Limits of morality in the game?

[Raven Crowking]

True but there's no "if" in a generally "good" outlook about valuing life. It is valued. Thats not to say there might not be reasons to end it.

Exactly.

Moreover, undead don't have "life". They have something antithical to "life" (unlife?).

 

[delericho]

Where does a baby goblin fall in this moral calculus? Presumably it's "only" very likely to kill good people. If we decide it should live, is it somehow better to leave it to die than to kill it outright?

If the baby goblin were taken back to 'civilisation' and raised and educated properly in said civilisation, given a proper role in the society, and not mistreated simply for being a goblin, the odds that it would kill good people would drop dramatically. Actually doing so would represent a huge investment of time and effort on the part not only of the paladin, but also of everyone else involved in the situation, but it is possible.

Similarly, a large-scale civilising of the goblin race is not impossible - it would just be a long, slow and extremely painful process. So, simply wiping out goblin tribes because they are very likely to kill Good people isn't righteousness, it's expedience. Murdering a goblin baby because it is very likely to grow up to cause problems isn't righteousness, it's monstrous.

And no, abandoning a baby goblin alone in the wilderness (where it is certain to die) is no better than killing it outright. The paladin should probably have considered that before he wiped out every possible caregiver for the child.

 

[frankthedm]

I'll start this with an IMHO...

Killing is an evil act, in general, and at best a neutral act.

This is the impasse. Killing = Always Bad Thing is held by a lot of folks. Some things need killing. Sometimes dead is better.

It is a Good Thing for an Always Evil creature such as a chromatic dragon to die. That rubs some folks the wrong way.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Similarly, a large-scale civilising of the goblin race is not impossible - it would just be a long, slow and extremely painful process. So, simply wiping out goblin tribes because they are very likely to kill Good people isn't righteousness, it's expedience. Murdering a goblin baby because it is very likely to grow up to cause problems isn't righteousness, it's monstrous.

It's a decision that is justifiable either way you make it.

The goal is to avoid as much possible telling players what decisions their PCs, including paladins, must make. Right?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'll start this with an IMHO...This is the impasse. Killing = Always Bad Thing is held by a lot of folks. Some things need killing. Sometimes dead is better.

It is a Good Thing for an Always Evil creature such as a chromatic dragon to die. That rubs some folks the wrong way.

Sure. But it isn't good because the cromatic dragon died; it's good because of the consequences of that act.

It's like saying that -5 + 10 = a positive number. That doesn't make -5 a positive number.

 

[delericho]

It's a decision that is justifiable either way you make it.

Morally, I disagree. Killing an infant because it might grow up to do Evil is not justifiable. You wouldn't countenance it if the infant in question were human, and we're well aware of the depths of Evil that our species can sink to.

The goal is to avoid as much possible telling players what decisions their PCs, including paladins, must make. Right?

Absolutely. The player has the option of playing a character that is not Good. The player of the paladin has the option of taking his character down a path that leads to a fall.

The other option sees the paladin being allowed to do whatever he wants while retaining a Good alignment, and his paladin status, because we don't want to tell the PC what decisions he must make. (And, if the murder of infants is to be considered okay for a paladin, what exactly is not?)

 

[Wolfwood2]

Morally, I disagree. Killing an infant because it might grow up to do Evil is not justifiable. You wouldn't countenance it if the infant in question were human, and we're well aware of the depths of Evil that our species can sink to.

It's fine you disagree, but if a reasonable argument can be made for the other side than I don't think your disagreement should be the last word. Even if you're DM.

I beleive alignments should be big, big bins, and I could see justifying slaying an infant at least falling under the neutral but necessary category. As has been clear on this thread, it depends largely on campaign setting assumptions regarding nature vs. nurture and available options. I wouldn't go for it in Eberron, but in the Forgotten Realms it might be a reasonable call. Heck, in the original post of this thread a paladin fell for not killing the kiddies!

Absolutely. The player has the option of playing a character that is not Good. The player of the paladin has the option of taking his character down a path that leads to a fall.

Boo! That's not what I meant and you know it.

The other option sees the paladin being allowed to do whatever he wants while retaining a Good alignment, and his paladin status, because we don't want to tell the PC what decisions he must make. (And, if the murder of infants is to be considered okay for a paladin, what exactly is not?)

More and more I'm lending to the, "Make me a reasonable argument," school of thought. Let the player make a reasonable argument for why he thinks his actions are correct and give him a lot of latitude. If he can point to the textual alignment definitions and say, "This is the reasoning under which I'm doing this," then that should be that.

At the very least, always be prepared to name three different and alternate courses of action that would still be Good but could handle the situation. The attitude taken earlier in this thread of, "There's only one good way to handle this situation," is the worst kind of railroading.

 

[delericho]

It's fine you disagree, but if a reasonable argument can be made for the other side than I don't think your disagreement should be the last word. Even if you're DM.

I beleive alignments should be big, big bins, and I could see justifying slaying an infant at least falling under the neutral but necessary category.

I can see "Evil but necessary", but not "Neutral but necessary". Which makes it a no-no for a Paladin who doesn't want to fall, but is otherwise not the biggest issue for other Good characters.

If you want to persuade me otherwise, provide a reasonable argument that killing the child is okay... if the child is Human.

As for whether the DM has the last word on alignments or not, I'm in the camp that says the DM and the players should discuss this ahead of time, and an understanding reached. Whether this is the DM stating his conventions or the group deciding them together is really up to them. However, once that understanding has been reached, I am firmly of the view that monitoring alignment is the DM's responsibility, as is applying the consequences. And, yes, once the understanding has been reached, I do consider the DM to have the last word.

Heck, in the original post of this thread a paladin fell for not killing the kiddies!

And as I noted in my first response to this thread, I have a major problem with that. In fact, if the DM insisted on that interpretation, I would walk out.

Boo! That's not what I meant and you know it.

I know what you meant, and I disagreed.

My argument is that it is not the DMs place to enforce a course of action on PCs, even paladin PCs (barring magical compulsion and the like), but it is the place of the DM to enforce the consequences of those actions. So, if the player of the paladin decides his character is going to engage in infanticide, then he's entitled to do so... but his character will cease to be a paladin.

More and more I'm lending to the, "Make me a reasonable argument," school of thought. Let the player make a reasonable argument for why he thinks his actions are correct and give him a lot of latitude. If he can point to the textual alignment definitions and say, "This is the reasoning under which I'm doing this," then that should be that.

Broadly speaking, I adhere to the same view, and also view alignments as being very wide, rather than narrow. However, there are also a lot of arguments I simply won't accept:

"My character thinks that..." Sorry, alignments are absolute, not relative. Your character is free to think he's still Good; after all, he doesn't read his character sheet.

"The prevailing opinion of my culture..." Same problem applies - in this case it's your culture that may be wrong.

"My god says that..." Does he really? Or do you just think he does? Even if he does, alignment and alignment changes apply to the gods just as they apply to mortals.

At the very least, always be prepared to name three different and alternate courses of action that would still be Good but could handle the situation. The attitude taken earlier in this thread of, "There's only one good way to handle this situation," is the worst kind of railroading.

Sometimes, there are no Good options available. It sucks, but it does happen. And, after wiping out every adult in the goblin tribe, the PCs have reached a point where they simply don't have any Good options available to them (assuming they're not in a position to care for the child themselves, to take it back to appropriate foster parents back home, or can find another goblin tribe to adopt it). So, they may have reached a point where the best option that is available to them is to kill the child...

but that still doesn't make it non-Evil. It just makes it necessary.

What this case misses, though, is that this scenario doesn't come about in isolation. There's a reason the PCs now have a goblin child to deal with: they've just wiped out the entirety of the goblin tribe, most likely including some elders, wounded and women (or men) who were non-combatant. They could probably have instead decimated the tribe to a point where it was no longer a threat, and then stayed their swords. Their own blood-thirstiness has, to a certain extent, brought them to this impasse.

And it's worth noting that I did list a number of options above that would have remained Good that would handle the situation. If these are discarded because they are impractical, given the seriousness of what is being contemplated, is hardly a Good path. In fact, it strikes me as a perfectly Evil thing to do, to place expedience over morality.

 

[S'mon]

.

If you want to persuade me otherwise, provide a reasonable argument that killing the child is okay... if the child is Human.

It's not human. It's a goblin!

 

[Falkus]

So you're arguing that it is not good to kill something that will kill good people?

You can't kill people for crimes they haven't committed yet.

And as I noted in my first response to this thread, I have a major problem with that. In fact, if the DM insisted on that interpretation, I would walk out.

As would I.