Player Dilemma

[Lord Pendragon]

So it isn't evil to kill evil human children if you're defending your life?

From the evil human children? Some kind of Children of the Corn setup? I'd have to say no. In my moral judgment, and therefore the morally objective reality in my campaigns, defending your life is never evil. It's not good, but it's not evil.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This said (and now I'm probably going to say something likely to be inflammatory):

A Paladin's job is to smite evil. The goblin children radiated evil with the use of the paladin's sense evil ability - thus it behooved the paladin to act upon the information gained from their god-given ability and smite the little shits until they were no longer evil - questioning the abilities given to you by your god was not an option.

I'll put to you the same question I asked earlier in the thread:

Let's say I've spent the last five years being evil, but I've just realised the error of my ways and have (sincerely) resolved to do only good from now on. Is my alignment, immediately after making that decision:

1. Still evil. I have to perform good deeds to make up for my past wickedness.
2. Neutral. I'm no longer evil, but to become good requires demonstrable progress.
3. Good. It's what's inside that counts.

-Hyp.

 

[haakon1]

Note that in a campaign where goblins were treated just the same as humans--i.e. with the same potential for change and breadth of alignments--it'd be just as wrong to kill goblin children. Only in the "standard" campaign, where goblins are naturally evil, does their killing lose the immoral certitude that human childkilling claims.

What if the campaign says, like the rules do, that goblins are "usually neutral evil" -- more than 50% are NE, because of both culture and some innate tendency. I'd assume that's the "standard" campaign, and I think it means killing the goblinoid kiddies is evil -- that goblinoid kiddies are mostly innocents who will likely turn bad, not evil incarnate who will always be evil.

That's an interesting world, since the dwarf and a paladin both have reasons for what they do. The dwarf is right that in all probability, they will grow up to be little monsters. But the paladin is right that they are currently innocents and it's evil to kill them. BTW, just because the act is evil doesn't mean the dwarf changes alignment in my campaign -- he's probably neutral and remains so.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Really. DND is meant to be a fun game and if you all wanted to play a deeply philosophical game that covered subjects such as "nature versus nurture", either don't play DND since that isn't the default play mode or inform the players of your intention to run that kind of game.

D&D can accomodate any number of play styles so the system isn't the problem unless a DM is a slave to all the assumptions of the core books regarding alignment and all that entails. Different setting often have different assumptions. The core books assume Greyhawk and because I don't play Greyhawk I don't really care much about what is presented save as a very loose guideline.

I agree that a DM needs to inform the player's when starting out what kind of game he is running. In my campaign, my players have asked me to deal with these questions and desire that I run a campaign with believable mature themes. Its just the way it has been for the last 12+yrs.


Chris

 

[haakon1]

I'll put to you the same question I asked earlier in the thread:

Let's say I've spent the last five years being evil, but I've just realised the error of my ways and have (sincerely) resolved to do only good from now on. Is my alignment, immediately after making that decision:

1. Still evil. I have to perform good deeds to make up for my past wickedness.
2. Neutral. I'm no longer evil, but to become good requires demonstrable progress.
3. Good. It's what's inside that counts.

Hmmm, hyposmurfically, I'd say Neutral.

 

[Hypersmurf]

From the evil human children? Some kind of Children of the Corn setup? I'd have to say no. In my moral judgment, and therefore the morally objective reality in my campaigns, defending your life is never evil. It's not good, but it's not evil.

Cool. As long as you're internally consistent, I've got no problem with it.

So your answers so far:

1. Killing evil human adults in self-defence: Not Evil.
2. Killing evil human children in self-defence: Not Evil.
3. Killing evil human adults taken prisoner: Evil.
4. Killing evil human children taken prisoner: Evil.

Let's say you're an advance scout for an Army of Goodness and Light, and you've sneaked up on an evil human adult sentry, dozing at his post.

If you kill him, no alarm is raised, and the evil human army falls easily. If you don't kill him, you risk his alerting the evil human army to the presence of the Army of Goodness and Light.

Killing the dozing sentry - evil, or not evil?

-Hyp.

 

[Sundragon2012]

So it isn't evil to kill evil human children if you're defending your life?

-Hyp.

Evil human children....gimme a break.

Weird. :\


Chris

 

[Hypersmurf]

You know that the question is ridiculous because human children have no and radiate no alignment.

Justify your assertion. Why can a human child have no alignment, while a goblin child can?

Children have murdered people, tortured animals, lied, stolen, and so on. Some of this might be 'didn't know any better', but some of them gain genuine pleasure from causing pain to others. Is this not the definition of evil?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmmm, hyposmurfically, I'd say Neutral.

Would your answer be the same if I haven't decided to do good deeds henceforth, but have resolved to stop doing anything evil?

I've sworn off kicking puppies, selling drugs to small children, stealing little old ladies' handbags, and raping elves. But I have no intention to give to charity, volunteer at the homeless shelter, or help cripples cross the street.

I've just now made the decision - no more evil. Is my alignment still evil, neutral, or (unlikely as it may be) good?

-Hyp.

 

[Corben Willemne]

I think that people here are still missing the point.
Your personal actions betray your alignment.
If you kill the defenseless or the weak then you are starting down the path to evil.
There's no two ways about it. You can't say oh yes but he's evil so its ok. It's never ok that the point of being virtuous and good. Stop reading the rules and start understanding the game.