Is this an evil act, or not?
- Thread starter Buttercup
- Start date
Evil and wrong are not the same thing.
Only the rogue knows if it was evil.
Intent is huge in these cases.
Are kobolds EVIL? If not - then would the rogue have killed human babies? They WERE trying to find a cure weren't they?
I get the feeling that kobolds are not EVIL and then kiddies could have been saved. But a lot could be justified for the "greater good". If it turns out that the party finds a cure and could have saved the kids, then the rogue was wrong (not necessarily evil). Moral ambiguity and having to compromise your morals makes things interesting anyways.
The cleric is definitely not evil. No ambiguity there. Captain America probably would not have killed the kids and would have gone back to save them if possible - and maybe risked greater calamity. Again, wrong does not mean evil. Likewise, a very evil act could have been to save the kids in hopes that it would spread the contagion. So intent is everything here.
Only the rogue knows if it was evil.
Intent is huge in these cases.
Are kobolds EVIL? If not - then would the rogue have killed human babies? They WERE trying to find a cure weren't they?
I get the feeling that kobolds are not EVIL and then kiddies could have been saved. But a lot could be justified for the "greater good". If it turns out that the party finds a cure and could have saved the kids, then the rogue was wrong (not necessarily evil). Moral ambiguity and having to compromise your morals makes things interesting anyways.
The cleric is definitely not evil. No ambiguity there. Captain America probably would not have killed the kids and would have gone back to save them if possible - and maybe risked greater calamity. Again, wrong does not mean evil. Likewise, a very evil act could have been to save the kids in hopes that it would spread the contagion. So intent is everything here.
John R Davis
Hero
It is an interesting necro 20 years on. Given the Changing demographics of players and the world in general
If a player says " I quietly slay the helpless" I'm normally ok with that, I don't want a detailed description.
If a player says " I quietly slay the helpless" I'm normally ok with that, I don't want a detailed description.
Gorgon Zee
Hero
As usual with this discussion, the problem is that the question "is this evil?" needs more context. Are kobolds intrinsically evil? Almost always evil? Is "evil" an observable status? Is there an objective definition of "evil" in the world? Are all creatures equal in the sense of having souls? Life after death? Self-awareness? Free will?
Most campaigns exist in a world where creatures that talk are essentially humans in rubber masks, so we expect that our-world ethics apply to them. In our-world, if we have a terminally ill bunch of children who pose a danger to the community, we isolate them and provide palliative care to ease their pain, but we do not kill them.
A good cleric working under our-world ethics would stop adventuring and take care of them, allowing them as good a quality a life as possible (the fantasy book Name of the Wind has a cleric who does exactly this in an urban setting).
But this is where our-world ethics conflict with a fun game. It's hard to justify the typical adventuring lifestyle for any character with our-world good ethics. So we bend the ethics. One way is the old-school way of defining some creatures as intrinsically evil, so we can treat them as we would viruses and kill them on sight at every stage of development. Another way is to fudge the definition of good to be "our-world good, but limited by what makes the game fun to play".
Most modern fantasy campaigns lean to the latter, so your cleric is performing a good action. He is doing that action that most conforms to our-world ethics (alleviate suffering), while constrained by the game needs of not abandoning the party.
Most campaigns exist in a world where creatures that talk are essentially humans in rubber masks, so we expect that our-world ethics apply to them. In our-world, if we have a terminally ill bunch of children who pose a danger to the community, we isolate them and provide palliative care to ease their pain, but we do not kill them.
A good cleric working under our-world ethics would stop adventuring and take care of them, allowing them as good a quality a life as possible (the fantasy book Name of the Wind has a cleric who does exactly this in an urban setting).
But this is where our-world ethics conflict with a fun game. It's hard to justify the typical adventuring lifestyle for any character with our-world good ethics. So we bend the ethics. One way is the old-school way of defining some creatures as intrinsically evil, so we can treat them as we would viruses and kill them on sight at every stage of development. Another way is to fudge the definition of good to be "our-world good, but limited by what makes the game fun to play".
Most modern fantasy campaigns lean to the latter, so your cleric is performing a good action. He is doing that action that most conforms to our-world ethics (alleviate suffering), while constrained by the game needs of not abandoning the party.
I didn't notice its age. I google searched my question and it showed up. Timeless I guess.
Me either.
BookTenTiger
He / Him
That's the best reason for a necro thread! It's honestly cool to see these conversations continuing over decades. Maybe in 19 more years another poster will resurrect this one???
In our game for which I posed the question, alignment is a framework. It helps guide choices and such. Obviously it is different from 1st ed (remember alignment languages?) and that's fine.
What was troubling to all of us is that we are all "good" aligned players. The guards in questions were conscripted by a warlord and forced into service. Some few guards were emboldened by the leadership change while most didn't like it. Since they couldn't tell which was which, they came up with a plan that was IMHO really quite clever. As the group enjoyed navigating the moral quandaries of what was happening and coming up with a plan to deal with it, the move to execute the sleeping guards (who I will add were up in tower platforms and not near anyone) was so jarring that we were shocked. Some players were angry at the dismissal of their careful planning. None are murder hobbo's...well none were murder hobos.
Yes a conversation may be in order and yes there are likely personal, non game related issues here too, but in the end we are sharing an experience together and this was perceived as a collective snub to the table. I think in the end that the slaying of an creature whose mindset and heart you do not know, who is also sleeping and defenseless is in itself an evil act. There were too many things that could have been done here other than going out of your way to kill someone that was rendered incapacitated.
Ultimately I am ruling it an evil act in the context of its committal. This won't alter much of anything but it could down the road. I appreciate the feedback from the group, it was helpful to reflect on and I learned the term necro-thread too. I should add that no kobold babies were harmed in the encounter or subsequently.
What was troubling to all of us is that we are all "good" aligned players. The guards in questions were conscripted by a warlord and forced into service. Some few guards were emboldened by the leadership change while most didn't like it. Since they couldn't tell which was which, they came up with a plan that was IMHO really quite clever. As the group enjoyed navigating the moral quandaries of what was happening and coming up with a plan to deal with it, the move to execute the sleeping guards (who I will add were up in tower platforms and not near anyone) was so jarring that we were shocked. Some players were angry at the dismissal of their careful planning. None are murder hobbo's...well none were murder hobos.
Yes a conversation may be in order and yes there are likely personal, non game related issues here too, but in the end we are sharing an experience together and this was perceived as a collective snub to the table. I think in the end that the slaying of an creature whose mindset and heart you do not know, who is also sleeping and defenseless is in itself an evil act. There were too many things that could have been done here other than going out of your way to kill someone that was rendered incapacitated.
Ultimately I am ruling it an evil act in the context of its committal. This won't alter much of anything but it could down the road. I appreciate the feedback from the group, it was helpful to reflect on and I learned the term necro-thread too. I should add that no kobold babies were harmed in the encounter or subsequently.
