D&D 5E Candlekeep Mysteries: Mazfroth’s Mighty Digressions ethics issues

[Mort]

Wow. This is the "randomly shooting a gun at a train with no specific intent to kill someone" type scenario. It's reckless behavior so likely to cause great bodily harm or death to strangers than it's the equivalent of actual intent to murder.

It's more leaving a loaded and likely to malfunction (randomly go off) gun on a train and not caring that it will, but yeah. It's clear reckless endangerment to an absurd degree.

The villains ARE NOT human and don't care about hurting humans, they just don't actively seek out too.

Which is why violence is likely. That said, no one has yet been killed, so there is a little room for fixing the situation (though few good aligned groups would, in any way, trust that this group wouldn't go back on any word they give).

 

[Mort]

If you had read it, you would know that they are unaware that the copied books are dangerous. They are negligent, but not deliberately murderous.

The villains are 100% aware of what the copied books do! They use copies as guards!

The only thing the villains didn't intend was for the books to end up in Candle Keep.

But that's like saying "sorry your honor, I didn't mean the bomb to end up at the train station, I intended it just for Bob's house."

The villains are bad people, not as bad as their types normally are (they don't actively seek out to kidnap and murder others) but clearly bad people.

 

[Oofta]

Since they knew the books were dangerous and used as guards, they are absolutely responsible for their actions. Based on the description, they are not remorseful and have no qualms about continuing to sell the books.

Even if they were truly regretful and had no idea that the books were dangerous they would still be liable for reckless endangerment.

In any case, that's how I view it. It's a bit of a trolley car problem. If they are unwilling to pay for the damage that they did and destroy the books (or ensure they will never cause harm), that's different. The species, their default alignment doesn't really matter. What matters is their actions and intent.

 

[Starfox]

An angle I may use is that these creatures are transformed jackals. While they are not exactly fey, they are magical creatures without humanoid sensibilities. Like superpowered toddlers. From previous experience, my players may try to banish them to fairy or something like that - which will be hard to do at level 3 (I am playing this at 1 level higher than normal because reasons).

 

[Starfox]

Even if they were truly regretful and had no idea that the books were dangerous they would still be liable for reckless endangerment.

I hope this is ok to say and not taken as a slight.

Your argument here fits perfectly with your ID image, the grumpy Lawful Good dwarf.

 

[Mort]

An angle I may use is that these creatures are transformed jackals. While they are not exactly fey, they are magical creatures without humanoid sensibilities. Like superpowered toddlers. From previous experience, my players may try to banish them to fairy or something like that - which will be hard to do at level 3 (I am playing this at 1 level higher than normal because reasons).

Are you going to telegraph their nature better than the adventure's default? Because the adventure, regrettably, does not. By default, the PCs are not likely to know what the villains are, going in.

Does your group have access to silvered weapons or magic weapons yet? If yes, a physical confrontation won't be all that bad.

If not and the villains nature isn't well telegraphed? The PCs could have a big problem!

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, the Gingawazim, aren't necessarily the problem. I played it as the gingawazim would be taken to whoever bought them, and then would likely simply eat mice and rats in the house while folks were sleeping. It's not like they're undead that must feed - it's just a small creature that needs to eat. The only reason the PC's get attacked is because this particular Gingawazim is starving.

Granted, what they were doing was wrong, but, not necessarily something that would result in anyone dying.

My group talked to them, let them copy the wizard's spellbook with a Gingawazim and then they could sell those spells. They weren't overly fussed about the grift.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you had read it, you would know that they are unaware that the copied books are dangerous. They are negligent, but not deliberately murderous.

But according to @Starfox "If confronted about this they can be talked to in a diplomatic way, but see no inherent issues with what they are doing."

In other words they start out as negligent but their response is not "Holy Tartaerus! We didn't mean to do that. How can we make sure it never happens again?" but to slide over the line into a level of apathetic negligence that might as well be murderous. Now I haven't read the module but it's possible that they do almost immediately after verifying want to change their ways but if not there are issues.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I haven't read it, but the intent is clear: they don't care who dies as long as they have something to gain. Not only did they think it was perfectly okay if people died as a direct cause of their actions, they went through with the plan. That is still a crime.

And wanting to punish the group is a legitimate impulse to have. I am however pointing out that since no one has been killed (or seriously injured), attempting rehabilitation is also a legitimate impulse to have.

It's kind of like blaming the bullet for killing someone after firing a gun indiscriminately into a crowd, or saying that it wasn't a crime because you happened to get lucky and miss everyone.

A better analogy would be selling someone a dog that you have reason to believe is rabid without telling them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But according to @Starfox "If confronted about this they can be talked to in a diplomatic way, but see no inherent issues with what they are doing."

In other words they start out as negligent but their response is not "Holy Tartaerus! We didn't mean to do that. How can we make sure it never happens again?" but to slide over the line into a level of apathetic negligence that might as well be murderous. Now I haven't read the module but it's possible that they do almost immediately after verifying want to change their ways but if not there are issues.

There are several characters involved in the perpetrating group, who are of diverging opinions. As I would run it, it's a good opportunity for a preachy character to explain to them the error of their ways and set them on a different path.

Or they could just kill them. There isn't really a "wrong" solution to this moral dilemma (unless the PCs say "pay us a cut and carry on.")