Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SHARK" data-source="post: 186002" data-attributes="member: 1131">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.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Semper Fidelis,SHARK</blockquote>

Verification