Nonhuman noncombatants?

[Will]

And most beings can change.

Here's something... a child has a LE parent. The child is an innocent, good person. Which is worse, slaying the parent, or keeping an eye on them? Which is causing more harm to the innocent?

Personally, I LIKE the fact that morality is still messy and difficult even with absolute alignment.

 

[Clavis]

You all know that "killing evil 'cause its evil" is, er, evil. Right?

Not to violate the rules...but the only regimes or groups in RL that embrace this philosophy are, um, the evil ones. That many religions and philosophies except that all people are "inherently evil"...original sin and all that (but not just that), so by this logic you would kill everyone. That you could use this to rationalize car-bombing the new york stock exchange...

In the majority of real-world religions it is a good act to destroy (meaning kill) evil beings. Ever read Revelations? The Koran? Exodus? The Mahabharata? All of those books go on at length about Holy God(s) being tireless in the desire to destroy evil, and that they expect humans to behave in the same way. Only rarely (some Buddhists, Taoists, certain modern Western theologies) has there been the idea that killing bad creatures might be itself bad. It certainly wasn't an idea medieval Europe entertained (notice the Inquisition...).

Anyway, D&D is a game, not real-life. In it, we get to do things that would be wrong and/or incredibly stupid in real-life.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

It's just that there are "degrees" of Evil. A neighboor who loves to spread gossips just to see the dramah in other people's lives is Evil, but she doesn't deserve a sword to the gut.

That's not Evil though, or even evil. Evil and Good are the ends of the spectrum being in either camp requires real work and deeds of some scope. 90% of people are firmly neutral including the gossip. But I KNOW Evil, I have seen it and worked with it, and done it. Evil isn't petty and insignificant, those things are just neutral and annoying. Evil you will know when you see and will not be able to deny.

EDIT: And to get on the OPs topic. 1.) What noncombatants? 2.) Yes they kill them or just enslave them if they haven't scooted at the sounds of fighting and don't put up any significant fight themselves. Note I don't even make a humanoid/demihuman distinction as my settings are full of monster races for the most part. But in general anyone not ridiculously young or truly invalid fights in a pinch. Anyone left alive at the end that hasn't run off or been killed can expect to either be enslaved, run out of the area so another group can settle, or just killed if either of the above would be too much trouble.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

At least that's the way it worked in previous editions. 3.5 took away some of that certainty, by saying they are 'almost always' CE. It's not a pure certainty, but it's the safe way to bet. (There are still many creatures that have 'always' by their alignment, meaning every single one of them is x alignment).

There are inconsistencies between this paragraph and the actual rules that govern monster alignment in 3x. Which just goes to show that the important thing is players having the basic knowledge of the game world that their characters would, so you don't have to guess what sort of setting specific houserules the DM has introduced (perhaps without even knowing that they are not the base monster rules.)

When my most recent character was told by a surrendering enemy that there were women and children present, her response was "I'm a woman and I learned to fight as a child, so I don't see your point." Generally, however, if there are non combatants (or surrenders, for that matter) I request a knowledge check or consult with a knowledgable npc to determine the "reformability" of the species in question then act from there. I'm not going to have my character in a world she's existed in her whole life act based on how I would design the monsters if it were my game, I expect a reasonable understanding from the DM of how they work in their game.

 

[WayneLigon]

There are inconsistencies between this paragraph and the actual rules that govern monster alignment in 3x.

None that I'm aware of. What are they?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I agree with the Great Lemur: ambiguity and depth are fun. The biggest fun in role playing. Just wandering around smacking things because the stick turns blue when they pee on it is just kinda dull. Probably why I don't play online MMORPGs.

One thing that might need mentioning: we're discussing a game here. I'm pretty sure no-one is advocating killing anyone IRL. We should all just remember that attitudes expressed re-gaming are not indicative of anyone's attitude in the real world.

peace and vegeatable rights.

 

[Herobizkit]

Just adding an adjunct to my former post way back...

When I talk about capital-E Evil in my game worlds, only the REALLY REALLY Evil beings get that [Evil] descriptor - devils, demons, undead, and the priests and mages (and occasionally other classes) that work/deal with them. Also, in rare cases, some monsters, unholy temples and even artifacts radiate that same [Evil]. In my "Shades of Grey" campaign outlook on alignment, only this kind of Evil is truly unredeemable and any Good person in their right mind capable of doing so would attempt to destroy it utterly.

In my "standard" D&D world, most of the bestial intelligent humanoids act evil/selfishly, but they aren't [Evil].

 

[Thurbane]

Ah, the age-old "paladin and orc children" conundrum...

 

[Klaus]

That's not Evil though, or even evil. Evil and Good are the ends of the spectrum being in either camp requires real work and deeds of some scope. 90% of people are firmly neutral including the gossip. But I KNOW Evil, I have seen it and worked with it, and done it. Evil isn't petty and insignificant, those things are just neutral and annoying. Evil you will know when you see and will not be able to deny.

EDIT: And to get on the OPs topic. 1.) What noncombatants? 2.) Yes they kill them or just enslave them if they haven't scooted at the sounds of fighting and don't put up any significant fight themselves. Note I don't even make a humanoid/demihuman distinction as my settings are full of monster races for the most part. But in general anyone not ridiculously young or truly invalid fights in a pinch. Anyone left alive at the end that hasn't run off or been killed can expect to either be enslaved, run out of the area so another group can settle, or just killed if either of the above would be too much trouble.

From the WotC article by Keith Baker on the Church of the Silver Flame (and its paladins):

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer. The sword is no answer here; the paladin is charged to protect these people. Oratory, virtue, and inspiration are the weapons of the paladin -- though intimidation may have its place.

 

[Fenes]

Evil in my campaign is not just selfishness, it's the desire to go out of your way to cause harm to others.

The northern barbarians who raid, pillage, enslave and kill might mostly be neutral, brought up in their culture, maybe driven by need. Take a kid from them, and raise it as a cleric, and it'll grow up as any other human kid in the monastery.

Take an orc kid and do the same and it'll grow up as a monster full of evil urges, looking for a safe way to indulge them while trying to appear harmless so it does not come under suspicion.

That's my camapign. Yours is different, obviously. But in my campaign, there are shades of gray, and there's black, and white. I don't play with black and white morality though - my player characters won't be deemed evil just for wiping an orc tribe out. Not even for enslaving a barbarian tribe's survivors after it was defeated following a border raid.