Is this an evil act, or not?

[Sanackranib]

consider this from a paladins viewpoint: if left alone could the creatures survive? you said no. if taken back to town could they be cured? in doing so would the PC"s and or townsfolk be exposing themselves? are kobolds inherently evil? if not can they be brought up in a "good" envoirment to achieve a good alignment too? they didn't surrender and it sounds to me like the rogue did choose the more mercyfull action and did his euthanasia in the most gentle manner possible.

so I would rule no its no more "evil" then killing the adults was. D&D is a game where we must accept that killing isn't evil though "murder" is. so I guess it depends on how you as a DM view this act. was it "killing" or "murder". also how would leaving them alone to a slow but certin death have been classified.

if I were playing the rogue I would suggest to the priest that he go to his church and have them spell out to him just what the churches official policy is so that party conflict could be avoided in the future as you will decide what the churches policy is you can adjust it to how it best suits your campaign. I hope that helps Buttercup. keep up the questions of morality, they make for a good debate but there really is no "Right" answer other then what you as the cleric's diety decide.

 

[Trickstergod]

Motive, I often find, is one of the major points of defining whether something is good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or somewhere in between. Sometimes motive still isn't enough, for, as all goodly folk know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but it applies often enough. This is one of the circumstances where I think motive matters. As such, I don't believe it was an evil act, per se. I still wouldn't, for example, let a paladin do something like that (ignoring disease immunity, ability to remove it, and all that rot), but I would let the paladin stand by and allow another to do it, with the full knowledge of what was happening. Does that make any sense?

 

[Hackenslash]

I would agree with your ruling...

No, this was not an evil act, actually more an unpleasant act of mercy. If however there would have been another way, either to transport the infants to get cured or to cure them themselves then I would rule it differently, but as it was the PC's had no choice. Also as it was the Rogue who did the act then I don't even have any qualms over possible alignment issues. Fair enough !

 

[Wippit Guud]

Just jumping onto the 'not evil' bandwagon... I doubt you'll find anyone who says it was evil.


Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making babies and I saw one of the babies and then the baby looked at me.

 

[Maraxle]

That sounds like something my chaotic good rogue would have done...

In my opinion, the act was not evil. However, I do not think it was a lawful action, so I can understand the cleric's objection. If I were playing a lawful good character, I would object as well.

 

[Buttercup]

is this one of those free adventures from WotC?

Why yes. How did you guess?

 

[Bloodstone Mage]

As a player and a DM, I would justify it as being a good deed. I think it is more evil to let something suffer than to let it die peacefully. The kobold babies would most likely die anyways, and if the deed were ever to be considered evil at all, it would be 'the lesser evil'. But going into that means going into the gray areas of morality, so just to keep it short and quaint, it is good.
And, just as the old saying goes, "The DM is always right", so whatever you say goes.

Cheers!

 

[Buttercup]

But then again I usually don't put infants into lairs as it's too much of a moral dilemma like you had.

I actually enjoy throwing moral dilemmas at them. The last one netted them a goblin tag-along, who polished their shoes and made them breakfast every morning. In fact, he's back in town, and has decided to stay with the woman who owns the tavern. They discovered that they both love gourmet cooking. Sadly, they both like alcohol a bit too much as well. They end up getting roaring drunk and cooking up enough food to feed 100 people. Goat flambe, goat kabobs, goat a l'orange, goat bourgouinon, goat in puff pastry....

I think the party will run into this goblin chef again, somewhere down the road. He's too much fun to let him fade away.

 

[Trickstergod]

In my opinion, the act was not evil. However, I do not think it was a lawful action, so I can understand the cleric's objection. If I were playing a lawful good character, I would object as well.

Bit off the subject, but, that's strange, seeing as how I see it as a primarily lawful act, above all others (good, chaotic, or otherwise). Needs of the many outweighing those of the individual, after all. Taking into account that most of the children would die, and granting them mercy, at the cost of the one infant who might have fought the plague off and survived it. And I somehow doubt local law particularly covers kobolds...

Anyway, just a counterpoint, not trying to derail the thread into an argument about alignment.

 

[DMScott]

From a Cleric/Paladin point of view, I would Detect Evil on the infants. If they come up as evil - i.e., if Kobolds are inherently evil, not uncommon in D&D campaigns - then it's OK to kill them. If not, I'd try and take care of them (whether that means trying to get them to a foster home or just making their last few hours as comfortable as possible).

Outright killing them probably isn't evil, but it is neither especially Good nor the only option besides abandoning them as the rogue seems to think.

Of course, if you're playing in a more morally relativistic campaign where there is no absolute evil, the Detect Evil route won't work, but in that case asking 'is this evil' has no objective meaning anyway so each person can go ahead with whatever actions they can live with.