Is this an evil act, or not?

[SnowDog]

IMC it would be a difficult choice with no "right" answer.

Killing someone helpless is not considered good, but killing a helpless someone who is innately evil is definitely not evil either.

Self-sacrifice to save the kobold children would definitely be a good act, but not an act you would expect people to do.

I would turn around and use it as a way to keep the party thinking and talking about their actions.

IMC, Kobolds are not one of the original five races. They're evil humanoids and are not protected by the gods of the original five races. Most folks, even good folks, feel no more guilt about killing a Kobold than they would over squishing a spider. The fact that they were infants would make it unpleasant but ultimately not many people would lose a lot of sleep over it. But I would definitely reward the Good character who tried to act "better" than the system and save the kids.

 

[Crass]

I'd have to say... not evil. But then, I don't see slavery (in game!) as inherently evil, either

 

[Vaxalon]

It is a good act to comfort the dying.

Being good isn't easy. I allow anyone with Knowledge (religion) to make a check (difficulty depending on the stickiness of the situation) to know what their religion teaches would be the right thing to do in a situation.

 

[geezerjoe]

I allow anyone with Knowledge (religion) to make a check (difficulty depending on the stickiness of the situation) to know what their religion teaches would be the right thing to do in a situation.

I agree.

I was thinking about this yesterday (or the day before?) after I first posted and I'd have to amend my statements to include that whatever the player's deity would have done would be a "good" thing for the player to do. Of course one would imagine that the gawds of each alignment are that alignment because of the way he or she acts ... but that train of thought will just get you back to your original question.

l8r)

Joe2Old

 

[Sanackranib]

drnuncheon makes a good point. To solve it, though, we have to consider the feasibility of the possible options. Would it have been within the party's power to save the infants? Further, could they have done so without risking the lives of many more people (including their own)?

to define evil you must define good.
the literal track (lawfull) would be to kill them as a part of the band that has been raiding and killing. doubly so because they also happen to have the plague. why would the party even want to save them (being kids doesn't carry much weight because they are evil humanoids) good and evil in D&D are all about shades og gray. the intent is what is the most critical factor.

 

[Sejs]

Not evil.

Just because a decision is a hard one, doesn't mean that you're dancing with damnation.

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.

...baby looked at you?

 

[Vaxalon]

It would not have been within the power of the PC's to save the innocent infants, but it would have been within their power to ease their passing.

It would have been a supreme act of Good, worthy of a saint, to risk catching the plague in order to make the innocent babies as comfortable as possible until the plague took them.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

This is debatable. I would see it as an evil act, personally. The Rogue has no right to end the life of innocent children based on the inherent risk of leaving them alive. It was convient and pragmatic, but it was not good. I would term it as evil, since it is an action that harms other innocent sentient creatures.

People keep throwing the word "innocent" around, as if these kobolds are cuddly panda-bears or sweet little babies. They aren't. These are kobolds. And I believe that to have such a discussion, 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?

Most people in this thread seem to be under the impression that the kobolds are "innocent" in that they could grow up to be peace-loving farmers, if only given the chance. If this is true, then there should be some peace-loving kobold farmers in the campaign world somewhere. If this is true, it still doesn't mean that killing them was an evil or expedient act. The kobolds had the plague, and moving them could potentially kill the PLKFs. So, what to do? Either leave them (to starve to death or rot from the plague,) kill them (quick and painlessly,) or take them to the PLKFs and hope the farmers are willing and able to care for plague victims without spreading the plague throughout their entire community.

Some people have mentioned that there were townsfolk with the plague, and that the PCs should have expected to be able to cure it. Thus, they could have tended to the kobolds as they sought the cure to the plague. I'd say this is a blatant example of metagaming. The PCs would have no idea that, this being a D&D game, there's a good chance the cure to the plague is at the bottom of the next dungeon. They should react on what they know, which was--as I understand it--that there is no cure for this plague. So we're back to square one.

Originally posted by Vaxalon

It would have been a supreme act of Good, worthy of a saint, to risk catching the plague in order to make the innocent babies as comfortable as possible until the plague took them.

This is absolutely true. But it is a minor act of Good, worthy of a decent person just trying to get by in the world, to end the kobolds' misery before the plague made their brief lives a living hell.

 

[drnuncheon]

Most people in this thread seem to be under the impression that the kobolds are "innocent" in that they could grow up to be peace-loving farmers, if only given the chance. If this is true, then there should be some peace-loving kobold farmers in the campaign world somewhere.

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.

Some people have mentioned that there were townsfolk with the plague, and that the PCs should have expected to be able to cure it. Thus, they could have tended to the kobolds as they sought the cure to the plague. I'd say this is a blatant example of metagaming. The PCs would have no idea that, this being a D&D game, there's a good chance the cure to the plague is at the bottom of the next dungeon. They should react on what they know, which was--as I understand it--that there is no cure for this plague. So we're back to square one.This is absolutely true. But it is a minor act of Good, worthy of a decent person just trying to get by in the world, to end the kobolds' misery before the plague made their brief lives a living hell.

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.

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.

J

 

[ShadowX]

This is an extremely interesting thread, as my group will be playing through the same adventure. I personally wouldn't worry about the alignment issues of the act, its not as important as how each character reacts to the incident. Especially in light of your somewhat morally ambiguous game, I wonder why you care whether the act is good or evil.