Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 2551589" data-attributes="member: 707">Fair enough.&nbsp; As I said, there are many things a paladin player needs to get rulings on before a campaign starts.&nbsp; The morality of killing goblins and goblin children is one of them.But if this is true, there should be Neutral or Good goblin settlements out there.&nbsp; Every goblin tribe cannot be Evil, unless it's inherent to their nature.&nbsp; So in your campaign, I'd expect the paladin to be able to find a neutral goblin tribe with which he could leave the goblin orphans.If there is no such tribe, if invariably a group of goblins getting together will turn to evil, then there's nothing &quot;usually&quot; about it.&quot;Without a good reason&quot; makes it morally relative, I'm afraid.Absolutely right.&nbsp; But it's an outlook that you yourself, even if unconsciously, are practicing.&nbsp; &quot;Depends on the circumstances&quot; is moral relativism.&nbsp; Otherwise killing goblin children would either always be right, or always be wrong, just as killing human children is always wrong.How is killing children by starvation and exposure any different, morally, from killing them with a knife?&nbsp; In either case, you're killing them.&nbsp; The only difference, AFAIAC, is that the adventurer who chooses to kill by exposure is squeemish and a coward, while the adventurer killing with a knife is at least honest about what he's doing.&nbsp; And more merciful besides.&nbsp; Dying from exposure can take days.Logical consequences to actions makes for a good campaign, yes.&nbsp; Trumped-up, unbelievable consequences to certain actions the DM doesn't like, with no warning or explanation, never makes for a good campaign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Pendragon, post: 2551589, member: 707"] Fair enough. As I said, there are many things a paladin player needs to get rulings on before a campaign starts. The morality of killing goblins and goblin children is one of them.But if this is true, there should be Neutral or Good goblin settlements out there. Every goblin tribe cannot be Evil, unless it's inherent to their nature. So in your campaign, I'd expect the paladin to be able to find a neutral goblin tribe with which he could leave the goblin orphans. If there is no such tribe, if invariably a group of goblins getting together will turn to evil, then there's nothing "usually" about it."Without a good reason" makes it morally relative, I'm afraid.Absolutely right. But it's an outlook that you yourself, even if unconsciously, are practicing. "Depends on the circumstances" is moral relativism. Otherwise killing goblin children would either always be right, or always be wrong, just as killing [i]human[/i] children is always wrong.How is killing children by starvation and exposure any different, morally, from killing them with a knife? In either case, you're killing them. The only difference, AFAIAC, is that the adventurer who chooses to kill by exposure is squeemish and a coward, while the adventurer killing with a knife is at least honest about what he's doing. And more merciful besides. Dying from exposure can take days.Logical consequences to actions makes for a good campaign, yes. Trumped-up, unbelievable consequences to certain actions the DM doesn't like, with no warning or explanation, never makes for a good campaign. [/QUOTE]

Verification