Questionable morals - PC's killing children

[Bonedagger]

If an Orc has captured a paladin and knows that the paladin would kill him where he ever relesed would it then be an evil act if the evil orc killed the good paladin or just a question of ridding the world of a mad fanatic slayer of his race?.... LOL

 

[Harlock]

I certainly have loved this thread and I hope the EternalKnihgt keeps us posted of the player reactions to freeing the evil humans. I'm not as close-minded as some of my posts suggest. I truly do see almost everyone's point in this. The twist that killing the hobgoblin children is actually good really made me think.

Obviously there is no right or wrong answer in this debate. It's all relative to your campaign. I don't remember who thought SHARK should be a politician but I would like to provide my own cynical view on politics and where SHARK would fall in that. This is completely off topic so skip it if you wish.

SHARK has been honest and he took a side on an issue that inspires great emotional debate. To me this spells political suicide. If a journalist asks a politician a simple close ended question on a hot button issue the politician usually first avoids directly answering the question by making a broad appeal statement. Then he takes the oppurtunity to give an example of how he supports the broad appeal issue. For example:

Journalist: Politician X, are you for or against gun control?

Politician X: I deplore violence of any kind. When I was a representative of State Y I co-wrote a bill that increased spending for after school programs designed to keep gang members off the street and channel their energies into Meals for the Elderly and Christmas in April.
End example.

So, SHARK, I do not see much political future for you if you continue to be honest and decisive but your debate and argumentative skills are not in doubt. Lawyer may be a good career for you, though. SO, I conclude, Evil? Good? depends on your campaign. Enjoy the slaughter, or may your sword never seek blood again.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Heh! LOL! How true Harlock, how true! I'm quite content to be a History and Philosophy Professor, really. Law and politics has some keen interest for me, but I doubt that would or could, ever make either a career. The reasons? Well, many, as you might surmise my friend, but certainly because honesty and decisiveness are not quite appreciated in either career, I think. I am, if nothing else, an honest and decisive person. So I think that those factors alone would forever keep me from the "hallowed" halls of political office. It's a neat thought though, huh? I'm sure we could all imagine ourselves having at least the ability of many of our politicians. Potentially, I think some could even be better, if such a real opportunity presented itself.

As for the concurrent discussion, yes, it's kind of funny though, because I tend to blend High Fantasy with Gritty Fantasy. There is though, that distinction of a grittier element though that isn't present in an entirely High Fantasy campaign. I admit, myself, or any of my players, certainly don't seek out such opportunities of slaughter, or even necessarily enjoy such when such a circumstance presents itself. However, as mentioned, when such a circumstance does present itself, like it was mentioned, these kinds of moral quandaries virtually never arise. It's funny, because just yesterday I was discussing this thread with my wife, (who plays), and she mentioned that none of the group would ever struggle with this kind of thing. She said that the circumstances would have to be pretty special, or the humanoids they were fighting must have displayed some unusual level of dignity and sincerity, for them to consider such compassion towards evil humanoids. Otherwise, they would probably be put to the sword without much hesitation at all.

It is interesting to see how such presuppositions can change entire approaches and responses to life within the campaign. I admit that though I mix my High Fantasy Campaign has heavy elements of Gritty Fantasy in it, it does produce a distinctly different environment.

However, I'm wondering though--In campaigns where it is decidedly happy, High Fantasy, if the evil Humanoids aren't really evil, wicked, and nasty, isn't that, itself, less "High Fantasy" and more "Gritty Fantasy?" I mean that in High Fantasy, there are clearer distinctions, and less morally ambiguous situations; Whereas in the Gritty Fantasy, morally sticky situations where no matter what you do, some get screwed, some win big, and no matter where you stand, there is a less than pleasant taste in your mouth. It is the Gritty Fantasy that you have creatures that are morally mixed, with lots of angst, shifting emotions and beliefs, and characters who are potentially great blends of good and evil, with clear distinctions either impossible or difficult to achieve, even under the best of circumstances. Yet, it would seem that that is somewhat the line of thinking that some would take, in wondering about the morality of the young Hobgoblins.

Interesting discussion indeed!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Bob Aberton]

It IS a pseudo-Middle Ages world, right?

Then go by Middle Ages morals. Times were tough back in the Middle Ages. Harsh times breed harsh people. By contrast we 21st century people are soft and sensitive - too much so to survive. None of us would make it in the Middle Ages.

In the Middle Ages, killing babies of an "evil" race is perfectly justifiable. Why? Because in about 10 or 20 years, they'll be pillaging, raping, and killing with the best of them. They DO feel pain and fear, by 21 century morals, it is patently evil. But they didn't have the ACLU back in the Middle Ages.

 

[reapersaurus]

Hell, if you want REALLY grim and gritty, have them kill the humanoids then feed the parts to the starving commoners.

And SHARK - there's a difference between high fantasy that doesn't go around assuming that every action a PC takes is OK and high fantasy that does.

Open question:
Since Half-orcs are now a core rules playable race for a PC, doesn't it make you question the supposition that all humanoids are comically evil all the time?

I mean, SHARK - how much of your game would come down toppling like a house of cards if you actually ran the "evil humanoids" like rational, reasoning creatures that instead of exisitng to menace all the Diety-Fearing ex-marine-influenced PC's, actually just tried to make a living?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'm sure SHARK has a good answer to this but half-orcs being a PC playable race no more negates inherent evilness of orcs in a setting than having half-fiends or teiflings as a playable race negates the inherent evilness of devils.

There are any number of cosmological reasons why all orcs could be inherently evil but half-orcs could be redeemable (for instance, orcs are the degenerate remnants of humans from a long dead empire who sold their souls and the souls of all their descendants to devils in the far past so all orcs are soulless and evil but if they rape or seduce a human outside of marraige, that isn't legally their legitimate offspring so the devils are not entitled to take its soul). There are also possible cultural reasons such as ConcreteBhudda suggested which would ensure that orcs/hobgoblins were all evil from the youngest on up but that half-orcs raised in human society wouldn't necessarily be the same.

I believe that SHARK's various posts over the years have demonstrated that he does not run a "house of cards" for where evil humanoids exist only to menace "Deity-Fearing ex-marine-influenced PC's" but rather a rich and developed world in which creatures have distinct cultures and natures which may actually be different from how we've been trained to think of human nature in the western world. He has not held up "grim and gritty" as a goal for his campaign or any other. He does favor a well defined morality for a campaign world that doesn't assume that all other races are simply humans with funny ears, noses, or teeth. After all, if all orcs have the same range of moral choices as humans and can interbreed with humans then they're just humans with a perverse, primitive culture and bad teeth. If orcs (or hobgoblins for that matter), however, are not moral free agents for one reason or another that makes them something entirely different.

Hell, if you want REALLY grim and gritty, have them kill the humanoids then feed the parts to the starving commoners.

And SHARK - there's a difference between high fantasy that doesn't go around assuming that every action a PC takes is OK and high fantasy that does.

Open question:
Since Half-orcs are now a core rules playable race for a PC, doesn't it make you question the supposition that all humanoids are comically evil all the time?

I mean, SHARK - how much of your game would come down toppling like a house of cards if you actually ran the "evil humanoids" like rational, reasoning creatures that instead of exisitng to menace all the Diety-Fearing ex-marine-influenced PC's, actually just tried to make a living?

 

[rounser]

However, I'm wondering though--In campaigns where it is decidedly happy, High Fantasy,

I think you're misrepresenting, here. "High fantasy" doesn't imply "happy" any more than "Grim'n'gritty" implies "better". It may for you, but I doubt everyone would agree.

if the evil Humanoids aren't really evil, wicked, and nasty,

Evil humanoids can be really evil, wicked and nasty, and let off the hook as children by good characters. For some good aligned characters, knowing that not killing the children will probably have repercussions down the track is part of the cross that some good characters bear. That's part of the deal of being a good character - deciding between the greater good and individual good when they're mutually exclusive, and that's a moral dilemma.

Other good characters would kill the children. That you see no dilemma in your world reflects on what is considered right in your world, not on the amorphous bunch of "high fantasy" campaigns, which probably have a lot of different answers to the dilemma of their own.

isn't that, itself, less "High Fantasy" and more "Gritty Fantasy?" I mean that in High Fantasy, there are clearer distinctions, and less morally ambiguous situations;

Not everyone equates "high fantasy" with black-and-white, fairytale morality. That you do explains some of your distaste for what you think it implies, perhaps.

Whereas in the Gritty Fantasy, morally sticky situations where no matter what you do, some get screwed, some win big, and no matter where you stand, there is a less than pleasant taste in your mouth.

It seems to me that you're pointing out "why gritty is better". Not necessarily so, for this is a taste that not everyone likes, or necessarily wants on a continuous basis, for that matter.

It is the Gritty Fantasy that you have creatures that are morally mixed, with lots of angst, shifting emotions and beliefs, and characters who are potentially great blends of good and evil, with clear distinctions either impossible or difficult to achieve, even under the best of circumstances.

It seems to me that this assertion flies in the face of your simplistic solution for the hobgoblin children.

Yet, it would seem that that is somewhat the line of thinking that some would take, in wondering about the morality of the young Hobgoblins.

Once again, I disagree with your notion that playing D&D in a "high fantasy" style necessarily implies black-and-white morality. A style of gameplay that includes a lot of magic or wonder, or an emphasis on legendary heroism doesn't necessarily colour how an in-game moral dilemma is considered. It can, but I wouldn't consider it a default requirement for meeting the descriptor "high fantasy" by a long shot.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

He does favor a well defined morality for a campaign world that doesn't assume that all other races are simply humans with funny ears, noses, or teeth. After all, if all orcs have the same range of moral choices as humans and can interbreed with humans then they're just humans with a perverse, primitive culture and bad teeth.

*ConcreteBuddha stands up and cheers.*

 

[Eternalknight]

Harlock and Lazybones: I will certainly keep you up to date. I think next weekend's session should be very interesting indeed. And thanks to everyone for their ideas. My intention was never to find out what was "right" to do in this situaution, but what other people would do. It has certainly given me something to think about.

 

[Forsaken One]

I have been reading the post over may act's there is One thing I would like to point out I DID NOT KILL THE DRUID that was Eternalknight I started it but I did not get the kill!