D&D 5E Ethics of Killing Vat Spawn?

[Zardnaar]

As others have said, that they're spawned in vats is mostly irrelevant. If it is genuinely demonstrable (and discoverable) that no giak is capable of existing with independent behavior unless you use something like a wish--aka one of the most powerful spells around--to make one, then I'm comfortable viewing them as....basically meat-puppets.

Potential question: What would happen if you could somehow sever the dark presence that controls a given (living) giak without simply killing it? (Think the equivalent of "put inside a solid lead Faraday cage, but for dark power--nothing gets in, nothing gets out.) Would it live? If it did live, would it still have the capacity for thought?

In the novels they did have one free willed goal that ended up helping the forces of good.

Their culture as such is imposed from the top down the darklords are essentially meat puppets of the god of evil.

Said Giak was a DM special created by an arch mage.

It's not 100% clear how much free will the Giaks have. They're essentially unnstural creations created for slavery then used as Cannon fodder.

Most of the creations of the darklands via the vats are essentially meat puppets they have a few species serving them that while evil are theoretically free willed. Dark magic has been used to bind them to the darklords and enable them to survive their environment.

They don't bother trying to redeem them after interrogation any captives gonna be executed.

 

[Oofta]

I am fine with D&D being about roleplaying uncaring murderers. I worked under the assumption, maybe incorrect, that most table had groups who tried to justify their actions as "good-ish", and reading published campaign, where it seems to be expected, reinforced that impression. I am pretty sure many groups would say "hey, this person burned the peasant's farm, let's kill him and take his +1 axe because it's fine to commit murder and pludering" . Trying to justify this behaviour against persons/sentient beings is as (or even more) harmful than trying to find opponents that it is actually acceptable to kill when they do these same farm-burning things.

If this ever comes up in a game there's a simple explanation: my campaign world is a harsh world. Modern morality doesn't really apply in many cases, there are no prisons and in many cases no effective law enforcement other than the PCs.

Prisons for all but the wealthy are a pretty recent invention. Historically punishment was brutal by today's standards so I don't hold PCs to those standards. So yes, if you know someone is a murderer and will likely continue to commit murders they need to be stopped by whatever means necessary. That doesn't give people carte blanche to go out killing others, but there is a simmering (sometimes boiling over) constant war for dominance of the world. The PCs are effectively soldiers in a broader war. I don't put enemy non-combatants in their way because I don't set up trolley car moral dilemmas, I play the game to escape reality.

That doesn't mean the PCs are uncaring murderers but at a certain point pragmatism wins out and the Comics Code Authority approval isn't needed for my games.

If you want to have multiple discussions of morality per session, more power to you. There is no one true way.

 

[Zardnaar]

If this ever comes up in a game there's a simple explanation: my campaign world is a harsh world. Modern morality doesn't really apply in many cases, there are no prisons and in many cases no effective law enforcement other than the PCs.

Prisons for all but the wealthy are a pretty recent invention. Historically punishment was brutal by today's standards so I don't hold PCs to those standards. So yes, if you know someone is a murderer and will likely continue to commit murders they need to be stopped by whatever means necessary. That doesn't give people carte blanche to go out killing others, but there is a simmering (sometimes boiling over) constant war for dominance of the world. The PCs are effectively soldiers in a broader war. I don't put enemy non-combatants in their way because I don't set up trolley car moral dilemmas, I play the game to escape reality.

That doesn't mean the PCs are uncaring murderers but at a certain point pragmatism wins out and the Comics Code Authority approval isn't needed for my games.

If you want to have multiple discussions of morality per session, more power to you. There is no one true way.

I'm doing post apocalyptic mix up Darksun mix up with Fallout 4.

Gonna be eat or get eaten in some cases.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

If this ever comes up in a game there's a simple explanation: my campaign world is a harsh world. Modern morality doesn't really apply in many cases, there are no prisons and in many cases no effective law enforcement other than the PCs.

And that's great! They don't pretend to behave according to our standard, they behave in coherence with the game world as depiected. I agree that our standard are quite recent but I feel that the description of societies in gamebooks depicts extremely"socially advanced" societies: gender equality that's generally equal of even better than in our modern society, nearly no slavery, very little prejudice... I guess your harsh world would be more Conan-esque than the implied setting, where I feel they would share our approach on violence. Which is fine and coherent, I don't want my answer to come across as criticizing your play style.

 

[Zardnaar]

And that's great! They don't pretend to behave according to our standard, they behave in coherence with the game world as depiected. I agree that our standard are quite recent but I feel that the description of societies in gamebooks depicts extremely"socially advanced" societies: gender equality that's generally equal of even better than in our modern society, nearly no slavery, very little prejudice... I guess your harsh world would be more Conan-esque than the implied setting, where I feel they would share our approach on violence. Which is fine and coherent, I don't want my answer to come across as criticizing your play style.

The goal idea is to replace the raiders in Fallout 4. They eat other sentients.

In Nuka World (FO4 dlc) there's a cloning machine pumping out mutant Deathclaws so I figured that a pre apocalypse vat is pumping out Giaks.

 

[Oofta]

I'm doing post apocalyptic mix up Darksun mix up with Fallout 4.

Gonna be eat or get eaten in some cases.

My most recent campaign arcs have had the "civilized" races fighting for survival against forces that just want to see everything burn as long as they're the ones doing the burning.

Of course the red dragon from the last campaign thought he was perfectly civilized. It was those rabble PCs who thought using thralls (slaves) as an appetizer was a bad thing that were the barbarians. Being worthy of being eaten by the future high lord emperor was the ultimate praise.

 

[Zardnaar]

My most recent campaign arcs have had the "civilized" races fighting for survival against forces that just want to see everything burn as long as they're the ones doing the burning.

Of course the red dragon from the last campaign thought he was perfectly civilized. It was those rabble PCs who thought using thralls (slaves) as an appetizer was a bad thing that are the barbarians. Being worthy of being eaten by the future high lord emperor was the ultimate praise.

Heh I'm stealing the Dragon Kings idea from Darksun.

They rule what's left of civilization. In game they're evil metallic dragons that cast spells in 5E terms. The weakest will be an adult copper or whatever 11th level caster.

The big bad ancient gold 20th level caster. I'll change the descriptions and maybe breath weapons (half poison/necrotic?).

 

[MarkB]

The goal idea is to replace the raiders in Fallout 4. They eat other sentients.

So why not just use cannibalistic raiders as the antagonists? Make it clear that, while in some cases they may have been driven to it through desperation, most of them now have other options and are sticking with it as a choice. Leave the players to decide whether that makes them reprehensible enough to take on with lethal force.

 

[Zardnaar]

So why not just use cannibalistic raiders as the antagonists? Make it clear that, while in some cases they may have been driven to it through desperation, most of them now have other options and are sticking with it as a choice. Leave the players to decide whether that makes them reprehensible enough to take on with lethal force.

I want to change things up a bit from the actual game.

Vat Spawn can also be created with pre apocalypse tech.

 

[Oofta]

And that's great! They don't pretend to behave according to our standard, they behave in coherence with the game world as depiected. I agree that our standard are quite recent but I feel that the description of societies in gamebooks depicts extremely"socially advanced" societies: gender equality that's generally equal of even better than in our modern society, nearly no slavery, very little prejudice... I guess your harsh world would be more Conan-esque than the implied setting, where I feel they would share our approach on violence. Which is fine and coherent, I don't want my answer to come across as criticizing your play style.

Yeah, nowadays my campaign world is teetering on the edge of the abyss (occasionally literally) so desperate times and all. It's set in the aftermath of a magical god war that came close to wiping out pretty much everything.

But I also have absolutely no problem with many, many different styles of games. Although it is something I always discuss in our session 0.