Questionable morals - PC's killing children

[ConcreteBuddha]

The fact that they are usually evil does not say anything about the source of that tendency. It could be as inborn a trait as body hair, or a purely a matter of cultural teaching, or some mixture. While it is not unreasonable for the DM to posit that the predisposition is "genetic" (not that genes necessarily exist in the fantasy world, but the term gets the idea across), the cultural explanation works just as well. There is no real reason to assume on over the other.

Very good point. There really isn't a solid rule in DnD to stand on in the Nature/Nuture thingy. (As far as I know and I could be wrong.)

I tend to go for the mixture route.

 

[reapersaurus]

What does this impact upon? Well, the occasional non-evil humanoid not withstanding, the majority of all of the young Hobgoblin "children" spared everywhere, by adventurers that encounter them all across the continents of whatever world, (supposing yours, mine, or someone else's,)--will still grow up, if they survive without the parents that the adventurers just killed, (and now the young Hobgoblins will nurse a burning hatred of all humans, elves, and so on who killed their parents and family)--evil, wicked, and depraved. They will grow and prosper, and make war on the humans elves, and so on, like their ancestors before them. Thus, the action of sparing them, will give fruit to further slaughter of creatures that we *know* are good and righteous. I'm still not sure where the payoff is for permitting such a violent, hateful race as evil humanoids to continue to thrive and prosper.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this self-serving circular reasoning go unchallenged.

You agree that while the majority of humanoids are evil, there is a minority that are not.

Yet you persist in assuming... nay, CONDEMNING... the ones that are freed to be mired in evil.
You even fill in the reasoning for them - that they will harbor a burning hatred to all 'good' races.

Why necessarily would humanoids who didn't act evil - that's why they were spared in the first place - be assured in turning evil?
If the adventurers do something more than just let them fend for themselves, maybe they could do something to change that outcome.
Something akin to, but not limited to "We've spared your lives because you look to not be aggressive and of criminal intent the way the other humanoids were -
Go and continue to do so, and your lives will not meet a grim end, as the evidence before your very eyes I'm sure has taught you well..."

Now to take this approach, unfortunately for your parties, SHARK would require that the PC's be on the moral high ground.

They can't go traipsing into the humanoids den and just slaughter them because they're 'evil'.
Presumably, the humanoids would have been the aggressors, and the cause of their own demise.

If not, than the PC's really should just stop pretending and realize that they ARE the evil ones in that situation, who have brought death not only to the humanoids, but to their initially-innocent offspring, as well.

 

[David Argall]

evil elf

The elf is to be ruled CE, subject to additional details not mentioned in the reports.

PH p. 88 shows that killing is an evil act. It can be justified in a variety of cases, but it must be justified. In neither case mentioned was it necessary to kill. So the act of killing was evil.

The kids were no immediate threat, and the assumption they would be a threat several years in the future is both speculative and quite possibly wrong.

The druid may have been irritating and not carrying his load, but there simply was no need to kill him. In fact, any party member who claims a good or lawful alignment should have defended the druid from the attack and should feel guilty about not doing so.

On the subject of the kobold prisoners, the killers need a good lawyer, but might avoid moral condemnation. The kobolds may claim they did not know of the trap, but that is what they would say if they did know. Accordingly, discounting their claims is possible. It is likely pushing it, but it is not baseless.

 

[Eternalknight]

EK: I agree here. You already seem to have a large group of people who are willing to read (more than most can say). Plus, I'd love to read it myself. That should be enough for anybody.

Thanks Lela I have never actually read one of the story hours; I will do so very shortly. I'm guessing they take a long time to write though? If so I may have to disappoint you, as unfortuneatly full-time work and girlfriend, and sick parents make it hard for me to find too much time I'll see what I can do though!

 

[Numion]

If not, than the PC's really should just stop pretending and realize that they ARE the evil ones in that situation, who have brought death not only to the humanoids, but to their initially-innocent offspring, as well.

But the basic premise on which SHARK's players operate was that they (the hobgob children) are probably evil, and thus not innocent. In modern view the 'probably' here is the key factor. "Let no man be punished until proven guilty" or somesuch. Not so in the medieval times. It was more like guilty until proven innocent.

I think that it is morally justifiable to kill the children because there is a small probability they're good and cause no harm, and a strong probability that they're evil, and thus would kill GOOD people when they grow up.

Serving good can also be serving the greater good, which sometimes is contrary to the good of any one individual. In 2000s it's all about the individual. In medieval times it was more about the bigger picture.

Heresy was the big crime, not individuals rights.

Funnily reading sharks posts makes me think about the WH40K world. There were some B&W morals! Imperial Inquisition were tough mofos. It was great idea there, the God Emperor, and that heresy was the greatest crime one could conceive, for which "Suitable punishement has not yet been found, but is diligently searched for and shall be found!"

 

[Malin Genie]

Back to OD&D!

The more I read these sort of threads, the more I feel that the concept of Good and Evil as alignment concepts that govern individuals is flawed; but as a concept governing groups it is much worse.

It seems to me that OD&D actually had it right. Law and Chaos are useful generalisations for the ways in which societies may tend toward constraint and order vs freedom and variety; but the range of motivations, moral codes, individuals and interactions makes "Good" or "Evil" far less useful.

Nearly always two groups in conflict will each see themselves as Good, the other as Evil. There is almost always a moral compass that can be used to justify or condemn; for example the Israelis would probably see the current conflict in the Middle East as Lawful Good against Chaotic Evil; the Palestinians as Chaotic Good against Lawful Evil. Each group can show the 'heroism' of their own viewpoint and the dastardry' of the other.

Unless "Good" is shorthand for "in accordance with a fixed code X" and "Evil" is shorthand for "not in accordance with a fixed code X" (which is certainly the way many religious believers interpret the terms in which case the DM should be very careful to precisely delineate Code X (and make it demi/humanocentric for the 'standard' game.)

But then - do you leave room for 'evolution' of concepts of Good and Evil? Can there be challenges to the notion of what is Good? (Or is any challenge automatically Evil, as it is in opposition to the existing Code?) What if one DM uses a roughly modern secular humanist definition of good and another a mediaeval Christian version - characters that are Good in one campaign might be Neutral or Evil in the other, without the character or personality or behaviour changing a bit!

 

[rounser]

The WH40K world. There were some B&W morals! Imperial Inquisition were tough mofos. It was great idea there, the God Emperor, and that heresy was the greatest crime one could conceive, for which "Suitable punishement has not yet been found, but is diligently searched for and shall be found!"

The 40K Imperium is an excellent example of a functioning fantasy society which is perhaps at best LN, at worst LE. It conquers free worlds whether they want to join the Imperium or not, and places very little value on individual human life when pursuing it's enemies. In some ways their environment makes them this way; without such diligence they would be overrun by chaos and alien races.

To relate this back to the thread, you could say that the Imperium is in a continual moral dilemma imposed by a hostile environment that it's worked out a pattern to deal with - one that isn't necessarily just, but is effective. By ordering Exterminatus and killing everyone on a world in order to wipe out a chaos infestation, they're effectively "killing the hobgoblin children", and they dare not risk alternatives. This merely makes them efficient survivors, but morally void because they leave such thinking to the Emperor, and condemn it in others as heresy.

No wonder they end up fighting neutrals like eldar and squats only somewhat less frequently than the true threats to the Imperium.

 

[kkoie]

to Eternalknight and Zyzzy. In both situations I would make the characters evil. But thats just me...

In the situation with the whole party killing off the kobolds, I wouldn't make them evil outright, I'd pull the players aside and have them all take the Alignment Quiz. And tell the players afterward (not before or they might not take the quiz honestly) that they've determined their characters alignment.

As for the alignment quiz, you can get it at: http://hometown.aol.com/MarkJYoung/align.html

K Koie

 

[Gez]

One of my players lately has thrown me into a quandry. He is playing a chaotic neutral elven fighter and we are trekking through (a converted) Keep on the Borderlands. They came across a group of Hobgoblins (including children) and began to cut a swathe through the adults. Then said elf decided that he would murder the kids (who were whimpering and cowering in a corner) because "one day they will grow up to cause trouble". What do I do? Is it evil? I am considering sending a long a celestial to keep watch on this character (my campaign involves the planes a bit). What would you do?

Since he's an elf; it's not an evil act. Elves are allowed to perform crimes without being guilty of anything. It's an old law of D&D. If a hobgoblin kill elven or human children, it's evil. If a human kill elven or hobgoblin children, it's evil. If an elf kill hobgoblin or human children, it's not evil and it's justified; because elves have long memories and remembers that hobgoblins are all evil and humans are all traitorous.

That's why I don't like elves. They are racist bigots and they are allowed to get away with it.

 

[Harlock]

SHARK et al,

Do good characters think good thoughts in your campaigns? Sure, I can see how it is good to destroy evil (duh) but you seem to assume evil is absolute. Is everything that is evil irrevocably evil? See, my way of thinking assumes good sees hope in the most hopeless of situations. Hardly anything is beyond redemption. Good doesn't damn an entire race because they are usually evil. Good tries to convert and make people (or humanoids etc.) see the error in their ways. Good tries to show evil its shortcomings. Good doesn't kill unless it has to in defense of its own life. To quote the PHB "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life."

Evil? Evil doesn't take time to try and convert unless it has time, is convienient or the potential convert isn't easily despensible. Evil doesn't trifle with what may or may not come to be. Evil doesn't see much hope in anything but itself (since one can only truly rely on one's self.) To quote the PHB "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing and killing others."

Neutrality? Neutral may mean you don't fit easily into either category. Sometimes you see hope, sometimes Neutral just doesn't care. To quote the PHB "People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions agaisnt killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

I just don't see how murdering cowering, wimpering hobgoblin children is not evil. You cannot know from EternalKnights original post if these hobgoblins were truly innocent, but evil would be the one that judged and executed summarily based on an assumption. Good would take the time to find out or at least let the hobgoblins prove otherwise. Neutral, well, I don't think murder is a neutral issue unless you cannot or do not know right from wrong. Neutral should not be an excuse to kill what you do not know is not innocent. Again, one act does not an alignment make. I'm not saying the chaotic neutral elf that has spawned this thread with his action is evil, but I am saying murder is.