Is this an evil act, or not?

[LuYangShih]

Exactly. Considering the good Goblin, it should be clear that the stereotypes that exist in this world can be broken. Since the creatures are capable of good, and they have yet to commit evil actions of their own accord, killing them is an evil act. They are innocent. You do not have the right to kill a sentient being simply because it is suffering.

 

[Buttercup]

It is an evil act if the cleric could not cast a cure on the babies. Was she able to do so?

The party's cleric was not high enough in level to cast that spell. The cleric in town could have done so, but would have reserved his spells for townsfolk and party members. If they had come back with the kobald babies, he would not have 'wasted' his spells on them, and probably would have refused to cure the PCs either.

But they did not bring the babies back to town. Instead, Nadja Zaraiovich, halfling adventurer extrordinaire, slit their throats. No one in town even knows about the kobaldlings, and the party members have forgotten them also.

I'll probably find a way to revisit this issue again, I just haven't figured out how, yet.

 

[Vaxalon]

In my game, I kept track of all the people the PC's killed unjustly. I was saving them for a later villain, who would summon them all simultaneously to fight the party.

 

[Farland]

I didn't read this whole thread, so if someone already said this, forgive me. I don't think killing defenseless creatures is evil if those creatures are evil. You see in D&D, good and evil are ontological realities, existent entities, and not just viewpoints. This is attested to by all the detect spells, and by the MM entry for alingment that says always evil.

Creatures in D&D either ally themselves with one of these alignment forces or are intrinsically connected to them by their very being. Demons for example, are intrinisc allies of evil. Creatures with good alignments are allied with good. For a good creature to kill a baby demon is not an evil act; in fact, it is a required act because of that creatures alliance with goodness.

Now Kobolds are only usually evil so it isn't quite as black and white, but the same logic still applies, so a good creature is perfectly within his rights to kill baby kobolds.

 

[Krail Stromquism]

oh my morals ache

I did something a lot like this in my last campaign, a redux of the Pools of Radiance original Gold Box computer game.

I made the Slum area right next to New Phlan a kind of no mans land area. Whilst in that area the party ranger ran into a goblin in the midst of giving birth! Yoinks! He killed them both with out batting an eye. Favored enemy and all that. His alignment was CG. I pursued the morality of his actions just to get his veiw and try to develop his character a bit. He had a hard time with it, didnt want to think about it at all.

He quit shortly after that.

Anyway, I think the moral side of things is a fun and interesting portion of the game and can really bring a fresh edge to it.

If this were to happen while I was DMing I'd try and do some kinda impromtu sanity check. I dont care if its good or evil, merciful or whatever. It'd be super cold blooded to do.

If the party was standing around with the filthy little wretches rolling around on the ground calmy debating "nah lets just kill it. Its the easiest thing to do" and they walk over like robots and do it. Thats pretty hardcore.

Its hard to look at pictures of dead babies let alone kill one. Who could kill a puppy with out flinching? Kobolds are kinda dogish right? Even if the puppy was near death who could just kill it? Let alone slit it throat! dang!

Most people would just spend time petting it until they thought it was dead. This wouldnt give it any amount of comfort that the person would know about but it would ease their own concious, knowing they did something.

In my game I was playing a F/C of garagos, battle and slaughter. Shes CN, she wouldnt have anything to do with killing children or babies or whatever. Shed woulda left em to die.

Which if these are Nature devotees, I would expect them to do the same, If the kobolds are strong enough to survive the disease then so be it.

Im working on a Law of Armed Conflict project and if this situation was to come up today real world it'd be a crazy warcrime, I know modern day law and ethics dont have anything to do with the fantasy games we play just thought I'd add perspective to it.

Why did the discussion of building a giant catapult not come up? Shooting baby kobolds in to space would have been much more merciful than slitting their throats and way less hands on. Just think Diseased Baby Space Kobolds, just like those giant hamster things.

In the end this is a neutral act with hints of chaos and evil.

I have a hard time buying that a CG character would do this, at least not after lots of other ideas.

Like Take them to town and claim they are cursed human babies from another village transmogrified by the evil kobold witchdotor. What do those primitive monkey screwheads no about compounds and elements and stuff! No seriously. The village has been hit by a magical plague, how far off is a magical curse? One of the party could claim to have been turned into a kobold. They got better.

Or

Tried to do something good for them, like cool water, honey or sugar or something (art appreciation? lullabies? being shot out of a catapult?) so they would know something sweet or beautiful or joyous before their miserable little lives were cut short.

What about the Sleep spell? Did anyone suggest casting Sleep on them just so they would be assured they wouldnt feel anything before they got cut from the team of the living.

sorry my post is kinda silly

anyhow

 

[LuYangShih]

I do not find your post silly. You bring up a good point. Providing comfort and care for the diseased and suffering strikes me as the truly good path here.

 

[Elf Witch]

I didn't read this whole thread, so if someone already said this, forgive me. I don't think killing defenseless creatures is evil if those creatures are evil. You see in D&D, good and evil are ontological realities, existent entities, and not just viewpoints. This is attested to by all the detect spells, and by the MM entry for alingment that says always evil.

Creatures in D&D either ally themselves with one of these alignment forces or are intrinsically connected to them by their very being. Demons for example, are intrinisc allies of evil. Creatures with good alignments are allied with good. For a good creature to kill a baby demon is not an evil act; in fact, it is a required act because of that creatures alliance with goodness.

Now Kobolds are only usually evil so it isn't quite as black and white, but the same logic still applies, so a good creature is perfectly within his rights to kill baby kobolds.

But since Kobolds are not always evil by killing babies who have not had the chance to chhose what they will be is an evil act it is murder. A god character could try and see that these creatures are raised with love and kindess and taught right from wrong who know what might happen. That is what we did in our game in this situation. One kobold turned out good one went bad because he just learned to live down to what most people thought he was going to be.

No matter how you twist this around this party commited an evil act. They killed innocent sick babies without trying to help them and their justifaction is specious at best. If they were really concerned with the paluge spreading they would have killed all who had even human babies.

Killing the kobold babies was just an easy way for them.

 

[Green Knight]

This act was about as good as going through a nursery at a local hospital and slitting the throats of any babies born with AIDS. Even moreso, as their diseases COULD have been cured. So the town priest who was capable wouldn't have done it. Did they BOTHER to ask him? Nope. They just saved themselves some time and just killed the kobold babies right then and there. And even upon discovering that the town priest wouldn't (A point which they never arrived at, since they made ZERO effort in trying to help these babies), they could've cajoled, threatened, or found some way to strong-arm or convince him into doing it. Failing that, they could've found some other priest to cure them. But nope, they opted for the quickest, easiest solution, taking a bunch of innocent lives, and went on their way.

Granting mercy? Yeah, right. I'm sure those kobold babies who're now dead before their time REALLY appreciate the strenuous efforts which the PC party put into trying to preserve their lives. I'm sure any of us who've had relatives suffering from Alzheimers or other fatal and painful diseases would be appreciative if some complete stranger were to waltz by and kill that relative on the spot, and later claim that it was an act of mercy.

Elf Witch is right. This was an evil act through and through.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm sure any of us who've had relatives suffering from Alzheimers or other fatal and painful diseases would be appreciative if some complete stranger were to waltz by and kill that relative on the spot, and later claim that it was an act of mercy.

Green Knight, this is D&D, not real life. Please do not bring real life into it, because you do not know who among us has had a terminally ill loved one. Nor can you categorically declare what is merciful for another person, until you have walked in their shoes. If we start talking about real life, I, as the thread starter, will request that the moderators close the thread, for reasons I don't wish to share with 12,000 strangers.

Please can we go back to discussing D&D morality only?

 

[LuYangShih]

It is merely a hypothetical situation which demonstrates the evil of committing such acts. You cannot justify murder because the victims are suffering from a deadly disease.