D&D 5E Ethics of Killing Vat Spawn?

[Steampunkette]

From memory they didn't have a soul.

I think the protagonist or Vonotar looked deep into the darklords or Giaks and they don't have souls just the essence of the god of darkness.

They're essentially meat puppets that while somewhat intelligent don't really have free will.

Some of the other servants it's a lot less clear.

Their world is the last one left in the cosmic balance between good and evil.

Way easier to deal with, then, for Ethics and Morality!

Philosophical Zombie.

Let's assume there's a way to identify humans that do not possess Consciousness or Souls in the way other humans do. These humans still live and act like regular humans, they scream in pain when hurt (even though they don't -really- feel it), they seem to fall in love and care about people (but don't, actually, since they're incapable of true emotion), and they actively seek out food and water like other humans do. If you cut them, they bleed, if you ask them questions they answer. But they don't actually have awareness, consciousness, or souls.

Is it okay to kill one of these "Not really a person" people to use their organs to help someone who -is- a person with a soul and a consciousness and internal experiences rather than just the illusion of having those things? Is there anything morally or ethically wrong about killing a "Person" who basically doesn't actually exist? Is it okay to enslave them, or imprison them, or intentionally kill them for your own personal amusement?

After all. They're not "Real".

Which, of course, has a lot of carryover into the Ham thing, slavery, dehumanization in general...

The answer to all of this is: It's incredibly unethical. Because as far as everything that matters can be calculated they are people. And thus it is only morally justified to kill them when you would be morally justified to kill anyone else.

That they "Are always evil" doesn't mean diddly squat. If there was a type of Spider that was "Always Evil" and spun it's little webs maliciously in the hopes of murdering flies for sustenance, rather than doing so out of a desire for simple survival, like -really- enjoyed the little fly screams... killing that spider would be a waste of your time if it were in it's nest doing nothing really and truly harmful, or if it were incapable of -actually- doing any harm to you or other humans.

You'd just be killing it for killing it's sake.

 

[aco175]

I would guess that in a post-apocalyptic setting the PCs are fighting for limited resources and need to act more survival-like. Kind of like in war or that show Alone, where you need to survive for 100 days by yourself. A lot of things need to become more grey than the black and white issue that we have in a modern way we discuss here. I would not worry too much about the PCs and the way the game is played.

 

[Zardnaar]

Way easier to deal with, then, for Ethics and Morality!

Philosophical Zombie.

Let's assume there's a way to identify humans that do not possess Consciousness or Souls in the way other humans do. These humans still live and act like regular humans, they scream in pain when hurt (even though they don't -really- feel it), they seem to fall in love and care about people (but don't, actually, since they're incapable of true emotion), and they actively seek out food and water like other humans do. If you cut them, they bleed, if you ask them questions they answer. But they don't actually have awareness, consciousness, or souls.

Is it okay to kill one of these "Not really a person" people to use their organs to help someone who -is- a person with a soul and a consciousness and internal experiences rather than just the illusion of having those things? Is there anything morally or ethically wrong about killing a "Person" who basically doesn't actually exist? Is it okay to enslave them, or imprison them, or intentionally kill them for your own personal amusement?

After all. They're not "Real".

Which, of course, has a lot of carryover into the Ham thing, slavery, dehumanization in general...

The answer to all of this is: It's incredibly unethical. Because as far as everything that matters can be calculated they are people. And thus it is only morally justified to kill them when you would be morally justified to kill anyone else.

That they "Are always evil" doesn't mean diddly squat. If there was a type of Spider that was "Always Evil" and spun it's little webs maliciously in the hopes of murdering flies for sustenance, rather than doing so out of a desire for simple survival, like -really- enjoyed the little fly screams... killing that spider would be a waste of your time if it were in it's nest doing nothing really and truly harmful, or if it were incapable of -actually- doing any harm to you or other humans.

You'd just be killing it for killing it's sake.

In this scenario they're outvtobkill you and possibly eat you.

Even if truly sentient they are still dangerous to you.

There was another group of them named Szalls who are natural and "cowardly" Giaks.

The "mountain" Giaks are vat born bio engineering with dark magic.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would guess that in a post-apocalyptic setting the PCs are fighting for limited resources and need to act more survival-like. Kind of like in war or that show Alone, where you need to survive for 100 days by yourself. A lot of things need to become more grey than the black and white issue that we have in a modern way we discuss here. I would not worry too much about the PCs and the way the game is played.

Yeah it might be Darksun or a world based off Fallout 4.

If it's fallout 4 it's going to be a poisonous type world gods are dead with mutants and spawn wanting to eat you. It's pretty much them and us.

Probably use the lone wolf cosmology in terms of the planes of existence and Darksun influence with the remaining city states ruled by Dragon Kings/Queens.

The spawning vats would be left over from pre collapse.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Way easier to deal with, then, for Ethics and Morality!

Philosophical Zombie.

Let's assume there's a way to identify humans that do not possess Consciousness or Souls in the way other humans do. These humans still live and act like regular humans, they scream in pain when hurt (even though they don't -really- feel it), they seem to fall in love and care about people (but don't, actually, since they're incapable of true emotion), and they actively seek out food and water like other humans do. If you cut them, they bleed, if you ask them questions they answer. But they don't actually have awareness, consciousness, or souls.

Is it okay to kill one of these "Not really a person" people to use their organs to help someone who -is- a person with a soul and a consciousness and internal experiences rather than just the illusion of having those things? Is there anything morally or ethically wrong about killing a "Person" who basically doesn't actually exist? Is it okay to enslave them, or imprison them, or intentionally kill them for your own personal amusement?

After all. They're not "Real".

I am not sure your analogy is correct with regard to the lack of free will and Giaks. You're basically describing a creature having free will and being labelled as different despite no other difference in behaviour from a real person. Let's say your zombie is like a human in everyway but, being possessed by the will of the Evil God of Youth, enters a frenzy and MUST kill anyone above 60 years old he sees. There is no way to prevent him entering that state, and he'll explain, outside of these rages, that it is perfectly normal to kill people elderlies because they are abominations. At this point, he has already dismembered three people in the street, but he's otherwise a very fine fellow when conversing with up-to-59 years old. What would you do with that zombie, knowing that there is no way to rehabilitate him ever to be able for him to live within a human town? Outside of making him in charge of balancing the funding of the pension system, of course.

[Example from Magnamund "always evil" denizens of Helgedad: if you unsheathe the Sommerswerd within the confine of the city, all its inhabitants -- otherwise sentient -- will converge toward you lemming-like to kill you even if it means dying en masse. Your quest, and your life, ends here.]

Though there is a case to be made following your line of thought, I've also find that it's not really conclusive to a hobby where most of the time, killing people is the general (even memetic) behaviour of adventurers, since it would result in even, say, killing devils and demons not being justified.

 

[Charlaquin]

The question for me is not of the circumstances of a creature’s birth or its creation, but of its agency. If a living being has agency, I would consider it immoral to end its life. If it’s an empty vessel that acts only according to an external will or some sort of programming, it’s probably acceptable to destroy (I’m not sure such an entity could properly be considered “alive” in order to be killed).

 

[Zardnaar]

The question for me is not of the circumstances of a creature’s birth or its creation, but of its agency. If a living being has agency, I would consider it immoral to end its life. If it’s an empty vessel that acts only according to an external will or some sort of programming, it’s probably acceptable to destroy (I’m not sure such an entity could properly be considered “alive” in order to be killed).

What if it's a wartime or survival situation?

Shooting conscripted soldiers come to mind.

Vat spawned denziens of Helgedad are not free willed as such at least how we identify free willed.

It's a lot less clear with things like Drakkarim and Gourgaz which theoretically have free will. In terms of serving the god of darkness. There's only 3 deities plus the equivalent of archfiend's and maybe demigods.

 

[Charlaquin]

What if it's a wartime or survival situation?

Shooting conscripted soldiers come to mind.

There are contexts in which killing a being with agency can be morally acceptable, including survival and self-defense situations and some wartime situations. But I was under the impression that you were asking about if people felt vat-born creatures would be acceptable to kill in any context.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are contexts in which killing a being with agency can be morally acceptable, including survival and self-defense situations and some wartime situations. But I was under the impression that you were asking about if people felt vat-born creatures would be acceptable to kill in any context.

The context is yes. You can't really redeem them without the use of powerful magic. There was only one redeemed giak in universe which required the use of wish in D&D terms.

One of the most powerful Sorcerer's on the planet essentially reprogrammed a Giak.

If you infiltrated the spawning vats and stole a spawn it would still likely turn out as any other member of it's kind.

As far as I can tell you need powerful magic to essentially break the link with the god of darkness and create a soul for said spawn.

The Darklords themselves (essentially archfiend's on the prime) don't realize that they themselves are essentially meat puppets as well and they're the leaders of the "culture".

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

There are contexts in which killing a being with agency can be morally acceptable, including survival and self-defense situations and some wartime situations. But I was under the impression that you were asking about if people felt vat-born creatures would be acceptable to kill in any context.

Interestingly, we usually allow more leeway on killing in self-defence because it's difficult to measure the appropriate amount of force to remove the threat without being lethal (if someone is hitting you and you stab him, you could claim to be acting in self-defence, but not if he was 100m away and you shot him before he could move toward you...). This isn't the case in the D&D world, where you can't kill people by RAW without wanting it. Any damage from a melee attack can be declared as "non lethal", so one really bears the responsability for the kill.