Is this an evil act, or not?

[Ashe]

The problem I'm running up against is that the plague is already out there, so taking the infants to where others that are also infected would not spread the plague. I assume that there is some type of quarentine in place, or at least a leper colony type scenario. In this place the infants would receive the care they need until the "heros" could find a cure. So I don't buy the whole excuse, "We did it to help stop the spread of the plague." They were in a cave, to whom were they spreading it? As far as not being taken care of, they would have been fine if their parents not been killed. I think this is a great example in which every creature you encounter does not have to be killed. I would even go so far as to say that since they are responsible for the abandonment, they are responsible for their care.

I agree with their rationale, but in the circumstances I would say that there were some other options that I would have considered more-good than this one.

I just can't think of a good reason in which killing an infant of anything is a good act without considering any other options.

But I realize my POV is not popular on this, I'm just giving my 2 cents.

 

[Mercule]

Not evil.

Not emphatically good, but definitely not evil.

 

[Maerdwyn]

I'm going to take a slightly different position, in part based on Buttercup's goblin story, which demontrates that in her world, the alignment of a humanoid (or at least the ability of a humanoid to civily fuction in society) isn't necessarily defined by race.

If kobolds are not inherently evil, killing what would we would have to assume are, thus-far, innocent babes would be evil if not for the euthanasia aspect of the situation. Since the party had no cure for the diseased infants, killing them would seem to be the merciful option.

However, the party did not have any cure for the people in town who were stricken by the plague at that point, either, and the party wasn't euthanizing any of them. Given that the party had every hope, possibly even the expectation that they would find and remove the source of the plague and cure the townspeople(else, why accept the mission in the first place?), they had the same possibility of soon possessing the means to cure the kobold infants.

Granted, keeping the kobold babies alive would have been difficult and inconvenient, but they certainly could have tried to keep the babies safe until either all hope was lost or a cure found. Not to do so was not a choice based on mercy, but expedience.

While I would put this on the evil end of neutral, I would say it would only be a problem for character's whose religions preached against this sort of thing - for example, if the cleric followed a god of healing, I would say he was in some trouble.

 

[LoneWolf23]

I'd make it a Neutral act at best. Ending the lives of Kobold Children in order to put an end to their suffering and to a plague isn't an evil act, but it's not as good as working to find a cure in time.

 

[Darkness]

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.

Quite a few "true lawful" (i.e., LN) characters would kill the kobold babies as welll.

'course, they'd kill the them to prevent the plague from spreading (rather than out of mercy) but still.

So yeah, motivation makes a big difference here, of course. (Killing them merely because the disembodied voice of Gruumsh told you to would probably be CE, for example. )

- Killing for Gruumsh and loving it Darkness

 

[geezerjoe]

(I skipped many of the posts ... I just can't seem to focus like I used to )

I don't think the mater is completely cut and dry as to whether it is a good or evil act. I think in this instance it is at the lesser evil but not really a good act. I shall try to explain (my point of view).

Life = good (this is very debatable in the context of many FRPGs) thus the taking of an innocent life would contrast that good with evil. Put the situation in the stated context however and the act gets grayer. The desire of the killer comes into question and could sway the argument. One could EASILY suggest (as I think was the character's opinion) that the act was one of mercy ... a short life of suffering verses a quick almost painless death is a very compelling argument. Add the intention of not wanting the plague to spread and you have reason for almost any good character to agree with this point. It does not (IMHO) disqualify the counter argument that killing is simply wrong and should always be avoided when possible. Was there an alternative? If so then the act could be classified as evil even if the character's intentions were not evil.

I'd think that a Chaotic Good (pro-individual freedom) character would be the most likely to try and find a solution to NOT killing the innocent while I could easily see a Neutral Good character killing the young ... but that really depends on the campaign's definition of the alignments and my level of sanity.

I think the action therefore is a tragic necessity if there was really no other means to save the young and keep the plague from spreading.

l8r)

Joe2Old

 

[Ranger REG]

Personally, mercy killing is not an evil act. But I do think they could have found an alternate plan, or at least made such an effort. Mercy killing should always be the last resort, not an easy solution.

Mind you, I was born in Molokai, having heard history of one Father Damien who tended an isolated colony suffering from Hodgkin's Disease, aka leprosy, until he himself contracted the disease and died from it. His sacrificial act of mercy is why he is praised for years to come.

Of course, I do not expect the new cleric to volutarily spend that period of time tending the care of the sick kobolds up until their death, especially when I don't know what kind of deity he or she is worshipping. Of course, I do expect some kind of gesture like the Last Rite or proper burial or something.

 

[willpax]

Evil with extenuating circumstances.

This time, there was a good motive, but this rogue is now slightly more comfortable with the idea of killing when it is the most expedient thing to do. The first paving stone on that fabled road has been laid.

I use a modified "dark side" point system, where any act of killing carries a risk of corruption, even when done for good reasons. Sometimes there are no good choices. So long as the sanction (in terms of game mechanics) for one of these horrible situations are not drastic, I think the moral discomfort is probably sufficient.

 

[Darkness]

Evil with extenuating circumstances.

This time, there was a good motive, but this rogue is now slightly more comfortable with the idea of killing when it is the most expedient thing to do.

You mean to say that killing them quickly, rather thanletting them slowly die of the plague, is "expedient?"

 

[Angcuru]

Two things.

NUMBER 1 - Very much not evil yes sir no evil here no sirree nope not never uh-uh.

NUMBER 2 - Anyone else notice that Bloodstone Mage has an avatar just as big as Erics? How do they do that?