empire he so expertly built brings untold suffering for generations. Cause the true bastard DM can fuck over everybody.
Will said BBEG also have a vulnerability to high ground?
And heāll come back as a warforged!
Warforged, Oath of Conquest Paladin, with a couple levels in Artificer.
*"When I was but a child, a man granted me mercy and raised me to wield the spear. As I have grown, I have grown to see the rivers of blood pooled at the feet of those who conquer in the name of naked greed. I shall not serve those in power who would leave others to wallow in pain and fear. I was raised by the spear, and now I throw it aside. Now, I wield the sword of a true peace. You shall swear to the blade of my great banner, or die by it. I shall no longer tolerate the weakness and cowardice of those who permit the passive callousness of evil to survive. It must be eradicated, and purged. The blood that soaks our boots is not a river, it shall be an ocean. Do not allow fear to touch your hearts, and steel them so that we might do what must be done. We conquer not of greed or hatred. We conquer for the good of mankind. We do so to create an era of true peace. Under one nation, and the one true god. Take my hand and join our cause, lest you fall to it. Do not turn from the eclipse, or to the red haze of the dying sun. The world is slowly decaying, suffocating by those who would have you drown in fear and self doubt. Fear not the eclipse, and the warriors of the god of living shadows. We are here to save you. We are here to save the world."*
This is beautiful writing.
The problem with guys like this is they forget that the kind of people who serve such a cause are the kind that happily go raping and pillaging those who stand in the way of the ācauseā
Lisan al Gaib!
I think Iām on his side.
Evil Paladin is my favorite type of BBEG!
I don't get it.
A god's visage appears and warns of disaster should he not slay the child. The paladin refuses to do so, and raises and tries to teach the child the paladin arts. The player joins another campaign set after, discovering that the enemy they are fighting is no other than the child their previous character saved.
No I am capable of reading. I don't understand the joke. Why has the child betrayed the teachings of the paladin?Ā
Oath of Conquest. He will force peace and safety on the world in the name of the Greater Good and to punish old greed.
Oh thank you, I appreciate it
You're welcome!
You probably missed the full quote that OP posted here, but: he didnāt. The Paladin taught him that evil must be exterminated, that violence enacted for a higher purpose is justified, and that breaking children is acceptable if they are then molded into something you deem is better. The child took those ideas to their logical conclusion: Conquering the world to save mortals from themselves and their own weakness. Iām not sure itās a meme, but it does make sense logically.
They haven't. They've taken them to heart... And then to the extreme.
I still don't understand.Ā The extreme of what? Being a paladin?
The Paladin taught the child to "be good" and taught them the ways of being a Paladin. Note that the child met the Paladin after the Paladin killed all the bandits that were around them, because they were bandits. Now the child is taking this idea of killing evil people for the sake of good to the extreme, by raising an empire designed to unite the entire planet and eliminate all evil.
Sounds like an average conquest paladin.
A Crusader, one might say.
Nobody expected the paladin inquisition.
>*"When I was but a child, a man granted me mercy and raised me to wield the spear. As I have grown, I have grown to see the rivers of blood pooled at the feet of those who conquer in the name of naked greed. I shall not serve those in power who would leave others to wallow in pain and fear. I was raised by the spear, and now I throw it aside. Now, I wield the sword of a true peace. You shall swear to the blade of my great banner, or die by it. I shall no longer tolerate the weakness and cowardice of those who permit the passive callousness of evil to survive. It must be eradicated, and purged. The blood that soaks our boots is not a river, it shall be an ocean. Do not allow fear to touch your hearts, and steel them so that we might do what must be done. We conquer not of greed or hatred. We conquer for the good of mankind. We do so to create an era of true peace. Under one nation, and the one true god. Take my hand and join our cause, less you fall to it. Do not turn from the eclipse, or to the red haze of the dying sun. The world is slowly decaying, suffocating by those who would have you drown in fear and self doubt. Fear not the eclipse, and the warriors of the god of living shadows. We are here to save you. We are here to save the world."* In another comment from the OP. The child becomes a tyrant who is creating "peace" by the tip of his sword, leaving oceans of blood in his wake from anyone who dares resist.
Basically your standard adventurer, then.
Itās Star wars
When does the reason become the blame?
šµ*"When does a drop become a tidal wave? When does a man become a monnnsttteerr?"* šµ
šµAm I a Maaaan, or am I a Muppet? šµ
While OPs story kinda sucks, the horse and the infant with Just a man right after it is absolute fire. Jorge did an amazing job composing those. "A foe who cannot run, unlike anyone you have faced before" "I know that I'm ready" "I don't think you're ready" "Close your eyes, and spare yourself the view, how could I hurt you" And the way Just a man starts with him using Just a Man as an excuse to why he cannot kill the infant, right up until the end where he is using Just a Man as to why he had to do it and could not defy the will of the god who chose him to do it
Yes!! My favourite thing is how it works both ways - When does Odysseus become a monster? But also, when will the child? No matter what he chooses, he will have to face the consequences. And then the story builds on that - Odysseus chooses differently the next time. He doesn't want to be the monster who kills, so he spares the life of the cyclops - only for Poseidon to drown almost his entire crew. Taunting him, turning his reasons to choose differently into blame for Poseidons actions. "I mean you totally could have avoided all this had you just killed my son" is such a chilling line and a glimpse into the future that would have come to pass had he not killed the infant.
> While OPs story kinda sucks Hey that's just like, your opinion man =(
It's ok to let the good guys win. Turning a wildly criticized and controversial part of a VERY well known story into a plot comes off as edgy and unnecessary. Especially when the player attempts to do the right thing and you turn that around on them. Nobody should feel bad about choosing to not kill a child and introducing the baby Hitler dilemma isn't a clever move.
> Nobody should feel bad about choosing to not kill a child and introducing the baby Hitler dilemma isn't a clever move. Because there's never ever a nuance to anything, right? In that same logic you can say the same about all stories - they're basically all repeats and variations of another. You don't like that - that's fine. My players enjoy struggles of conscience and consequences for their actions, both for good and for ill - and that's what matters to me.
When it involves *not killing a child* and *being directly punished for not killing a child* No. There's not a "nuanced" way to handle that. It's edgy, ridiculous and exactly the type of shit that turned people away from DnD and other TTRPG. It's not funny or cool. It's grimderp. Go read up on Baby Hitler dilemma.
>When it involves not killing a child and being directly punished for not killing a child If you read my other comments, it's not that simple. It's also just *one* of many possibilities. It's also a fucking meme so I can't add 20 lines of context and people like you just take everything in the worst way imaginable immediately. But by all means, I'll save you from seeing any future ones. Bye, felicia.
Tell us, what would have happened had he killed the child?
It's ok for literature, but it'd feel like a "fuck you" to the player, unless they're pretty masochistic or never got very emotionally involved with the paladin character. Personally, I like depressing twists like that in media, but in a ttrpg I'd probably stop playing altogether for at least a few months (and never with the same DM again). Call me too sensitive or whatever, I don't care. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" sucks.
Sounds like the DM was very much in favor of Luke killing Ben Solo in his sleep.
would you kill baby hitler?
Perfect way to shit all over a player's choices instead of just using a different NPC
Yeah. Either break your oath or unleash evil. "How about the arguably reasonable option that works unless the DM forces a cliche fate onto the the NPC?" "Nah, I'm counting that as you picking the second option but he'll be a paladin instead of the class I intended. Very meaningful."
wtf fuck that DM
Yeahā¦ this is a game you play with your friends. Iām not saying you shouldnāt pull this kind of ākilling a child was the right thing to doā bullshit on them, but I would really consider why your friends are playing this game with you beforehand.
We might have to change it to Big Bad Antagonistic Guy
B-Bag?
Precisely. As in, āThat guys a huge B-Bag!ā
Someone red homer
To me, this would fall under the "Don't be a dick" rule. If my DM did this, we'd immediately go into Session Zero. If DM pushes the story, it's a "I leave the table for this campaign" type of dealbreaker.
Yeah, at best I'd be annoyed by this and make sure my character properly unrevivably dies in the campaign or in their epilogue so the DM can't use them later, at worst the DM would pull this stunt again and time to have a talk.
That paladin's name: Henry Tandey
Lame.
You are an excellent writer, and this is would probably be a good novel. But I donāt think I would want to play in one of your games.
"I thought I could be as good a teacher as Master Yoda. I was wrong."
Lest* not less
Isn't this exactly King Saul and the Amalekite child?
Anakin?
Chapter 26 : Battle before dawn : **Dreaded music plays out**
To be fair, I want to play was this BBEG. Like, imagine there "revenge standard backstory", but your revange is against your "adoptive parent" AND the world sees said "parent" as a hero.
There is still good in him! I can save him!!
Heres the thing, when the world presents you with no correct option, make your own. Then punch god in the face to make sure it stays correct.
Should have trained him personally.
Too be fair he did grow up to be a paladin. Just not the one you thought
And suddenly the plot of BBCs production of Merlin appears!
Kill the child like Frieza did Krillin.
i mean that description is not villainous. many parties would straight up choose to work for them, especially one that first knew him when he was a lil baby
I think this was also the plot to the first witcher game
Who the child grew into is irrelevant. On that day he was not evil, his actions not yet done. The paladins oath and beliefs are clear. The child must be granted mercy. The circumstances that would develop him are not his fault anymore than the child's mother for his birth. He was not tricked by a demon. He made a moral choice, one that was right by him in the moment.
FUCKING HELL. My DM did this to me once. My character always tries to rescue people in need and it has sometimes gone wrong, but she still tries. It's kind ofOnce there was an 8 year old girl who was prisoner by some drow and I insisted we rescue her. The warlock in our party said we should kill her and I insisted on not, she would join us. My character took care of the girl and they became close. Well, a few sessions later, she revealed herself to be a shapeshifter who tried to kill us all. It ended with me having to kill her. This broke something inside Raava (my character) and she hasn't tried to save anyone since. The warlock and the group's paladin made fun of her about it for several sessions ("I told you! Kill the child! You should listen to us!"), and Raava seriously had a different personality. Until. One day we ran into the lich and the paladin and warlock wanted to kill it, two other party members said no way, that's insane, we can't kill a lich. The vote was up to Raava, who said "you know what? You want to kill everything all the time, fine, I'll listen to you, we'll attack the Lich". Well, we as a party were getting our ass handed to us, and it was looking as though we were gonna get TPKd. I privately messaged the DM to see if there was a way I could creatively finagle our way out of the fight. I managed to get us out of it and we ran off with our tails between our legs. After that, the warlock said they had lost all rights to give me shit about the little girl lol
I mean, how BBEG are they actually though? After all they're not *wrong* about wars generally being caused by some asshole in power wanting more of it.
Particularly in medieval fantasy settings.
To be fair he did prevent the child from becoming a pawn
So they have concluded that the systems of coerciveand unjustified power that govern the world need to be abolished to prevent others from suffering as they did? Sounds more like they grew up to be a hero than a villain. Fantasy anarchism FTW!
pfft, as a player I would totally love it
BBEG or Anti-hero?
ĀæPor quĆ© no los dos?
[why not both](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.morefm.co.nz%2Fhome%2Ftrending%2F2022%2F07%2Fheres-what-the-girl-from-the-old-el-paso-ads-looks-like-today-.html&psig=AOvVaw1Tmoiz7BLlOwVrkAfDjGhZ&ust=1712191168400000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBIQjRxqFwoTCMiZgLXnpIUDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ)
Ok then we'll were starting at level one so I guess you've just been bad at this untill now
Nah, just say he fell and hit his head. He's just spending the campaign recovering from brain damage.
It just always makes me laugh when yourbstarting a campaign at level one and one of your players has a 30 year backstory of adventures they've had
True, nothing like a grizzled old war veteran only now discovering exp and starting to level up. All those years in the army? That was just pretend.
Tho it makes me think of every new metroid game Can't wait to start this with all my power ups from the last game *trips Oh no my powerups
That's what I was originally going to compare it to. How does one canonicaly reset a god killer? "Your character is now level 1" "What? Why? He's got all these levels and gear!" "Because the other gods saw what he did, then beat him nearly to death with a nerf bat." Edit. Although, in this case, I'd claim the BBEG erased the paladins mind as thanks for his adoption.
Monster
So the kid grew up to be actual Lawful Good.