Melkor Lord Of ALL!
First Post
It was an evil act Zyzzyr.
Questionable morals - PC's killing children
- Thread starter Eternalknight
- Start date
Lazybones
Adventurer
zyzzyr,
The events you've described sound totally evil to me.
As for Melkor's, "It is right for a neutral character to slay all members of the race that is perceived as evil!" That statement sounds like the classic justification for genocide in our own history. I'm sure that hobgobins et.al. perceive all humans as evil; that justifies their pillaging/enslavement/slaughter of humans. I just think I'd like the "heroes" to be a little differnt than the "bad guys." Please note, I'm not saying you're view is wrong per se (it has to do with a definition of the "neutral" alignment, I guess), it's just my opinion. I'd be with the elves I was in zyzzyr's game. I hope that the actions of his more bloodthirsty characters don't turn a few new players off from the game.
We all have different styles, I suppose. Real life is cruel, violent, and depressing enough--I like my fantasy to be heroic, that's all. I do like posing the players with moral dilemnas (see Sepulchrave's "Despina" story for some great ones), but I don't enjoy playing with people who excessively favor the darker side of the spectrum.
The events you've described sound totally evil to me.
As for Melkor's, "It is right for a neutral character to slay all members of the race that is perceived as evil!" That statement sounds like the classic justification for genocide in our own history. I'm sure that hobgobins et.al. perceive all humans as evil; that justifies their pillaging/enslavement/slaughter of humans. I just think I'd like the "heroes" to be a little differnt than the "bad guys." Please note, I'm not saying you're view is wrong per se (it has to do with a definition of the "neutral" alignment, I guess), it's just my opinion. I'd be with the elves I was in zyzzyr's game. I hope that the actions of his more bloodthirsty characters don't turn a few new players off from the game.
We all have different styles, I suppose. Real life is cruel, violent, and depressing enough--I like my fantasy to be heroic, that's all. I do like posing the players with moral dilemnas (see Sepulchrave's "Despina" story for some great ones), but I don't enjoy playing with people who excessively favor the darker side of the spectrum.
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Quickbeam had some excellent points to make! Umbran did as well. As for myself, well, it would seem that there are several angles to approach in the matter.
(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.
(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.
In such situations, life and death hangs by a thread. People don't sit there and mull and chew something over all the time. Pose a threat to their survival, and they just kill you quick to put you out of your misery so you don't continue to endanger the rest of the company or the mission by your cowardice. In such close quarters with everyone depending on each other for survival, no character should be allowed to embrace such cowardice without paying the price.
So, it seems that far from being a bad player, it seems that the Elf character is not only playing realistically, but also with some sense of drive and decisiveness. It might also be that the character is attempting to show the rest of the group cool decision making skills, and even leadership for making such difficult command decisions, and in looking out for the long-term welfare of the rest of the group, and the success of their mission.
Leaders often must make the hard moral decisions that make others squirm. Such is the burden of leadership. With such authority and power, comes the burden of making hard decisions that aren't always pleasant, fun, or comfortable. Regardless of how uncomfortable others might be with the situation, the leader must make a decision, and follow through with it's execution. Good, bad, or otherwise.
The Elf's player should be congradulated on such driven and focused play. He sounds like he could be playing a character with conviction, and complex motivation, and multi-faceted personality.
So, let the Elf kill them all. He'll do what needs to be done in a ruthless, vicious world. Let the rest of the party squirm and endlessly debate, attempting in vain to arrive at a "consensus." Meanwhile, the grim Elf marches on decisively, seeking to crush evil, and see the mission through to success.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quickbeam had some excellent points to make! Umbran did as well. As for myself, well, it would seem that there are several angles to approach in the matter.
(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.
(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.
In such situations, life and death hangs by a thread. People don't sit there and mull and chew something over all the time. Pose a threat to their survival, and they just kill you quick to put you out of your misery so you don't continue to endanger the rest of the company or the mission by your cowardice. In such close quarters with everyone depending on each other for survival, no character should be allowed to embrace such cowardice without paying the price.
So, it seems that far from being a bad player, it seems that the Elf character is not only playing realistically, but also with some sense of drive and decisiveness. It might also be that the character is attempting to show the rest of the group cool decision making skills, and even leadership for making such difficult command decisions, and in looking out for the long-term welfare of the rest of the group, and the success of their mission.
Leaders often must make the hard moral decisions that make others squirm. Such is the burden of leadership. With such authority and power, comes the burden of making hard decisions that aren't always pleasant, fun, or comfortable. Regardless of how uncomfortable others might be with the situation, the leader must make a decision, and follow through with it's execution. Good, bad, or otherwise.
The Elf's player should be congradulated on such driven and focused play. He sounds like he could be playing a character with conviction, and complex motivation, and multi-faceted personality.
So, let the Elf kill them all. He'll do what needs to be done in a ruthless, vicious world. Let the rest of the party squirm and endlessly debate, attempting in vain to arrive at a "consensus." Meanwhile, the grim Elf marches on decisively, seeking to crush evil, and see the mission through to success.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
oliverhenshaw
First Post
But if you kill the Druid, then he'll go from not fighting SOME of the time to not fighting ALL of the time, and won't be able to talk down that dire bear holding a knife to a girl's throat round the next corner.
As someone who's crippled the team and endangered an innocent life AND may well execute team-mates who happen to get magically Held, he* should beg to get shot like a dog.
* the CN elf
As someone who's crippled the team and endangered an innocent life AND may well execute team-mates who happen to get magically Held, he* should beg to get shot like a dog.
* the CN elf
Last edited:
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. -- SHARK
What threat did the cowering, wimpering hobgoblin children pose? Potential threat? Maybe so. If I infer correctly from your post they should be exterminted. Okay, what about human children. Humans have great potential for crime, hatred, murder, vice, etc. If I follow your logic then we should kill everything because it is "potentially" evil. You can defend the characters actions as in character as being elf, CN or both, but it doesn't change the fact that killing an enemy that cannot or will not defend itself violates the tenets of "good" in the D&D world. Now, that said, I do not think that forcing the character to stop acting in such a way is correct. Nor should you just ban this character. He should, however, reap the rewards of being of an evil alignment if he continues to act evilly in your campaign. Keep in mind this is Etrnalknights campaign and he thought the actions evil. What constitues evil in your world is subjective. The DM of course has the final say in wether a few actions like this reflect chaos or evil and if they should ultimately affect the characters alignment.
What threat did the cowering, wimpering hobgoblin children pose? Potential threat? Maybe so. If I infer correctly from your post they should be exterminted. Okay, what about human children. Humans have great potential for crime, hatred, murder, vice, etc. If I follow your logic then we should kill everything because it is "potentially" evil. You can defend the characters actions as in character as being elf, CN or both, but it doesn't change the fact that killing an enemy that cannot or will not defend itself violates the tenets of "good" in the D&D world. Now, that said, I do not think that forcing the character to stop acting in such a way is correct. Nor should you just ban this character. He should, however, reap the rewards of being of an evil alignment if he continues to act evilly in your campaign. Keep in mind this is Etrnalknights campaign and he thought the actions evil. What constitues evil in your world is subjective. The DM of course has the final say in wether a few actions like this reflect chaos or evil and if they should ultimately affect the characters alignment.
Okay, I'll have to play a little Devil's advocate here. I need to snip here and there for the sake of brevity....
SHARK here is correct in that hobgoblin children do not have to be in the same moral position as elf, human, or dwarf children. However, I think he slips the mark here. While in his own world guilt and innocence may not matter, in most fantasy worlds, the morality of an act is very much based upon guilt or innocence.
The thing is, there's something that separates hobgoblins and humans from snakes and rats - sentience. It's specificlaly stated in the core books that animals do not have the capacity for moral action. Humans and hobgoblins do. Thus, you cannot generally lump the humanoids in with the vermin.
Three reasons - first, because from what information we have, the druid may have been making a reasonable tacical decision. Second, because the point is to kill the enemy, not everyone who isn't an active ally at every moment. Third, because it is probably disruptive to the game.
SHARK, how many generals have gone down in a blaze of ignominy because they didn't keep proper reserves? If the rest of the party seems capable of dealing with the threat, there's some wisdom to holding someone back, in case there is greater threat than was originally percieved. If there had been an unseen enemy, the elf might be singning the sdruid's praises.
Let's get something straight - the druid stayed out of a couple of fights in an adventure that probably has many. He has a tactical rationale for those, and has been otherwise active, and nobody died the times he did stand aside (or I presume Eternalknight would have told us). So you kill him? You kill a person for making a decision whose value can only be calculated in hindsight? That's not being a leader, SHARK, that's being dumb.
You kill enemies. You protect friends. Neutrals you leave alone. You don't kill people simply because they aren't actively aiding you in the way you personally prefer. If the druid's behavior was indicative of cowardice, you eject him from the party, not slay him.
And, lastly, strong and decisive role-palying is nice, but it should be tempered by the fact that you are playing a game - trying to have fun with others. Each player is not only responsible for his own fun, but for helping others have fun as well. Gaming is a cooperative effort. This player seems to have chosen a solution to his percieved problem that was least fun for everyone but himself. That isn't good.
So, while it may have been strong, decisive role-playing, it was poor gamesmanship. The guy may claim he's trying to build a "real fighting force" or somesuch. But if he ruins other people's fun in the process, it isn't appropriate. He should have found some other way to express his displeasure with the druid.
SHARK said:
SHARK here is correct in that hobgoblin children do not have to be in the same moral position as elf, human, or dwarf children. However, I think he slips the mark here. While in his own world guilt and innocence may not matter, in most fantasy worlds, the morality of an act is very much based upon guilt or innocence.
The thing is, there's something that separates hobgoblins and humans from snakes and rats - sentience. It's specificlaly stated in the core books that animals do not have the capacity for moral action. Humans and hobgoblins do. Thus, you cannot generally lump the humanoids in with the vermin.
Three reasons - first, because from what information we have, the druid may have been making a reasonable tacical decision. Second, because the point is to kill the enemy, not everyone who isn't an active ally at every moment. Third, because it is probably disruptive to the game.
SHARK, how many generals have gone down in a blaze of ignominy because they didn't keep proper reserves? If the rest of the party seems capable of dealing with the threat, there's some wisdom to holding someone back, in case there is greater threat than was originally percieved. If there had been an unseen enemy, the elf might be singning the sdruid's praises.
Let's get something straight - the druid stayed out of a couple of fights in an adventure that probably has many. He has a tactical rationale for those, and has been otherwise active, and nobody died the times he did stand aside (or I presume Eternalknight would have told us). So you kill him? You kill a person for making a decision whose value can only be calculated in hindsight? That's not being a leader, SHARK, that's being dumb.
You kill enemies. You protect friends. Neutrals you leave alone. You don't kill people simply because they aren't actively aiding you in the way you personally prefer. If the druid's behavior was indicative of cowardice, you eject him from the party, not slay him.
And, lastly, strong and decisive role-palying is nice, but it should be tempered by the fact that you are playing a game - trying to have fun with others. Each player is not only responsible for his own fun, but for helping others have fun as well. Gaming is a cooperative effort. This player seems to have chosen a solution to his percieved problem that was least fun for everyone but himself. That isn't good.
So, while it may have been strong, decisive role-playing, it was poor gamesmanship. The guy may claim he's trying to build a "real fighting force" or somesuch. But if he ruins other people's fun in the process, it isn't appropriate. He should have found some other way to express his displeasure with the druid.
more Devil's advocacy...
Though this thread really sounds like trolling, I'm sufficiently bored...
On point 1) No amount of consulting the books should be involved here. Its a DM's call. Either races have an absolute moral nature or they don't. And the DM should make these fundemental assumptions about the world clear from the very start of a campaign.
On point 2) Playing a character who doesn't play well with others is usually bad roleplaying. It's disruptive, unless every player agrees to play a cut-throat game. The lone hardass in a generally co-operative game is the equivalent of a guy tackling people in a game of touch football. If the druid isn't 'playing along', try some non-leathal ways to make the character co-operate. Role-play a little. If that fails, explain to the player how the game should be played. Or don't game with that person anymore.
The player of a character that so brilliantly conceived, focused, driven, etc, that can't be fit into a gaming group better hope they can find a DM who will run a solo game...
Though this thread really sounds like trolling, I'm sufficiently bored...
On point 1) No amount of consulting the books should be involved here. Its a DM's call. Either races have an absolute moral nature or they don't. And the DM should make these fundemental assumptions about the world clear from the very start of a campaign.
On point 2) Playing a character who doesn't play well with others is usually bad roleplaying. It's disruptive, unless every player agrees to play a cut-throat game. The lone hardass in a generally co-operative game is the equivalent of a guy tackling people in a game of touch football. If the druid isn't 'playing along', try some non-leathal ways to make the character co-operate. Role-play a little. If that fails, explain to the player how the game should be played. Or don't game with that person anymore.
The player of a character that so brilliantly conceived, focused, driven, etc, that can't be fit into a gaming group better hope they can find a DM who will run a solo game...
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Harlock stated:
"What threat did the cowering, wimpering hobgoblin children pose? Potential threat? Maybe so. If I infer correctly from your post they should be exterminted. Okay, what about human children."
____________________________________________________
End Quote.
Well, to begin with, the rules state that Humans have *Any* alignment. Humanoids, as per the individual entry, have *Always Evil* or *Usually Evil*. Now, I'm not trying to sound arrogant, so please forgive me. Using some concepts from Philosophy and Theology, it can be seen that Humans, and others with a similar alignment code of *Any* are "Free Moral Agents." They are free in the sense that, according to the rules, each and every individual makes moral choices that constitute the creature's moral destiny. Concommantly, Humans and such can perhaps be seen to making such moral choices beginning with the attainment of adulthood. However, with creatures that have a stated alignment code, like Hobgoblins--it can be seen that they are, by definition of such codification, "less morally free." They are thus, not "free moral agents." They, as Umbran cheerfully allowed, not moral equivalents to Humans, Elves, and so on.
Furthermore, it isn't so much as killing anything that might be "potentially evil" but more in line with killing all such creatures that are, or mathematically probably are, Evil. There is a difference, and that difference is significant. Human children shouldn't be killed thusly, because they are free moral agents, and though "potentially evil" they have a decidedly equal chance of being Good. Hobgoblins, and other such humanoids, as per their alignment codes, are not merely "potentially Evil" but certainly are in fact, evil, or probably so. That increased probability, as opposed to naive hopes against the odds, that the creatures, whether young or old, male or female, are evil and need to be destroyed. Not killing such creatures, in the face of such stark probabilities, can be seen to be a highly irresponsible act, even an evil act itself, to refuse or fail to kill such wicked creatures.
That is why it is a moral and responsible thing to do, is to kill such creatures, regardless of their age or state of health. In such circumstances, out of one's individual sense of magnanmity, one could choose to spare the creature, and seek to capture it, and hopefully convert it and so on--but while that action might be possible, it no more "Good" than deciding to kill such creatures. It is still potentially disastrous because of the hard-wired alignment probabilities involved.
This course of action, even though naive, still would fall within the province of "Good" while merely sparing the creature and moving on, would not. As mentioned, that would be irresponsible, grossly negligent, and evil. All of which though, is certainly within the code of behavior for a Chaotic Neutral Elf.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Harlock stated:
"What threat did the cowering, wimpering hobgoblin children pose? Potential threat? Maybe so. If I infer correctly from your post they should be exterminted. Okay, what about human children."
____________________________________________________
End Quote.
Well, to begin with, the rules state that Humans have *Any* alignment. Humanoids, as per the individual entry, have *Always Evil* or *Usually Evil*. Now, I'm not trying to sound arrogant, so please forgive me. Using some concepts from Philosophy and Theology, it can be seen that Humans, and others with a similar alignment code of *Any* are "Free Moral Agents." They are free in the sense that, according to the rules, each and every individual makes moral choices that constitute the creature's moral destiny. Concommantly, Humans and such can perhaps be seen to making such moral choices beginning with the attainment of adulthood. However, with creatures that have a stated alignment code, like Hobgoblins--it can be seen that they are, by definition of such codification, "less morally free." They are thus, not "free moral agents." They, as Umbran cheerfully allowed, not moral equivalents to Humans, Elves, and so on.
Furthermore, it isn't so much as killing anything that might be "potentially evil" but more in line with killing all such creatures that are, or mathematically probably are, Evil. There is a difference, and that difference is significant. Human children shouldn't be killed thusly, because they are free moral agents, and though "potentially evil" they have a decidedly equal chance of being Good. Hobgoblins, and other such humanoids, as per their alignment codes, are not merely "potentially Evil" but certainly are in fact, evil, or probably so. That increased probability, as opposed to naive hopes against the odds, that the creatures, whether young or old, male or female, are evil and need to be destroyed. Not killing such creatures, in the face of such stark probabilities, can be seen to be a highly irresponsible act, even an evil act itself, to refuse or fail to kill such wicked creatures.
That is why it is a moral and responsible thing to do, is to kill such creatures, regardless of their age or state of health. In such circumstances, out of one's individual sense of magnanmity, one could choose to spare the creature, and seek to capture it, and hopefully convert it and so on--but while that action might be possible, it no more "Good" than deciding to kill such creatures. It is still potentially disastrous because of the hard-wired alignment probabilities involved.
This course of action, even though naive, still would fall within the province of "Good" while merely sparing the creature and moving on, would not. As mentioned, that would be irresponsible, grossly negligent, and evil. All of which though, is certainly within the code of behavior for a Chaotic Neutral Elf.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
In the DnD world, evil is evil, not "what the general populace thinks as evil". There is no ambiguity (sp?) on that. Evil is evil, they rape, murder, pillage, etc. There are few races in the world that are predominately evil, at least not in the sense that hobgoblins are. Almost all hobgoblins are evil or will be evil, it's what they are driven to do. It's what they are supposed to do.
Ok, now, let's assume that the elf DOESN'T kill them. What now? I mean, you killed their providers, so they will have a huge problem of getting food and shelter. They will be nigh helpless against other predators. You COULD bring them to your stronghold, provided you have one, and feed them and take care of them for a decade while trying to convert them to the good side, but that is a little out of hte ordinary, isn't it? You'll have to hide them well too, since most civilized beings will want those hobgoblins killed (or driven off) immediately.
So, you can kill them now, seal their fate by just leaving them, or go EXTREMELY out of your way to take care of them. I don't necessarily see the slaying of hte hobgoblins as an evil act.
Similar Threads
