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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silverglass" data-source="post: 1208977" data-attributes="member: 14071">Your error here is in thinking that we don't hold children to the same moral standards as adults, we do. Stealing, lying, killing, racism etc etc are held as being just as morally wrong for children as they are for adults.(edit) Managed to cut out my section on legal responsibility - which is primarily where we differentiate between children and adults. Legal responsibility is what defines what criminal charges can be brought and what punishments are fitting for a crime committed by children as against the same act committed by an adult (end edit)The latitude that is given is not on the grounds of moral responsibility it is on the grounds that children lack the full knowledge and experience to understand all the complexities of societal interaction and the possible consequences of morally incorrect actions. Therefore society tries to educate rather than directly punish, the action remains morally wrong but the punishment given is mitigated by the youth of the offender (i.e. society shows mercy in the hope of instilling responsibility). However if the offences are repeated the severity of the punishment increases within the norms of the society and this principle is applies to children just as it is to adults even if the form of punishment is denial of playstation time (3 days and running) rather than a prison sentence.If a child was a serial killer (ignoring the fact that in our world this would be physically unlikely) would you object to a sentence of life without parole. And child killers have been sent to prison in many societies as they are adjudged to be morally responsible for their actions, especially when it involves premeditation, but again the emphasis is placed more on re-education than punishment.And you are also incorrect by stating that they are children. Mental and therefore moral maturity is far more a product of life experience rather than of the relatively minor physiological changes that happen to the brain as the body matures. These beings had lived for many years and committed many evil acts, this seperates them from true children who might commit a single evil act.As to the killing or subduing question if you start with the presumption that the Paladin did not have the metagame knowledge of exactly how their domination power worked and its DC's (although he DID know that it was a single domination effect rather than 24 separate effects) then the decision to kill rather than subdue made the best tactical sense.Lessening the number of opponents would obviously reduce the risk of successful domination of the entire party and if one is expecting multiple attacks then the faster you eliminate the enemy the fewer attacks you have to resist, striking to subdue reduces the speed at which the enemies numbers are reduced, as common sense would tell the paladin (mathematically 3 PCs with a average melee attack of +5 vs AC 11 would take 11 rounds dealing lethal damage and 15 rounds dealing nonlethal damage, and that is assuming all saves are made).Most low level characters would realise that 3 against 24 is a very risky proposition and that there would be a reasonable chance that this fight would not be won so striking to kill is the far better tactic as it leaves fewer enemies for the next group to deal with. Subduing them would in all probability mean that the party loses, the children recover and then next group face 24 demonic children plus the party, killing them means maybe a dozen demonic children plus the party to be dealt with.Now if there had been 3 or 4 children then subdual would be the best tactic, but against 24 lethal attacks are the only justifiable course.</blockquote>

Verification