Is this an evil act, or not?

[Buttercup]

we first need to have Buttercup clarify:

Are kobolds inherently evil in the campaign world, somewhat evil, simply violent, or completely free of racial traits and culturally molded?

If the rogue had not killed the kobalds, & by some chance they had survived, they would have grown up to terrorize the town again. Kobalds are implacable enemies of the human and demi-human races. Are they evil? All civilized folk think so. They certainly show no mercy to anyone *they* capture.

But the kobalds would not have survived. Had she not killed them, they would have been dead by the time the party came back that way (about 3 hours or so) to leave the dungeon.

 

[Buttercup]

Especially in light of your somewhat morally ambiguous game, I wonder why you care whether the act is good or evil.

It's not that I care, exactly. It's that I thought it would lead to an interesting discussion, which it has. I'm always interested in how other DMs and groups handle situations like this.

I admit that I was surprised at the cleric's response at first. IMO, a nature deity would not object, nature being red in tooth and claw, and all that. But as a new convert, he's zealously trying to do the right thing, but doesn't always know what that is.

 

[drnuncheon]

I admit that I was surprised at the cleric's response at first. IMO, a nature deity would not object, nature being red in tooth and claw, and all that. But as a new convert, he's zealously trying to do the right thing, but doesn't always know what that is.

Oh, yeah, a nature deity would pretty much say 'leave 'em or eat 'em' - but a nature deity isn't going to be good either.

Unless they're some kind of wussy hippy nature deity.

J

 

[clark411]

Sounds imperfect good.. which is spot on when it comes to most solutions that mortal minds can comprehend. I say leave the REALLY REALLY REALLY Good and Law and Evil and Chaos to the extraplanar stuff and the gods etc.

 

[Vaxalon]

I would think that good clerics, paladins, and other good ecclesiastical types would aspire to doing the BEST thing rather than just the GOOD thing.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well, if "given the chance" means "raised apart from kobold society and taught different values", anyway. I mean, we could say that the Mongols under Genghis Khan were all violent people given to raiding, rapine and pillaging - but if you took a baby out of that culture and raised it in the modern day they would do no such thing.

That doesn't necessarily mean there were peace-loving farming Mongols, because it wasn't part of their culture.

This is absolutely true, if the kobolds are products of nurture rather than nature, as humans are (mostly--let's not get into that debate! ) However, Buttercup tells us:

If the rogue had not killed the kobalds, & by some chance they had survived, they would have grown up to terrorize the town again.

So by their very nature, these creatures are enemies of mankind. Left to their own devices, without any other kobolds to teach them, the kobold young would have grown up to attack the town anyway. So unlike the Mongols, the kobolds will always be enemies of human civilization, regardless of their environment.

Of course, doesn't all that imply that it is an evil act to let the townsfolk with the plague continue to live, and suffer? Because after all, as far as they know, there is no cure.

No, it doesn't. How do you come to that conclusion?

So, moving through the village ruthlessly euthanizing the infected populace is "good", while letting them live while you search for the cure is "evil". Hmm...interesting.

No, again. You don't seem to be making points here, but rather trying to muddle mine. *shrug*

Originally posted by Vaxalon

I would think that good clerics, paladins, and other good ecclesiastical types would aspire to doing the BEST thing rather than just the GOOD thing.

Sure. But the PC killing the kobolds was a rogue. A good rogue is well-within his alignment to take such an act.

 

[woodelf]

2) the suffering would have eventually kill the infants as they have no cure and have no immediate way to cure them. mercy killing IE euthenasia isn't evil.

While i basically agree here, keep in mind that this is not a universal position. There are plenty of people (and even cultures) that see both euthenasia and suicide as unrepentantly evil.

Though, strangely, most of these societies seem to only apply that standard to humans...

 

[geezerjoe]

If the rogue had not killed the kobalds, & by some chance they had survived, they would have grown up to terrorize the town again. Kobalds are implacable enemies of the human and demi-human races. Are they evil? All civilized folk think so. They certainly show no mercy to anyone *they* capture.

In the case where members of a particular race are _always_ evil then the very nature of creature defines the act as a good act. The kobolds would be more akin to a plague themselves, and allowing the kobolds to live would almost be an evil act unto itself on two levels: First the evil creatures were allowed to continue to possibly (very slightly) survive to live another day and spread their evil to others. Second if it was known that the creatures would die there might be some evil ... evil light or the diet coke of evil mind you ... in not granting the creatures mercy. That of course depends on what you would qualify as charity and justice in the situation. Do the kobolds DESERVE to die painfully over time? If so then killing them would be an act of charity while leaving them be would be justice (they got what they deserved). If the kobolds didn't deserve to die slowly and painfully, then killing them (when no chance of a cure was possible) would be justice and not killing them injustice with no chance of charity to be administered unless they could some how be cured.

phew ...

l8r)

Joe2Old

 

[green slime]

If the rogue had not killed the kobalds, & by some chance they had survived, they would have grown up to terrorize the town again. Kobalds are implacable enemies of the human and demi-human races. Are they evil? All civilized folk think so. They certainly show no mercy to anyone *they* capture.

And yet the townsfolk can accept and take as one of their own a goblin cook?!? Are goblins in some way different from kobolds in their inherent evilness?

Personally, IMC the act of killing helpless victims is evil. IMC killing the diseased and sick is evil. When do you decide that someone is too sick, too diseased, in too much pain, to continue living? Who makes that decision?

There was the point that if these had been human babies of human raiders, then they would have been unlikely to be slaughtered in this fashion. Dressing evil-doers up as "usually evil" races is a way to distance the players from the deeds they do. That some in party discussion occurs after encountering a "good" goblin should be no surprise, Buttercup has introduced the thought that these races are not always evil. Then turning around and stating that these kobold babies are going to grow up to be terrible raiders goes against what has already been introduced into the campaign. How do the players know this?

There has always been various plagues and diseases throughout history. Yet within christian old-world europe (as much as this may be regarded as a parallel to whatever campaign you are in) there was not much slaughtering of the aged, infirm, or sick.

It has been pertty much a no-no to kill yourself (at least within the christian religion) Suicides were historically not buried on blessed ground. Asking others to do it for you, is placing an enormous burden upon the other person, as they are then guilty of murder.

Euthanasia/Mercy-killings has been regarded as a sin, because it means, amongst other things, that you have lost all hope. Lepers may have been shunned and feared, yet no-one ran around killing them to prevent the spread of the disease.

Now these real life examples do not have to have any relevance in anybody elses campaigns. Just explaining my take on how things are IMC.

 

[Vaxalon]

I am 100% with you, slime.

A frontier town is subject to periodic attacks by a tribe of orcs. Invariably, the orcs (because of poor tactics, inferior equipment, and lack of discipline) are slaughtered on the walls.

On more than one occasion, the townsfolk have gone out after an orc raid to chase down the survivors. Every orc warrior they can find is killed without mercy, as punishment for their crimes against the town.

The good townsfolk, however, cannot bring themselves to slaughter the females and infants of the tribe.

Does this make them more vulnerable to attacks in the future? Absolutely.

If they did it, would it be justified? I suppose. But Justice is a lawful idea, not a good one.

Why do they do this? Why do they not commit genocide, and rid themselves of this problem forever?

Because it isn't easy being good. They can't fool themselves into thinking that selfishly slaughtering innocents is a good act.