Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 2553566" data-attributes="member: 707">In an earlier post, I'd assumed that the overwhelming majority of DMs ruled that killing human children was morally [Evil] in their campaigns.  But for this question, I won't make any assumptions, and merely reply with how I rule it in my campaigns.When I use the word "children" I am referring to children young enough to be unable to take care of themselves.  i.e. children who would die of exposure if left to their own devices, as opposed to those old enough to take care of themselves, or seek out aid.  Let's say <10 years of age.At such an age, I don't think a human can gain the Evil alignment.  They simply haven't lived long enough, and been through enough life experiences.  But let's say, for the sake of discussion, that we're talking about human children who had, through extraordinary circumstances, been given enough moral choices to clearly earn an Evil alignment.  It's still Evil to kill them.  Why?  Because they have a great potential for change.  That is, in the end, what makes the difference.  Humans are (at least in every instance I've ever participated in or heard of,) always capable of change.  Goblins, like Demons and Devils, are not always treated so.  The killing of goblin children has a different moral imperative depending on campaign assumptions about the nature of goblins.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.The short answer:  IMC, yes, killing evil children is still always evil.</blockquote>

Verification