Questionable morals - PC's killing children

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Excellent post, Hejdun! You are interpreting the circumstances of the D&D world through the lenses reasonably set up by parameters within the game, as opposed to attempting to make the struggles and situations of the D&D world fit neatly into modern, 21st century, Democratic paradigm of due process, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and freedom. There is quite a distinct difference!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Moon_Goddess]

First of all SHARK, check your MM, Hobgoblins are Usually Lawful Evil, Usually is defined as more than 50%, so if he killed 4 Hobgoblin childern, one of them wasn't Lawful Evil. The issue isn't as clear cut as it seems to your blinders.



Anyways, avoiding a debate, I think it's wrong, but it's an opinion of course and not one I can convince others off. I think the best way to handle it is using the Dragonstar method of Active Morality, your not evil, until you commit an evil act.

 

[Harlock]

...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?

After going back and reading the original post again I see that Eternalknihgt actually answered his own question. He said the PC murdered the kids. Of course law is relative to the campaign and stating that it was murder implies that some sort of moral code is in effect. You ask if it is evil. That's really up to you as the DM. Whether or not the children would have grown up to "cause trouble" does not change the fact that they were whimpering and cowering in a corner. It sounds a little like they were too terrified to surrender. Of course putting entire populaces to the sword regardless of surrender has gone on throughout history with people using the same defense: "one day they will grow up to cause trouble." Again it's relative to your campaign.
Nowaday putting non-combatants to death is usually frowned upon. That is in our culture. You can look to Hitler exterminating the Jews as a modern example. Hitler justified it as defense of a moral code and an act of war (which I think is what your PC was getting at.) Of course, how you view Hitler is relative. Hmm, I guess everything is relative. So, is it evil? Is murder evil in your campaign? There you go.

 

[Ulrick]

Okay, I don't know how many times this debate has come up in my 13 years of gaming...

But here's a simple solution:

Every DM should make it so that each hobgoblin (or other monster children) be as wicked as their parents. Thus it justifies in killing them. I just get a little tired of this "moral dilemma" that keeps turning up in something that supposed to be a game.

Face it, your typical hobgoblin will do anything to kill, rape, and destroy the PC races...including their children. Its simply a matter of annihilation.

If you argue against this, I have two questions for you:

Did you cheer at the end of Independence Day when humanity defeated the aliens? What if those aliens had children?


Ulrick

 

[Harlock]

If you argue against this, I have two questions for you:

Did you cheer at the end of Independence Day when humanity defeated the aliens? What if those aliens had children?

Actually, I did cheer at the end of Independence Day but not because they killed the aliens. I cheered because the movie ended (I thought it sucked).

 

[Ulrick]

Actually, I did cheer at the end of Independence Day but not because they killed the aliens. I cheered because the movie ended (I thought it sucked).

ROFLOL!!!

Well, that debunks my whole argument right there...lol

Ulrick

 

[Eternalknight]

Some people here seem to be really oversensitive! It is right for a neutral character to slay all members of the race that is perceived as evil!

Okay, let's complicate matters even further. Humans, elves, etc see hobgoblins, orcs etc as evil because they rape, plunder, kill. Essentially, that means adventurers are evil, as they venture into monsters (in this case hobgoblins) lairs and kill them, then take their treasure.

If it is right for the Elf to kill the Hobgoblin children, then isn't it right for the Hobgoblins and other evil races to kill humans or elves or whatever?

You know, after writing that and reading Harlock's post about me using the word murder (which I did subconsciously) I think I have my answer. No what to do about the character? Talk to him obviously, but change his alignment to evil? (If this is the case I *really* hope the dead druid's player doesn't roll up a paladin... or otherwise choose to be lawful good....)

 

[Umbran]

Excellent post, Hejdun! You are interpreting the circumstances of the D&D world through the lenses reasonably set up by parameters within the game...

Yes, and he's likely also shooting himself in the foot, morally speaking.

Let us accept for a moment that "evil is evil". Then, by extension, "good is good". If there's no ambiguity for one, there's none for the other. Popular (or individual) opinion matters little. Then, the slayer of hobgoblin children has a problem - slaying the innocent for crimes they have not yet committed is Evil, no matter who does it.

If those children have not yet committed any crimes of which the characters are aware, they are innocent. What might happen in the future is not an issue. Right now, they are innocent, and killing them is wrong. The fact that leaving them alive is inconvenient is no excuse at all. Good doesn't get to be pragmatic when Evil does not. Good doesn't get to sleaze it's way out of difficulties by rationalizing. If it was evil when the hobgoblins kill innocent children, it's evil when an elf kills an innocent children. Period, end of discussion.

Good is difficult. It forces one to apply mercy, even when common sense tells you it is a bad idea, tactically or strategically. Good does not care about what makes your life difficult. Good often has to deal with leaving itself open to being bitten on the butt. Such is life. Good is supposed to be harder than evil, not easier.

That is the problem with having things black and white. If there's no grey area, you cannot use it to your own advantage.

 

[Ealli]

In my campaign, there are evil races that may be exterminated down to the last member simply for existing. The players know this and I made certain to have a chat with the paladin about the killing of defenseless creatures. The agreement we reached was that destroying certain races (like orcs and gnolls) was perfectly acceptable, there would be no one to raise whelps of these races and he was not expected to either.

This does not mean that he has free reign to kill any creature that comes from an evil race. I will be watching his actions, but more closely watching his reasoning. If the justification is "this is a necessary duty to ensure the survival of the civilized races, then so be it." he'll be fine. If he starts taking pleasure in the killings, then he'll need to find a cleric to cast Attone for him.

Back to your situation, chaotic neutral is probably appropriate for the elf. It doesn't sound like he killed just to kill, but he certainly is a loose cannon.

 

[Eternalknight]

Hmmm....

"A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individual first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions". Players Handbook

Ok, so from that we can deduce that, as Ealli stated, he is a loose cannon. He really doesn't care what others think, so he wouldn't care what anyone thought about him killing the hobgoblin children. 'If others thought it was evil, well who cares? I did what I wanted too.'

'He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom'. So, killing the children because they may one day grow up to do evil acts isn't a good enough reason for this character, as he really wouldn't care (this is confirmed later in that paragraph too: "...does not intentionally disrupt organiziations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer))".

So if the elf killed them 'because I wanted too' then his alignment seems to be justified. If he did it out of a desire to kill because they are different, then he should be Chaotic Evil. If it was, as many people have stated, because they will one day grow up to be evil, then he should be Chaotic Good.

Now, to quote myself, "If he did it out of a desire to kill because they are different, then he should be Chaotic Evil." The druid could be deemed as being different, as he wouldn't help fight in some situations.

Reading everyones arguments (including my own) has really only given me one idea: this is a very grey area. I think I have found a solution though. If none of the players are against it (and believe me, the majority are I think, although they let the elf his way most of the time), then a nasty hobgoblin ambush might be on the way the next time the PC's venture to the caves. To me, thinking as the Hobgoblins, the murder of their children would be considered an evil act by them, just as the murder of human children by hobgoblins would be considered an evil act by humans. Time to make the elf think about his actions I think. Make him see that the actions he takes have consequences.