Is this an evil act, or not?

[drnuncheon]

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.

Actually, if you check, she's told us that that is what the humans believe - but in the world of D&D, where good and evil are not points of moral relativity but instead identifiable and definable things, killing someone is not justified simply because you believe they are evil.

BC, what do people think of goblins? What do they think of them in areas where they've been raiding?

How do you come to that conclusion?

It's very simple.

1) There are people who are diseased, and suffering.

2) "They should react on what they know, which was--as I understand it--that there is no cure for this plague."

3) "But it is a minor act of Good, worthy of a decent person just trying to get by in the world, to end [their] misery before the plague made their brief lives a living hell."

J

 

[Vaxalon]

3) "But it is a minor act of Good, worthy of a decent person just trying to get by in the world, to end [their] misery before the plague made their brief lives a living hell."

Perhaps. But as anyone who has worked in a hospital can tell you, there is no suffering so great that care and comfort does not do a world of good.

It is a comforting thought that killing someone who is sick or in pain is a "mercy," but the act is founded in selfishness. It is the act of someone who does not have the resources to spare to provide comfort instead of death.

 

[drnuncheon]

Perhaps. But as anyone who has worked in a hospital can tell you, there is no suffering so great that care and comfort does not do a world of good./B]

Note that I was quoting Lord Pendragon there, not offering my own opinion...

 

[willpax]

And so, even if the act is not absolutely evil, the characters are a slight bit more comfortable with the idea of killing helpless things than they were before. They may never experience situations that would cause them to go further down the road to outright selfishness and cruelty, or their own sense of morals may prevent further slipping, but I still think it is a morally gray act that could lead people toward evil.

Within game, I don't think this is the kind of action that should result in any penalties with regard to alignment, but it might make for a good story point for the characters (which is what is happening, based on reports).

 

[Vaxalon]

I remember one game where I assigned a devil to the direct temptation of the PC's. He set up situations where their morality would be led, step by step, to conform with his.

 

[Buttercup]

BC, what do people think of goblins? What do they think of them in areas where they've been raiding?

Well, people who live on the borders of goblin lands think they're evil, uncivilized, stinky, stupid, and any number of other things that might or might not be true. In the town the PCs came from, the local ratcatcher was rumored to be half-goblin, but he was tolerated because he filled an important niche. The goblins have not shown mercy to people they have captured, and they have a reputation for burning and killing everything in their path.

When the other rogue in the party captured instead of killing the goblin, the rest of the party was furious with him. Several of them wanted to slit the goblin's throat then and there. In fact, he only survived the session because it was winding up anyway. Before the next session I devised my evil plan to make the goblin so nice and useful that they *couldn't* justify killing him any more. When they showed up in the town they're currently in, goblin servant in tow, the innkeeper was not pleased at all, but allowed him inside because the party vouched for him. Then he started cooking, and suddenly she saw him as something more than mere vermin. He really can make a mean goat a l'orange, you see.

So, long story short, Spilnok the goblin chef is an anomoly.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Actually, if you check, she's told us that that is what the humans believe - but in the world of D&D, where good and evil are not points of moral relativity but instead identifiable and definable things, killing someone is not justified simply because you believe they are evil.

And evil things are evil, regardless of whether you believe they aren't. From the PH pg 88

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

The kobolds hurt and kill the townsfolk. They have no compassion for others and kill without qualms when convenient, and they actively pursue these goals. In short: the kobolds are evil.

Now let us examine the PCs. Though the rogue killed the kobolds, he did not hurt them (the death was painless), and he had plenty of qualms about it. He also killed out of compassion, so there was no lack of that as well. In short: not evil.

It's very simple.

1) There are people who are diseased, and suffering.

2) "They should react on what they know, which was--as I understand it--that there is no cure for this plague."

3) "But it is a minor act of Good, worthy of a decent person just trying to get by in the world, to end [their] misery before the plague made their brief lives a living hell."

Note that the townsfolk haven't been out raiding and killing lately, either. Nor will they raid and kill should they recover. Nor are they by their very nature out to kill the PCs. Stringing a couple of my comments together in an erroneous logical progression which I never claimed doesn't prove anything. The townsfolk and the kobold young are different cases, and you can't use one as a guideline for how you should act with the other.

Also, I'd like to note that what the rogue did was not the "expedient" or convenient course of action. That would have been simply leaving the kobolds there to die on their own (as they surely would have.) Instead, the rogue went out of his way to show the kobolds mercy.

 

[Vaxalon]

Also, I'd like to note that what the rogue did was not the "expedient" or convenient course of action. That would have been simply leaving the kobolds there to die on their own (as they surely would have.) Instead, the rogue went out of his way to show the kobolds mercy.

No, it wasn't the MOST expedient thing he could have done, it was merely more expedient than comforting them.

 

[Azul]

It seems to me that the fact that we have had so much debate over the issue is rather strong evidence that this is a neutral act. It has elements of both good (mercy) and evil (killing defenceless targets). By its nature, this is a morally ambiguous act. Isn't moral ambiguity one of the traits of neutrality rather than good or evil?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

It has elements of ... evil (killing defenceless targets).

Whether or not the subject can defend itself has no bearing on whether a killing is good or evil. Killing a defenseless opponent is certainly less honorable than killing an armed one. But it is in no way even slightly more evil.

In most D&D campaigns, killing in and of itself is neutral. Certainly it is connected to evil (as noted in the passage from the PH that I quoted earlier in the thread), but good creatures are permitted to kill evil creatures without any consequences to their alignment (Alhandra smites evil regularly.)

So if the killing itself is neutral, and the state of defensiveness of the victim is irrelevant, then we must look at the motivation behind the killing to determine its alignment.

Had the rogue killed the kobolds out of greed, pleasure, hatred, or dispassionate expediency, then it would indeed have been an evil killing.

Instead, the rogue killed out of a sense of compassion and mercy. IMO, that makes it good.