Questionable morals - PC's killing children

I think how alignment impacts morality in a given world can be boiled down to a simple litmus test:

If a paladin detects a random NPC as evil, is it moral for him to attack and kill the evil NPC on the spot because of his alignment alone?

In some worlds (and with some DMs) I'm sure the answer is yes, and in others no.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

recent history

"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. "

I suspect a rather weak memory here. After just about every bombing run, there were cries of children or other innocents being killed, with the Pentagon 1st denying it happened and then insisting it did all it could to avoid it, but accidents will happen.
In other words all involved acknowledged it was evil to kill these innocent bystanders. The moral defense was that there just was no way to avoid it entirely. But even then, we acknowledged the necessity to attempt to avoid it. [Just how hard we actually tried is not important here.]

To apply this to our hobgoblin situation. If the party mage fireballed the room and killed the kids, he would be bothered. If he knew the kids were there, he would be required to attempt to avoid hurting them. [How hard would depend on any number of factors. He could end up killing them anyway or fleeing to avoid hurting them.]
But once the party has entered the room and the kids can be spared without risk, the party is under obligation to not just spare the kids, but to protect them.

The definition of "Usually" this alignment is up to DM decision, but the obvious figures are 60 or 80% [These give us easy figures for each alignment. 60 LE, 10 NE, LN, NN, & 2 for the other 5, or 80 LE, 5 NE, LN, NN, & 1 each for the others.] Figures like 99% should be under "always".
Note here there is no suggestion in our example that hobgoblins are unusually evil. They thus should be deemed to more or less follow the middlin definition of "usually", which means also a figure well below 90%.

The PC does not and should not know MM by heart, but it is what he confronts as reality. The PC "knows" hobgoblins are usually LE, and should act accordingly. The individual case may not know this, or refuse to believe it, but that is the evidence and the player needs to explain why the PC thinks differently.
 

rounser said:
I think how alignment impacts morality in a given world can be boiled down to a simple litmus test:

If a paladin detects a random NPC as evil, is it moral for him to attack and kill the evil NPC on the spot because of his alignment alone?

In some worlds (and with some DMs) I'm sure the answer is yes, and in others no.

Hmmm, my answer would be, "It depends on the situation." Which, in a way, would make your point. But from another angle, it wouldn’t. Say you walk into a town. Your Pal (who detects evil on EVERYTHING) picks out some lady walking down the street carrying her basket of goods. She's evil. Why? He doesn't know so neither do you. But she is evil. There seems to be no one else in the village. Can he rush in and Smite her right there?
What about if she's in front of the whole town?

Now change the situation. Same lady is walking down the road between towns, carrying a bag on her back. You don't know what's in the bag, just that it's there. He detects, she's evil. Again, we don't know why she's evil. But she is. Can he cut her down then?

Another situation change. You're in the underdark. A woman who looks as if she should be in a village stumbles down the tunnel towards you. Her clothes are ragid; she looks as if she's half starved. Before she says a word, he detects, and she's evil. No reason why she's evil. She just is. Smite her?

Slight change this time. Underdark. She walks down the hall dressed in a gown of silk. She appears regal; the dignity of a queen. He detects, she's evil. We don't know why. Kill her right off?


Another question.

Do you let someone hang when you know he's innocent of the crime but is also evil?

What about when it's a human child; a small boy?

Don't think it's so far feched. It was done in midevil Europe. And that's what we seem to want to base DnD on.

What about if I describe him? Sandy brown hair (in a bowl cut, layered), clean round face, bright blue eyes, and comes only to your chest.

What if I get more personal? His name is Stu. He's 9 years old, just beginning to get reading down, and always has a hopeful expression on his face. He laughs often and enjoys telling jokes, always seeking to bring a smile to another's face.

Regardless, he's evil. The spell said so. Do you smite him right there? Do you let him hang? Do you watch as he drops? Do you join in with the cries of the crowd watching with you; those calling for bloodshed? After all, Stu is evil. After all, the spell said so. It's a moral victory.
 
Last edited:






Remove ads

Top