Questionable morals - PC's killing children

[rounser]

Corellon Larethian has no problem with the wholesale slaughter of Dark Elves, Garl Glittergold is all for using powerful evocation magic on Kobold communities

I can envision Corellon, Garl and their elf and gnome warriors not hesitating to carpet bomb a village with fireballs even if it would mean the destruction of children of the evil races. That's incidental casualties, and can be justified away as "too bad" because their parents need to be dealt with.

If it came to the scenario whereby cowering children were left among the rubble, I can envision Corellon, Garl or their followers having mercy on the children. I doubt that Corellon or Garl are interested in outright genocide of the evil races, more about pre-emptive strikes to break their power, and reduce the threat they present. Even the hatred that the dwarves and their gods feel for the goblin races may not extend to their outright destruction, even in the face of a thousand generations of blood oaths. I can easily envision hardened dwarven veterans of good alignment granting mercy, one way or another, to goblin children - they know that to do otherwise would make them little better than duergar or derro.

 

[Larry Fitz]

Under such circumstances, I can envision good aligned characters who would justifiably have killed the children, or let them go - and as a DM I would err on the side of the former resolution being the more questionable. However, I think that few good alignment characters who truly deserve the title would escape with a clear conscience, no matter what side of the decision they fell on.

Well said, that was certainly within what I was trying to say. But also my point about the Elf fighter in particular not having the MM is still valid, not the player mind you, but the character. He should frankly be shocked to find out that not all hobgoblins are evil, in fact he should be downright incredulous. And what would a NG Hobgoblin be doing in a lair ruled by LE Hobgoblins? Trying to change their minds? Undermining their society? Preaching that they should all abandon their own evil Gods and instead worship some nice human or Elvish God? A Hobgoblin who is somewhat non-committal on the whole Good/Evil thing I can see still being there, but a Good one? Of course the argument is that a good Hobgoblin who is a child could not have left yet. The answer there would have been for the child, bolstered by the strength of it's convictions (which would have to be extremely strong to be the lone voice of Goodness in this den of iniquity) stands before the adventurers, not cowering, not wimpering, but calmly and rationally says before the Elf swings, "if you kill us just because you can, then you are as bad as you think we are..." THAT would give the players pause to rethink the situation, and if it didn't stop the Elf, then his superior morality argument no longer holds up. It also would have been better RP than just having them cower and wimper, or maybe an enigmatic "So this is how it ends, I guess the old Elf was wrong..." anything that would have opened a dialogue and shown the Hobgoblin young as something other than smaller versions of the same enemy. It did not however seem like the DM was trying to present these as anything other than just younger scared hobgoblins, there was no future MLK or St Francis among them, just some monsters wimpering and cowering because they would never get to be the top of the Hobgoblin social pyramid lording their power over the weaker and less aggressive throngs.

 

[bushfire]

They're "Usually Lawful Evil" which means over 50% of the race will be evil.

Everybody keeps bringing this up as a reason to think that the hobgoblins may not be so Evil after all.

The way the MM states what "Usually" is:

"The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences,or it may be a legacy of the creatures' origin. For example most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon"

This does not mean that 49% are not Evil. It could mean that 99% are Evil, with the occassional throwback or oddity, depending on cluture or origin. As stated in a post above, the opposite of Usual is Unusual.

It also depends on the individual DM's campaign, if the DM's campaign includes creatures that are normally viewed as Evil , but are routinely not truely evil (51%/49%) then it is up to the DM to convey this information to the Player.

Furthermore Hobgoblins are described as waging a "perpetual war with other humanoids, particularly elves", if the Hobgoblins in your world are different it is up to the DM to define them.

So you have "usually" LE creatures, raised in a society that trains them to be evil from birth, worshipping an Evil god "Maglubiyet"

If you are playing a "standard" D&D campaign then the Hobgoblins kits should have been wasted, the only question is why didn't the rest of the party help him do it.

If you are playing with some varient of he "standard" Hobgoblin, then it is up to the DM to make that known.

 

[rounser]

But also my point about the Elf fighter in particular not having the MM is still valid, not the player mind you, but the character. He should frankly be shocked to find out that not all hobgoblins are evil, in fact he should be downright incredulous.

Hmm, good point. I think as of 3E, an AD&D - ahem, D&D - character's "common knowledge" should be updated to include the concept of humanoids merely being mostly evil, rather than every individual definitely being bad to the bone. If this isn't the case in a given world, you have a good point - however, I think the Sunless Citadel suggests that there is a new standard to consider.

The elves have probably noticed that some hobgoblins are good by now, they've been around for a while - unless you decide not to retrofit 3E's monster alignment system upon the past.

And what would a NG Hobgoblin be doing in a lair ruled by LE Hobgoblins? Trying to change their minds? Undermining their society? Preaching that they should all abandon their own evil Gods and instead worship some nice human or Elvish God?

Probably doing the same thing a good human does in a society of evil humans - get by, try not to compromise his morals, and if a hero, indeed try and overthrow the system if he or she has sufficient support. Heroes among the humanoids strike me as even rarer than good alignment humanoids, though - otherwise you'd get humanoid adventuring parties in a much higher incidence than they tend to occur in the typical campaign.

For some reason, I think that a lawful good hobgoblin (more likely than a chaotic good or chaotic neutral hobgoblin, because they default to lawful evil) would be ostracised, killed, or maybe even exiled long before the PCs arrived at the lair. Those that are still there would have learned to live with their evil kin, and done what they could within the parameters that the society allowed.

 

[rounser]

This does not mean that 49% are not Evil. It could mean that 99% are Evil, with the occassional throwback or oddity, depending on cluture or origin. As stated in a post above, the opposite of Usual is Unusual.

I know, and I think my point still stands. Even if you crank it up to 99% lawful evil, there's still the possibility that one of those children isn't going to be evil. Even then, some good characters won't kill innocents regardless of alignment (which children of sentient creatures can be considered, unless they're some sort of abomination like a demon perhaps) effectively making the percentage a non-issue. Not every lawful evil hobgoblin will necessarily end up a bane to society, either - they might just end up fighting other tribes of evil humanoids, for instance.

A humble good alignment character may recognise that he or she isn't a prophet, and that perhaps only the gods have the right to decide the fate of the creatures. Other good alignment characters will recognise the threat, deem the risk too great, and murder the children - perhaps soothing their conscience by the idea that they were "monsters", not children. Either way I think the character gets a guilty conscience - but the situation has no right answer, IMO.

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: My take

If killing the old lady can change your alignment then everybody can have their alingnment changed. To claim a race is evil would then be a prejudice. Your view is based on your believes (They are an evil race) and not on the truth (Some of them are good)-> Your view is relative.

TO HAVE AN ABSOLUT MORAL YOU NEED TO BE OMNIPOTENT OTHERWISE YOU ARE FUMBLING IN BLIND AND IN SOME CASES DOING WHAT THE GODS ARE TELLING YOU IS RIGHT AND THE SAME COUNTS FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.

It's not only because the alignmentsystem is making the game two-dimensional I don't like it. It's also because it's f.... full of contradictions.

Note: If your DM is helping you being omnipotent by always telling you what action is the good one. Then you can asume the same is the case for your opponents and morale would then be absolut because nobody are unaware or guessing about each others motives.

 

[Eternalknight]

A quick note. I haven't said much because I had made my decision. But I'm going to argue this both ways, so bare with me.

The players had trekked to the Caves in search of gold, glory and fame, as I have stated before. The creatures of the Caves, which include not only Hobgoblins, but Orcs, Kobolds and other humanoid races, had never made any attempt to bother any one outside of their society. Therefore who is to say they are evil?

Now, for my argument for it being a non-evil act. When the Americans went to war against the Al-Qeada, and bombed Afghanistan, I'm sure some innocent kids got hurt, possibly even killed. Do we view this as evil? No, we don't. Innocent casualties of war. If we view the Hobgoblins as the Al-Qaeda, and us as the Elf fighter, then the Elf fighter did not commit an evil act.

Please do not assume that the above statement means that I am against what the Americans are doing. I am with the United States and their allies 100%. It was just an observation.

 

[Larry Fitz]

In the context of his own campaign the DM is Omnipotent. Good and Evil are not relative terms in D&D because their are litmus tests that require the DM to make subjective definitive rulings and there are iconic pan-dimensional beings (Gods) who personify the ideals of the various alignments and have specific races worshipping them and keep those races in their sphere of responsibility. Vaprak is evil, his charges, the Trolls are evil. Lolth is evil, her charges, the Dark Elves, are evil. Brashtamere is good, his charges, the Khesta, are good. Correlon is Good, his charges, the 'light' Elves , are good. Are their exceptions to this? Some. Do they change the validity of the belief that Trolls are evil or that Hobgoblins are evil or that Dwarves are good? Nope. Will any of this get me a tuna salad sandwhich on white toast and a cup of hot cocoa? Unfortunately not.

 

[Trashman]

Define good and evil or evil and good it depends on what the campain requires PC to do.
But all in all it is up to the DM to decide what happens with the campain and the effects the PC's put into play is it not ???????

 

[Bonedagger]

In the context of his own campaign the DM is Omnipotent. Good and Evil are not relative terms in D&D because their are litmus tests that require the DM to make subjective definitive rulings and there are iconic pan-dimensional beings (Gods) who personify the ideals of the various alignments and have specific races worshipping them and keep those races in their sphere of responsibility. Vaprak is evil, his charges, the Trolls are evil. Lolth is evil, her charges, the Dark Elves, are evil. Brashtamere is good, his charges, the Khesta, are good. Correlon is Good, his charges, the 'light' Elves , are good. Are their exceptions to this? Some. Do they change the validity of the belief that Trolls are evil or that Hobgoblins are evil or that Dwarves are good? Nope. Will any of this get me a tuna salad sandwhich on white toast and a cup of hot cocoa? Unfortunately not.

I wasn't talking about the DM needing to be omnipotent but the players. Sure. The gods may be infinitive good and evil but unless they are constantly looking the PC's over the shoulder the PC's will not know the big picture (Doesn't matter if their DM is judging them unless he's telling what that judgment is). They can only relate to what they know= They are relative good and can not claim to be absolut good (Well. They can claim it but...). No matter if such a therm exisist.

Can I accept that all dwarfs are good and all goblins evil? Sure. Will the above conflict bother me? No. As long as it will not be a problem I'm fine. The problem comes when the game is being taken out of the dungencrawl state. There the system will be broken. Do I mind dungeoncrawl? No Do I want more? Yes.

I'm not saying the alignmentsystem is bad in itself. I'm just saying it's not suited for a good ethical conflict. If you just like to kill stuff I would recommend it but if a good plot also has a high priority I would advise you to maybe try something else. If you are saying that the alignmentsystem is a part of D&D that belongs there. I will disagree.