Do baby kobolds detect as evil?

[Holy Bovine]

It can be fun, as an excercise, to try to come up with ways that a Paladin has NO right and good course of action before him. Things like: There is a kingdom on the brink of total civil war. Only if the current king is replaced with the rightful heir will there be peace instead of anarchy as feuding nobles vie for the crown. The only rightful heir has been infected with lycanthropy. He is currently ravaging the locals, slaughtering wantonly. The locals are trying to kill him, and have almost succeeded, and have very little chance of stopping if the paladin trys to explain things to them. There is no cleric available.


Hijacking my own thread again. Somebody slap me.

I agree that forcing a Paladin to choose between the lesser of two evils (assuming he makes the right choice! ) can be a very fun and interesting scenario. I was more concerned about immediately revoking a PC's Paladinhood for making a tough choice within even tougher circumstances. Seems far too heavy handed for me and very DM Ex Mechania.

For example in my campaign just recently the party was trying to figure out what was happening in a nearby town. People were disappearing and a strange man was searching for his 'carnival'. Turns out that the carnival owner was a creature called the Jack of Tears (if you have read any Scarred Lands stuff you will know that this guy is Evil with a capital 'E', I modified him slightly and he was more of a worshipper of Chaos and Anarchy than evil) and he was taking some children away from the village to join his carnival. He revealed to the party that he was only taking those children who otherwise would have died early deaths anyways. Jack was accompanied by about 2 dozen of his cronies and was on the brink of overpowering the PCs and killing them all when he ordered his minions to stop. He offered the PCs their lives and the promise that he wouldn't return to this town if they allowed him to return to his home with the children. The children even told the PCs they wanted to go with Jack. Reluctantly, and with much grumbling and gnashing of teeth, the PCs allowed Jack to leave with the children.

Afterwards the players said it was one of the best games they had ever played. I was surprised and thought they would be ticked because they didn't get a chance to kill Jack or even save the children. I even had the townsfolk jeer and curse them for failing to save the children. The Paladin did not lose his Paladinhood and the Neutral Good Cleric did not suffer sanctions from her goddess. Why? Because i put them into a situation where they were either going to die and fail or live and fail. It would have been grossly unfair of me to impose penalties simply because they chose to live and fight another day (and believe me they really want to beat the Hell out of Jack! )

Sorry for the long post but I felt that this example shows how I run the 'no-win' scenario.

 

[Aeolius]

Do baby kobolds detect as evil?

No, but they do taste like chicken.

 

[Psyckosama]

It's no more evil than killing an animal. Like killing baby apes. Or baby chickens. Or chicken fetuses, which you've probably eaten dozens in your lifetime (in eggs).

Those people who consider kobold babies worth saving probably have big-ass kobold foster homes for all the kobolds whose parents were killed by adventurers, and were left alive

Oh great... a Vegan

 

[Psyckosama]

So you would take away the Paladinhood of a character you, as DM, put into that situation? That's great. I would have to assume that there are no good characters in the games you run since they have to coddle and care for all those orphaned monsters that adventurers have killed the parents of.

Obviously this is something that can go around and around forever (and has many times in the past). I always find it refreshing to take another kick at this topic though - it has been a long time. [/B]

Mercy goes hand in hand with good. I've taken to useing the -10 rule with monsters because more oft then not my paladin will help heal the Kobolds who's asses he jucked kicked.

His task is to enforce the peace and promote goodness. You can't teach a bunch of dead Kobolds the path of right if they're already dead!

The way I play it, a good character, especially Lawful Good avoids unneeded death. Wiping out the Kobold comunity is a solution, but not a really "good" one.

A lawful good person feels the best way to maximum happiness and public good is through benovilant law and honest justice. Where is the justice in blind slaughter of "evil" people?

That said, I have the lines blury, and it's hard to be good.

In my stories, 10% of the population will be good, 60% will be netural, and 30% will be evil. It's hard for a human being to accept a path that places what's right over their own wants and bias, most people are netural, and the path of evil is easy indeed (infact I'd say most people in America society would detect as Netural Evil)

 

[Darkness]

... I'd say most people in (etc.)...

Careful, there; such statements can lead to political flame wars really fast.

 

[Drakron]

Yes it can, but I belive that modern western civilization (reguadless of nation) tends to produce NE citizens since it puts more value in achiving greater wealth and status at the expence of everthing else.

Still I think most of us tends to be neutral, we lack commitment for being trully good but still have enough moral commitment to not fall in downright evil.

 

[fusangite]

I posted a question a little way back to which no one has responded. I'm very interested in this debate and hoping someone will reply to my queries.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Oh great... a Vegan

infact I'd say most people in America society would detect...etc

No need to be insulting to others there 'Psycko'


Your comments about the distribution of good vs neutral vs evil are interesting. I have always thought that most people are neutral - they are concerned with keeping themselves alive and prosperous. Not necessarily at the expense of others or going against the laws of society but if they can get away without punishment they will. The actual % of good and evil would, IMO, be even lower than you stated. maybe 5% good and 10% evil but evil would still be higher - it is easier to be bad than good afterall

 

[Holy Bovine]

I'm truly puzzled by this question. It seems reasonable that creatures who are ALWAYS a particular alignment have that alignment from birth. However, just because Kobolds are usually evil doesn't necessarily mean that evil is always an acquired trait for kobolds. Aren't even some humans born evil? Can there be no evil children? If there cannot be evil children, does it not follow that there cannot be good children either?

I'd love to hear a response from someone putting the nature/nurture case.

All neutral children? Hmmm, that's a good point. Have very young children (ie less than 2 years old or the equivilant for Kobolds) the capacity to distinguish good and evil? I don't really know but in D&D children could be assumed to take on the traits of (ie be born with) the parents. That is how I have always read things of this nature. Even if the Kobold was hatched by kind and loving people (not other Kobolds) there would always be the inbred instinct to act in an evil manner. It would be the rare and one-in-a-billion case where a Kobold could overcome its basic instincts and become, say a Paladin or even just LG.

Now that raises the question as to whether any Paladin who comes across baby Kobolds should try to raise them as LG citizens of society. Do the risks (ie one, even just one, Kobold falls back on his baser traits and commits acts of evil) outwiegh the potential rewards (a LG Kobold). Would the Paladin then be responsible for the acts of evil commited by the 'fallen' Kobold? Does he then, despite his best efforts, going far above and beyond the call of duty, then lose his Paladinhood not because he failed but because one of his charges failed? A slippery slope indeed.

 

[Tiefling]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: why kill them when you can enslave them?