Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5728514" data-attributes="member: 92511">Quite so. THe Characters are the ones who have to choose an outcome. That is the point of the game, afterall...or at least, it is in My game.You are correct thought, it is difficult to discuss moral/ethical concerns in terms that are not abosulte...What I mean in the original post was, "What would you feel is the correct thing to do as a PC in that situation?" There realyl is no objective/all encompassing "right" thing. Well, my players are given definitions of alignment before they choose them for their characters. These are not strict "single" definitions, but a "range of absolutes", if you would, that exist iwithin a certain two-letter alignment code.For example, the two LG characters. The LG paladin lives by a code of duty and honor of guardianship/protection (his god's primary sphere/domain). He follows a code of Law, Order and Good. But he is not "Lawful Stupid." The carrying out of his duty and honor is to protect and defend his assigned charge(s). He conducts himself as best he can within those confines to further "the greater good." Yes, slaying evil is a part of that...but it is not always an absolute/the only answer.THe LG cleric, is LG more out of "innocence and naivitee." He wants everythign to be rainbows and unicorns. He wants everyone and the world to be "nice" to each other and desperately doesn't want to do anything "bad". His actions are carefully chosen within that context. He is more "Purity" kind of Lawful Good versus a "duty/order/law" kind of LG. Killing "children", effectively, would be bad...even if the lil' buggers are, themselves, evil. The druid, True Neutral, naturally is concerned with maintaining "the Balance" and while the creature is "evil" it hasn't done anything to the party except try to protect its young. A perfectly, acceptably, NATURAL thing to do. When placed against the actions of the kobolds, who have actively acted in an evil way against him and his companions, however, are acting out of flagrant malice...to the attempted detriment of his self-preservation.The Neutral thief thinks all of the kobolds shoulda been slain in the first place and sees no reason they would attempt to uphold their end of the bargain when the kobolds, from his perspective, obviously don't intend to. yes, this monster could be killed...but wait?...It wants to give us treasure?!? That's a horse of an entirely different color [of evil]. I don't think this was a "morality trap." Noone was in risk of losing any status or changing alignment. It was, as you noted above, an opportunity for the characters to approach a questionable situation and really have to THINK about how they should best go about handling the situation, in light of their circumstances and original purpose/mission.As you noted, there really was no objectively "right" answer. Just wanted to throw it out to ENworld and see what other people thought about the situation. Just so. That's all I was looking for them to do.So noted...and well respected, make no mistake. It very well could have gone/been that way...and the paladin, while at odds with slaying young, did want to kill them all. Ultimately, he was "voted" down and accepted the decision in light of their overall mission (for the "greater good"/protection of the mining village...not the kobold's or even the roper's wishes).--SD</blockquote>

Verification