Is this an evil act, or not?

[Vaxalon]

It seems to me that the fact that we have had so much debate over the issue is rather strong evidence that this is a neutral act. It has elements of both good (mercy) and evil (killing defenceless targets). By its nature, this is a morally ambiguous act. Isn't moral ambiguity one of the traits of neutrality rather than good or evil?

I can agree with that.

I can think of very few situations where killing something that is alive is a GOOD act.

Sometimes, killing something is a side-effect of defending yourself against it. Sometimes you are given no choice.

Being good isn't easy.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

This is a bit OT, but...

I can think of very few situations where killing something that is alive is a GOOD act.

That is a very humanocentric notion and depends entirely on your frame of reference.

For example, take a look at all the forests in the American West which are packed to the gills with extremely dry fallen leaves and branches. The ones where we're constantly fighting forest fires (Most of which, btw are caused bt lightning strikes. Gosh, I wonder how the forests took care of themselves before we came along ). A Neutral Good fighter or wizard would make note of the homes of the people who have decided to live in the forest and all the animals in that area and jump in on the side of the firefighters controlling the blaze. A Neutral Good druid or ranger worth his salt would be busy setting fires and sabotaging firetrucks. "Why?" you ask? Because he would know that the forest had reached a point where it requires renewal, and the death of a few thousand trees and animals would enrich the soil and get rid of the overgrown forest canopy which is choking out undergrowth, thereby allowing a vast increase in biodiversity and would allow tens of thousands of plants and animals to thrive in a space that is currently choking itself out of existence. Increased biodiversity would benefit the forest as a whole, as well as the local human population. Taking the long view, killing a few thousand trees and animals is actually the ONLY good thing to do, provided you do it the right way. Logging the same area would destroy it, whereas burning it is part of its natural ecology.

I could give you more examples, but they would get increasingly off-topic. Suffice it to say, there are *many* instances where killing something can be a good act, either out of compassion or by taking the ecological long view.

 

[Trickstergod]

That is a very humanocentric notion and depends entirely on your frame of reference.

I could give you more examples, but they would get increasingly off-topic. Suffice it to say, there are *many* instances where killing something can be a good act, either out of compassion or by taking the ecological long view.

The brunt of your argument sounded more like pragmatism than anything particularly Good. Good comes from the act, sure, but it relies on the death of something else in the process, which, isn't particularly good in and of itself. All in all, your argument could be quite succinctly summed up as, "The ends justify the means." Which has never been sufficient to qualify as good.

There's a reason druids tend towards True Neutrality, and that is one of them. I find if you can describe something as pragmatic, it almost immediately is disqualified from being good, as good generally implies trying to achieve something better, an ideal. Thus why humans are True Neutral.

As for the discussion being humanocentric, considering morality is a human concept...

Anyway, off I go.

 

[Centaur]

It certainly is't evil by any stretch of the situation. However, some would argue that it isn't nessecarily good either.

Is it an act of mercy to kill them? Yes!

I would say it is more of a Neutral Act. A good person would have tried to provide them with enough comfort so that they could die naturaly in peace.

It's definitly not evil, but I don't think it's wholy good either. Now if in your world, all kobolds are evil and beyond redemtion, then he goods of good would view killing these babies as a good act... If not....

I beet a fallen bush, IMC, it would be ruled as "Not Evil" but it wouldn't be ruled as "Good"

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Originally posted by Trickstergod
The brunt of your argument sounded more like pragmatism than anything particularly Good. Good comes from the act, sure, but it relies on the death of something else in the process, which, isn't particularly good in and of itself. All in all, your argument could be quite succinctly summed up as, "The ends justify the means." Which has never been sufficient to qualify as good.

No, it's only pragmatic from a limited point of view, i.e. that of the humans living in the forest. The firefighters (and the people who have chosen to live in the middle of the are interfering in a natural process which is inherently good for the environment (which the ecosystem has evolved to incorporate and is, in fact, a *requirement* of the life cycle of the forest), if not so good for the humans who chose to live there. How do you justify letting an entire ecosystem collapse because a handful of humans are convinced they should be allowed to live in a forest?

As for the rest, I do not at all believe in the ends justifying the means when you are dealing with humanocentric issues like the clutch of baby kobolds (kobolds being, like eleves, dwarves, and what not, fundamentally interchageable with humans). However, there are many situations where this kind of morality seems to break down, particularly when dealing with any kind of out-group, whether they be other groups of humans, or other living things entirely.

Originally posted by Trickstergod I find if you can describe something as pragmatic, it almost immediately is disqualified from being good, as good generally implies trying to achieve something better, an ideal.

I'd qualify a sustainable environment so that our species and others will still be here in a few hundred years an ideal situation we should be striving towards.

 

[Darthor]

How my party handled this

I ran my group through this same adventure what seems like two years ago.

We had 4 guys and 2 gals in the group. The guys were deadset on killing the kobold babies. The girls would have none of it. After much foot stamping and out right threats the ladies got their way.

The group was ostricized in town later because of the presence of the hated babies. The group even had to fight off a town lynching mob (complete with pitchforks and torches) that came to destroy the vermin.

As the Kobolds grew (the party kept them for some time) they were always being treated badly by those outside the group and the guys within the group. The gals tought them how to fight their nature and nurtured and encouraged them.

Eventually one began to belive all the bad things being said about it and descended into the depth of its evil nature. The other stayed true to its two mothers teachings. Its sad they both died not too long after the one started going bad. It would have been fun to "poke at this moral tooth" longer.

Funny thing is they were both killed by other kobolds. Go figure.

 

[BlackMoria]

Evil is not entirely defined by the act itself - it is also the intent behind the act. Far too many people look at the act in isolation.

The killing of the infants was not out of malice, killing for the pleasure of it, or for personal gain or profit. It was a act of compassion, therefore, not evil.

Same circumstance - but this time the killing of the infants is out of malice or for the pleasure of it or for personal gain or profit. Now the act strays into being considered an evil act.

I make a point to analysis the intent behind the act before I stick a 'evil' label on things.

 

[Brekke]

When our group played this a couple of years ago it caused quite a conflict. The Kobolds were not sick, our rogue rescued them after all the adults save one were killed. We took them back to the villege the townfolk basically ripped the adult kobold to shreds. They wanted to do the same to the babies. That's when my character an elven sorcereres stepped in and said no. The group fought over it. The player playing my twin sister and another player playing a druid elf refused to turn the babies over. The lawful good dwarf and the lawful good cleric of St Cuthbert wanted to turn them over arguing that they may not be evil now but they would grow up that way.

I took them raised them gave them elven names did my best to teach them right from wrong. It worked with one of them he was good he was becoming a sorcerer the other started to go bad. But a lot of that was because of the harrasment the dwarf did to him. He was always being nasty to them. Also someone in the carvan we were traveling in tried to poison them.

It was the point that I knew how I wanted to play my character before that all I knew about her was that she was an elf and sorcerer. After we found the kobolds I played her as avoiding killing when ever she could the only lethal spell she knew was magic missile. She became a great believer in redemption. So far she as ben my favorite character I have ever played.

 

[Brekke]

Just jumping onto the 'not evil' bandwagon... I doubt you'll find anyone who says it was evil.

It is an evil act if the cleric could not cast a cure on the babies. Was she able to do so?

 

[Brekke]

[
Some people have mentioned that there were townsfolk with the plague, and that the PCs should have expected to be able to cure it. Thus, they could have tended to the kobolds as they sought the cure to the plague. I'd say this is a blatant example of metagaming. The PCs would have no idea that, this being a D&D game, there's a good chance the cure to the plague is at the bottom of the next dungeon. They should react on what they know, which was--as I understand it--that there is no cure for this plague. So we're back to square one.This is absolutely true. But it is a minor act of Good, worthy of a decent person just trying to get by in the world, to end the kobolds' misery before the plague made their brief lives a living hell. [/B][/QUOTE]

Using your logic then the right thing to do would be go and painlessely kill all the humans with the plague to stop it before it got out to the rest of the world. If the Kobolds are not evil why did they deserve death and the humans didn't?

I have never liked the DnD rule that some sentient creatures are always evil. If you have a mind you should be able to choose. I think it is this way to make the game easier no moral dilemas. Which personally I find rather boring.