Questionable morals - PC's killing children

[Umbran]

Eternalknight:

Some points to consider...

Alignment is, in my experience, best used as a long term average of behavior. One or two isolated acts do not indicate an alignment change. When the character has established a pattern of behavior that is different than what's on the sheet, it is reasonable to consider that his alignment ahs changed.

The moral and ethical value of an act in game is not based solely on the character's motivations. Why he did it matters, but exactly what it was he did also plays a part. If in your world the slaying of innocents is an evil thing, then the fact that in his own mind he wasn't being particularly malicious fails to make it worse, but it doesn't make it better, either.

The fact that an act has consequenses should be considered as a separate issue from alignment. Good acts have consequences, evil acts have consequences. If you consider applying consequences only because the act is evil, you aren't being even handed.

Say killing the children is an evil act. It has consequences (the remaining hobgoblins get ticked off). Killing a particularly viscious pack of adult hobgoblins may be a good act, but it has pretty much the same consequences - the remaining hobgoblins will still get ticked off.

 

[reapersaurus]

whoa there, Umbran.
Trying to make SHARK agree with another's moral viewpoint is harder than teaching a giant how to limbo.

Great fun, this debate, as always.

SHARK - I'll summarize your posts.

You go to great lengths to conclude that the CN elf was being a leader, and an excellent roleplayer because he decided to hack instead of roleplay. Coincidentally, you agree with the PC's actions.
(My guess BTW is that the CN elf player wouldn't know how to roleplay his way out of a paper bag, but we're both just speculating.)

Then you brought up Philosophy, Theology, and even invoked Probability to justify that killing helpless cowering hobgob children is not evil - in fact, NOT killing them is evil.

Then you say it's in character for a CN PC to kill for the greater good (i.e. reducing the amount of evil in the land)
That is really what's completely off in this morality/alignment play:
the reasons why a PC would kill humanoid children are not present in the CN elf.

Then you compliment Hedjun for interpreting the situation accurately; not thru blinders.
Of course, you conveniently agree with his conclusions to begin with, so who has the blinders on is open for interpretation.

Great fun, guys!
It's been too long....

 

[Eternalknight]

Then you say it's in character for a CN PC to kill for the greater good (i.e. reducing the amount of evil in the land)
That is really what's completely off in this morality/alignment play:
the reasons why a PC would kill humanoid children are not present in the CN elf.

My thoughts exactly. If the CN elf did it for the greater good, then he should be a CG elf. Thanks for your help guys. I started off really not knowing which way to go on this, but I think I have made up my mind. I'm not saying it is the way it should be done, but I think it is going to be done in my campaign.

 

[Lela]

Be sure to let us know the full results Eternalknight!

Well, this is a deeply routed argument that would (and probubally should) be decided by each DM individually.

SHARK, have you ever run for politics? You have a nack for making me rethink my position on an issue that I thought I was firmly decided on. The thing is, I rethink it, and come back to the same conclusion I had before: It was wrong of him to kill the kids. But you do make me think, and that's good.

Congrats! Very few ever actually make me rethink my position on anything--least of all children (Elementary Teacher).


Eternalknight: Be sure to let us know what happens. I'd really like to follow this a little farther, study a little human behaivior while I'm at it.

 

[Eternalknight]

Re: Be sure to let us know the full results Eternalknight!

Eternalknight: Be sure to let us know what happens. I'd really like to follow this a little farther, study a little human behaivior while I'm at it.

Will do Lela. Come back in 24 hours; will let you know what happens.

 

[sword-dancer]

SHARK

Greetings!


(1) Killing the Young Hobgoblins

Considering the young Hobgoblins "kids" brings to mind "human kids"--which isn't necessarily equivalent. Morally, there isn't any kind of imperative that would suggest that "Hobgoblin kids" are morally equivalent with "Human kids." It could be seen as a very Good thing to do. In our own day, we don't squirm when "baby rats" or "baby snakes" are killed. We exterminate dangerous creatures to our everyday society without so much as a flicker of hesitation. So it could well be with how people consider Hobgoblins. Whether a particular group of Hobgoblins are old, middle aged, newborn, or somewhere in between is irrelevant. Considering that in the Monster Manual, it mentions that Elves and Hobgoblins are natural and traditional enemies, much akin to the Dwarves and Orcs, it would seem quite natural for the Elf to want to kill them all.

By sparing them, what would he be sparing them for? Even if the alignment in the Monster Manual says "usually evil"--so what? It isn't required that adventurers, and certainly not Chaotic Neutral characters, to enslave their own actions by the thought of what "might be" years down the road. Mathematically speaking, the odds are against the Hobgoblin children growing up to be anything different from vicious, blood-thirsty monsters! So, it makes sense for the Elf character to kill the Hobgoblins--all of the Hobgoblins.

Next, is the issue of "innocence." Innocence of what? By virtue of being Hobgoblins, they are "Guilty." If one thinks that Hobgoblins are "Innocent"--that would suggest that Hobgoblins then go on to commit "crimes" that make them guilty. Crimes according to who, though? Guilty according to who? Hobgoblins don't live their lives worried about what some Elves or Humans think, anyways. In another angle, what makes poisonous spiders or rats "guilty" or "innocent."?

To elaborate--we kill rats and poisonous creatures not because of any supposed guilt, or innocence, but because of what they are, and the threat they pose. "Guilt" or "Innocence" have nothing to do with it. The same thing can be seen to apply with Hobgoblins and other evil humanoids.

Since G N E isn`t a point of view in D&D but an absolute.
He is evil rotten to the core a .
Childmurder, Childslayer, and thats it.
What if it would be dwarfs or elven children, would that made a difference.
The MM evil of Hobgoblis is the evil of society not the inbred evil of fiends.
Was the massacre of Jerusalem 1.crusade good, righteouss? No
Was the burning of Persepolis good and honorable No.
Should good not judge himself on a higher standard than evil.
The annihilating of boiers through the romans good?
If good uses the same methods as evil what´s the difference

„I wouldn`t catch an orc with an lie“ Faramir warmaster of Gondor.
It gives a borderline in war what between warriors and murders.

(2) Killing The Druid

Well, if the player of the Druid character wants to get mad, let him. All characters who join the group should be expected to help in the fighting. If they don't, it isn't incomprehensible to see why one or more of the other characters would simply kill such excess baggage, and be done with it. A company is a team, that only survives and prospers by everyone working as a part of the team. If one member of the group isn't pulling their weight in sharing in the fighting and the danger, then by that they are posing a threat to the rest of the group and should be killed. Because they aren't doing so--their lack of action, like the Druids'--could lead to one of the other team members being killed. It is absolutely unconscionable for the Druid to remain so cowardly. Instead of him getting mad at the Elf character, or you punishing the Elf character, the whole group should confront the Druid's player, and say if any character he enters the game with doesn't get with the program, then his character will meet a similar fate as the Druid.

Maybe the Druid wasn`t an combat character, remember druids are often advisors healers, loremasters but not warriors per se.
And I wouldn`t cast spells for every other skirmish.
A warrior could strike every time the day, a caster could only cast so often
Would i as a warrior want somebody on my heels as a burden to protect if he could not fight(weapons or spells)
Second he was in reserve, outlook, something very useful in battle, .
Third woud a fighter get mad because a thief wasn`t in the thick of battle.
As a charcter I would banish him from the party at least.
But more reasonably execute him on the spot or bring him to justice, and in the wilderness justice means the party.
Even if he was aburden on the party? It would be the decision of the party to threw him out.


Ulrick

The difference in Independent day was the Mothership was a military unit, the aliens risked their own civilians by taking them on board.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

IMHO:

Okay, this is how I handle the situation:

Hobgoblins are a warlike race by default. Just as humans are taught how to speak from an early age, hobgoblins are taught how to fight and hate. In fact, hobgoblins are taught how to fight before they can speak. All hobgoblins of any age know how to use weapons (or any attack form) and will use them to attack every intruder. Weak hobgoblins do not exist. There are no old, useless hobgoblins. (They have already been killed off.)

Hobgoblins do not have "children" in the human since of the word. They have "offspring". Hobgoblins are cannibalistic, cruel, and sadistic and their offspring are equally cannibalistic, cruel and sadistic.

With this being said, there are no "whimpering, huddling, crying hobgoblin children." Those offspring that cry and whimper are sacrificed to the gods for the strength of the hobgoblin race. All hobgoblins fight, torture, and destroy, even the offspring. Hobgoblins do not surrender, as surrendering is weak. Those that would surrender to the PCs have already been found and rooted out by the hobgoblins for extermination.

The "usually LE" aspect of alignment only applies when a specific hobgoblin was not raised within the hobgoblin culture. The inherent instinctual tendencies towards evil are still there, but the hobgoblin is not forced to be LE because of society.

This makes it really easy for the PCs because they rarely have to deal with the "children" and "captives" aspects. The entire lair of hobgoblins will attack them on sight. Even the very young offspring will bite and scratch and attempt to kill the PCs. Holding a hobgoblin baby is like holding an enraged badger with rabies.

This approach allows the act of killing to be evil while at the same time the PCs can justify the act as self defense of the village, town, castle, etc...

If my players ever see a Hobgoblin that does not attack them on sight, then they are not justified in killing it "just because it's a hobgoblin."

But these hobgoblins are as rare as rare can be. And they are not huddled up in hobgoblin lairs just waiting for the PCs to arrive...

 

[sword-dancer]

SHARK

Greetings!


(1) Killing the Young Hobgoblins

Considering the young Hobgoblins "kids" brings to mind "human kids"--which isn't necessarily equivalent. Morally, there isn't any kind of imperative that would suggest that "Hobgoblin kids" are morally equivalent with "Human kids." It could be seen as a very Good thing to do. In our own day, we don't squirm when "baby rats" or "baby snakes" are killed. We exterminate dangerous creatures to our everyday society without so much as a flicker of hesitation. So it could well be with how people consider Hobgoblins. Whether a particular group of Hobgoblins are old, middle aged, newborn, or somewhere in between is irrelevant. Considering that in the Monster Manual, it mentions that Elves and Hobgoblins are natural and traditional enemies, much akin to the Dwarves and Orcs, it would seem quite natural for the Elf to want to kill them all.

By sparing them, what would he be sparing them for? Even if the alignment in the Monster Manual says "usually evil"--so what? It isn't required that adventurers, and certainly not Chaotic Neutral characters, to enslave their own actions by the thought of what "might be" years down the road. Mathematically speaking, the odds are against the Hobgoblin children growing up to be anything different from vicious, blood-thirsty monsters! So, it makes sense for the Elf character to kill the Hobgoblins--all of the Hobgoblins.

Next, is the issue of "innocence." Innocence of what? By virtue of being Hobgoblins, they are "Guilty." If one thinks that Hobgoblins are "Innocent"--that would suggest that Hobgoblins then go on to commit "crimes" that make them guilty. Crimes according to who, though? Guilty according to who? Hobgoblins don't live their lives worried about what some Elves or Humans think, anyways. In another angle, what makes poisonous spiders or rats "guilty" or "innocent."?

To elaborate--we kill rats and poisonous creatures not because of any supposed guilt, or innocence, but because of what they are, and the threat they pose. "Guilt" or "Innocence" have nothing to do with it. The same thing can be seen to apply with Hobgoblins and other evil humanoids.

Since G N E isn`t a point of view in D&D but an absolute.
He is evil rotten to the core a .
Childmurder, Childslayer, and thats it.
What if it would be dwarfs or elven children, would that made a difference.
The MM evil of Hobgoblis is the evil of society not the inbred evil of fiends.
Was the massacre of Jerusalem 1.crusade good, righteouss? No
Was the burning of Persepolis good and honorable No.
Should good not judge himself on a higher standard than evil.
The annihilating of boiers through the romans good?
If good uses the same methods as evil what´s the difference

„I wouldn`t catch an orc with an lie“ Faramir warmaster of Gondor.
It gives a borderline in war what between warriors and murders.

(2) Killing The Druid

Well, if the player of the Druid character wants to get mad, let him. All characters who join the group should be expected to help in the fighting. If they don't, it isn't incomprehensible to see why one or more of the other characters would simply kill such excess baggage, and be done with it. A company is a team, that only survives and prospers by everyone working as a part of the team. If one member of the group isn't pulling their weight in sharing in the fighting and the danger, then by that they are posing a threat to the rest of the group and should be killed. Because they aren't doing so--their lack of action, like the Druids'--could lead to one of the other team members being killed. It is absolutely unconscionable for the Druid to remain so cowardly. Instead of him getting mad at the Elf character, or you punishing the Elf character, the whole group should confront the Druid's player, and say if any character he enters the game with doesn't get with the program, then his character will meet a similar fate as the Druid.

Maybe the Druid wasn`t an combat character, remember druids are often advisors healers, loremasters but not warriors per se.
And I wouldn`t cast spells for every other skirmish.
A warrior could strike every time the day, a caster could only cast so often
Would i as a warrior want somebody on my heels as a burden to protect if he could not fight(weapons or spells)
Second he was in reserve, outlook, something very useful in battle, .
Third woud a fighter get mad because a thief wasn`t in the thick of battle.
As a charcter I would banish him from the party at least.
But more reasonably execute him on the spot or bring him to justice, and in the wilderness justice means the party.
Even if he was aburden on the party? It would be the decision of the party to threw him out.


Ulrick

The difference in Independent day was the Mothership was a military unit, the aliens risked their own civilians by taking them on board.

 

[Kichwas]

Official ruling?


I wasn't aware of any official rulings on any moral issues.


Let's put it in these terms:

only 51% of hobgoblins are lawful evil. The Monster Manual spells that out.

What are the remaining 49%?

Well only 51% of humans are neutral... what are the other 49%?

Put in those terms not only is it likely that you will find good hobgoblins; but anyone with a wide experience of the race will likely have dealt with them.



The real issue is one of nationalism and cultural supremacy. Or rather; ethnic cleansing. Genocide if you will.

Does the PC's culture condone such?

Suprising or not; pre end of WWII most of the human race on Earth had zero moral problems with ethnic cleansing. The 'New World' was founded on the principle. The industrial age was fueled by it. And the cultures of the Old World long practiced it as a means of survival in the many lands which had limited resources. The only reason it is only found in limited amounts in the New World is the plentiful resources and generally uncrowded conditions.

So if you're not working on '21st century morals' chances are Genocide is not seen as evil, but as helping your own reach the top or even simply survive.

In this aspect DnD tradition has at least chosen pre-modern morals. Even if in many other aspects it then switches to modern morals.

 

[Kichwas]

Re: IMHO:

The "usually LE" aspect of alignment only applies when a specific hobgoblin was not raised within the hobgoblin culture. The inherent instinctual tendencies towards evil are still there, but the hobgoblin is not forced to be LE because of society.

The alignment of a society does not dictate the alignment of it's members even in the most restrictive of societies.

I could put forth a case of Japan being a LN society. I could just as easily find individuals within Japan who were as far from LN as one could get. I could do this even if limited to the Samurai era during it's heyday.

I could do the same with Nazi Germany as a LE example and find even in that society those who were CG. Some of them might even be individuals working within the power structure on one level or another, I would not have to restrict my search to outcasts.