PDA

View Full Version : What is a child?



Talakeal
2019-01-01, 10:55 AM
A question came up in my last session. The players felt bad for killing a bunch of children, but one player insisted that because they were party of a species that took centuries to reach maturity that they weren't really children and thus valid targets.


When dealing with a non-human species that matures at a different rate, what do you think of a child? If you are dealing with a type of orc that is full-grown at the age of 10 would you feel bad slaughtering them? How about if the have a child-like but still violent personality like Thog?


What about an elf who is still a child at the age of fifty, but still has the wisdom and experiences that exceed your own, they merely have the body and maturity of a human child.


How about a child who is enchanted to never grow up? Say a vampire or something like the inhabitants of Never Never Land, who is centuries or even millenia old but due to magic still has the body and outlook of a child?


What do you think?

Mark Hall
2019-01-01, 11:35 AM
In D&D-style worlds, there are, IMO, two things that determine a child: non-combatants and innate alignment.

A dragon hatchling is neither. Sure, they won't be mature for a couple centuries, but they're of an innate alignment (Always, in 3e parlance), and they're capable combatants. They may not be terribly experienced or wise, but they can mess you up, just the same, and you're unlikely to be able to change their alignment.

A goblin whelp is the other end of the spectrum. They may have an alignment tendency, but they have no alignment, and they're non-combatants.

For there, you start sliding along. Are they old enough to understand what they are doing? Are they powerful enough to be a threat?

IMO, mercy is always a Good option, if, possibly, a little naive. Showing mercy to hatchling dragons is a Good act, though it might come back to bite you (as might the hatchling dragons). Showing mercy to the goblin whelps is a Good act, though it's not too Good if you say "Well, WE didn't kill them, but neither did we leave them any food or caretakers."... the Laius way of avoiding infanticide is still infanticide. But in any individual situation, you have to make your own decision.

Lemmy
2019-01-01, 11:37 AM
A (tiny) miserable pile of secrets.

Lunali
2019-01-01, 08:46 PM
The main question I would consider, is it capable of connecting cause and effect?

Once a creature is mature enough to understand the connection between its actions and the results of its actions, it is accountable for those actions. Before that time, holding it accountable is only useful in that it helps them to develop that maturity.

zinycor
2019-01-01, 08:51 PM
I never feel bad for any of the horrible things my characters do, unless I happen to offend someone else on my table.

As for your question, it always comes to mental maturity, so a 1000 years old child vampire isn't really a child, nor is a 10 years orc. But a big adult with the mental capacity of a child, I would consider a child (Thunderdome ftw)

Karl Aegis
2019-01-01, 09:10 PM
A child is something incapable of making good decisions and is not responsible for it's own survival. That's what parents are for.

Talakeal
2019-01-01, 09:11 PM
A child is something incapable of making good decisions and is not responsible for it's own survival. That's what parents are for.

Lol, I don't know man, there are a lot of street urchins who are responsible for their own survival and a whole lot of parents who are incapable of making good decisions.

Cluedrew
2019-01-01, 09:41 PM
For the purposes of this thread: A child is anyone who people at your table are extra uncomfortable with bad things happening to the character due to their age.

zinycor
2019-01-01, 09:43 PM
For the purposes of this thread: A child is anyone who people at your table are extra uncomfortable with bad things happening to the character due to their age.

That's a very good definition

JNAProductions
2019-01-01, 09:45 PM
For the purposes of this thread: A child is anyone who people at your table are extra uncomfortable with bad things happening to the character due to their age.

"I feel bad about murdering the elderly. They're so old and brittle!"

Not a bad definition, but not a perfect one either. :P

Karl Aegis
2019-01-01, 09:46 PM
Lol, I don't know man, there are a lot of street urchins who are responsible for their own survival and a whole lot of parents who are incapable of making good decisions.

I'll shake my head, shrug my shoulders and say, "Children raising children, what is the world coming to?". Deciding to be a street urchin is not a decision I would call "good". You need some prime turf to be one of those mythical bums that drive around Mercedes-Benz on their days off.

Kane0
2019-01-02, 12:04 AM
Well, 3rd ed had a template for that

Skyrim defines them as ‘unkillable’, which in DnD-speak would mean ‘has no statblock’

You could make a reasonable argument for ‘below reproductive age’

And of course theanswer could well vary depending on who you’re asking. Thats fine too.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 12:41 AM
In D&D-style worlds, there are, IMO, two things that determine a child: non-combatants and innate alignment.

A dragon hatchling is neither. Sure, they won't be mature for a couple centuries, but they're of an innate alignment (Always, in 3e parlance), and they're capable combatants. They may not be terribly experienced or wise, but they can mess you up, just the same, and you're unlikely to be able to change their alignment.

Depends on the alignment of the person doing the killing.

In 3E parlance 'Always' under alignment doesnt actually mean 'Always' though. There are a fair few canonical examples of Dragons (and indeed even outsiders) of different alignments. Slaughtering a dragon for no other reason than 'it's probably going to turn into an evil monster later on' isnt exactly a good act to perform.

I could see a Neutral person doing it (maybe, and with reservations) an evil person would have no problem bashing its head in, and a Good person would almost never do it under pretty much any circumstances.

I mean, you could be running a game where there are unchangeable inherent alignments or morality in sentient sapient thinking monsters with free will (although you'd make the argument that they don't really have free will seeing as they 'have to' do evil things no matter what). Middle Earths Orcs are apparently evil no matter what (even if raised by kind people and trained, it doesnt matter, they're always evil monsters and cant ever change).

The argument regarding slaughtering a hatchling on the grounds it's trying to rip you or someone elses face off at the time, and the killing of the hatchling is a proportionate response and justifiable in the circumstances (its a capable combatant, and the force is reasonably needed in the circumstances), is a totally different story.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-01-02, 01:02 AM
For the purposes of this thread: A child is anyone who people at your table are extra uncomfortable with bad things happening to the character due to their age.

So, if your group doesn't care about murdering fictional children then they're not actually children?

zinycor
2019-01-02, 01:06 AM
So, if your group doesn't care about murdering fictional children then they're not actually children?

exactly, because they are not. Just figments of our imagination.

NorthernPhoenix
2019-01-02, 01:18 AM
So, if your group doesn't care about murdering fictional children then they're not actually children?

No, they're (edgy voice) just another target!🤣

Malifice
2019-01-02, 01:40 AM
exactly, because they are not. Just figments of our imagination.

And therin lies one of the fundamental causes of behavior that resembles sociopathy by so many players at so many tables (torture, slaughter of people for no real reason, genocide, infanticide, necromancy, etc).

You cant feel empathy for a creature that you know doesnt exist.

DM: 'The room seems to be a Kobold hatchery. You see several eggs, and a few small newly hatched Kobold babes, crying in fear for their mothe..'

PC: 'I smash the eggs, and kill the kobolds. Do you want me to roll initiative, or can we just assume it's done. Is there any treasure in this room?'

DM: 'Hang on, what's your alignment?'

PC: 'Lawful Good. Why? (embarks on a 2 minute diatribe about how genocide and child murder is perfectly Lawful Good, even going so far as citing Gygax's 'nits make lice' quote)'

DM: 'Rocks fall and you die.'

Koo Rehtorb
2019-01-02, 02:18 AM
exactly, because they are not. Just figments of our imagination.

I mean, I'm okay with this reasoning. Killing fictional children never bothered me any. But it doesn't seem like a particularly helpful answer in the context of this thread.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 03:59 AM
]Killing fictional children never bothered me any.

It bothered my LG fictional person in the same fictional room when it happened.

I recall a game I sat in on where there was an 'evil' PC in the party, and one of the other 'good' aligned PCs decided he couldnt be trusted (he was stealing from the party or some such).

So at night, while we all slept, he murdered him.

The player was genuinely shocked when, the following morning we all demanded he throw down his weapon, flatly refused to adventure with him anymore under any circumstances and attempted to take him into town to be hung for murder.

In other words his character was now (effectively) perma-dead.

I put to the player: 'Mate, if the six of us in this room went out on a weekend fishing trip out in the woods, and you woke up one morning and noticed that I had brutally killed Frank in his sleep, would you be cool hanging with me (at a bare minimum) ever again?'

He was all 'Now that you put it like that...'

It's like some people just cant visualize their actions or something.

And yes, I bailed on that campaign after that session. It was a trainwreck.

Mordaedil
2019-01-02, 04:01 AM
I kind of think of these NPC's in terms of a separate tier of their own, from a number of tiers like this:

Competent: An NPC no player feels any remorse in killing if it comes down to it. They are on the same level as the players.

Noncombatant: An NPC who players feel some remorse in slaying, while evil characters view these as bonus points if you get over 10 in one attack. They will usually be unable to participate in battle either due to inferior class or simply a lack of vested interest in self-defense. Commonly known as innocents, commoners and casualties of war.

Incontient: A special divergence from the non-combatants, but they are special because they fall outside of the other two categories due to lack of growth or excessive growth. They are unable to be the players or noncombatants due to, as some other poster said, either advanced age whereupon they have retired from adventuring, they are too young to be adventurers or they've suffered a crippling injury that results in them being unable to participate in combat. They are viewed as making player uncomfortable or seen as target practice, no bonus points awarded.

I recommend sticking to murder of the top two, while the third category being only implied through narrative and never encountered face-to-face.

No, not even then.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 04:06 AM
I kind of think of these NPC's in terms of a separate tier of their own, from a number of tiers like this:

Competent: An NPC no player feels any remorse in killing if it comes down to it. They are on the same level as the players.

Noncombatant: An NPC who players feel some remorse in slaying, while evil characters view these as bonus points if you get over 10 in one attack. They will usually be unable to participate in battle either due to inferior class or simply a lack of vested interest in self-defense. Commonly known as innocents, commoners and casualties of war.

Incontient: A special divergence from the non-combatants, but they are special because they fall outside of the other two categories due to lack of growth or excessive growth. They are unable to be the players or noncombatants due to, as some other poster said, either advanced age whereupon they have retired from adventuring, they are too young to be adventurers or they've suffered a crippling injury that results in them being unable to participate in combat. They are viewed as making player uncomfortable or seen as target practice, no bonus points awarded.

I recommend sticking to murder of the top two, while the third category being only implied through narrative and never encountered face-to-face.

No, not even then.

This is a comedy post right?

halfeye
2019-01-02, 04:48 AM
even going so far as citing Gygax's 'nits make lice' quote)'

When did Gygax say that, I remember it from the TV show Centennial, where it was made to be an evil phrase. The book from which the series came apparently came out in 1971.

What about a chest burster though?

Koo Rehtorb
2019-01-02, 05:39 AM
When did Gygax say that, I remember it from the TV show Centennial, where it was made to be an evil phrase. The book from which the series came apparently came out in 1971.

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-alignment-by-gygax.html

It's an interesting read. Alignment, like basically everything else in modern D&D, has been misapplied from its original intention to the point where it's more or less incoherent now.

Mordaedil
2019-01-02, 05:56 AM
This is a comedy post right?
Honey attracts bees and bears.

Seto
2019-01-02, 06:24 AM
The main question I would consider, is it capable of connecting cause and effect?

Once a creature is mature enough to understand the connection between its actions and the results of its actions, it is accountable for those actions. Before that time, holding it accountable is only useful in that it helps them to develop that maturity.

I think you're underestimating children's cognitive abilities. Or maybe your statement is just too vague. I've seen a lot of my family during the holidays, so let me illustrate.
My three-and-a-half-year old niece is very aware that her actions lead to consequences. She's often told so : "if you put that balloon in my face one more time, the balloon's going away." She takes that statement into account in her decision-making process: if she likes the balloon, she probably will stop hitting people's faces with it. But for a lot of actions, she lacks the experience and foresight to tell exactly what the consequences will be. That's why a lot of children do things just to see what will happen: they know their actions have consequences, but want to see those consequences for themselves.
My nine-year-old niece has a clear grasp of causality. She makes more significant decisions for herself, and is held accountable for those. But she still needs to be looked after, and probably still lacks the foresight to make informed lifechanging decisions. I would hardly call her responsible, in a larger moral sense or in general.
My fourteen year old nephew is a different story. He's able-bodied, is allowed to make decisions about his own future. He's not wise or experienced, by a long shot. In the middle ages, he would have been considered an acceptable combatant. By your definition, so would he. However, in our current society, he's considered a child in many respects still, and I would be horrified if he were sent to war.
My nineteen-year old nephew is an adult. He would be as psychologically and emotionally equipped for war as I - which is to say not very much, but that's another matter that has little to do with maturity.

So psychology and cognitive ability is one factor (and your take on it means much too young children IMO), physical maturity is another, emotional maturity is another, and social perception and standards is yet another, perhaps the most important.
When does your character's society, in D&D, consider that people are no longer children? When does the society of your "victims"? And of course, we as players have our own social standards that we can't completely turn off. For Western societies today, I'd say around 16 years old, or the end of high school.

AMFV
2019-01-02, 07:11 AM
A question came up in my last session. The players felt bad for killing a bunch of children, but one player insisted that because they were party of a species that took centuries to reach maturity that they weren't really children and thus valid targets.

If they had not reached maturity they were still children. Them being children isn't the most important factor in whether they are acceptable targets though. If a child is pointing a weapon at you (IRL), they are acceptable targets for that sort of thing. If somebody is threatening you or others, they are a valid threat. Now, in our present day the rule generally is that you should use the lowest amount of force possible to resolve a situation (not always the case in medieval societies though), so if you can stop a child from causing harm without killing them, that would be preferable.



When dealing with a non-human species that matures at a different rate, what do you think of a child? If you are dealing with a type of orc that is full-grown at the age of 10 would you feel bad slaughtering them? How about if the have a child-like but still violent personality like Thog?

I would feel bad, but if it was the only way to save myself or others, I'd still do it.



What about an elf who is still a child at the age of fifty, but still has the wisdom and experiences that exceed your own, they merely have the body and maturity of a human child.

How "mature" someone is isn't really relevant here. In this case, I might be better able to disarm or incapacitate the child without actually killing them.



How about a child who is enchanted to never grow up? Say a vampire or something like the inhabitants of Never Never Land, who is centuries or even millenia old but due to magic still has the body and outlook of a child?

I would argue that doesn't count as a child at all, since they are as mature as they're ever going to get.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 07:16 AM
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-alignment-by-gygax.html

It's an interesting read. Alignment, like basically everything else in modern D&D, has been misapplied from its original intention to the point where it's more or less incoherent now.

Well no. Its just that Gary Gygax wasnt an infallible moral arbiter. He had his own moral and religious views (that I cant say I agree with at all).

They clarified it in DnD from 3E onwards (Good being defined as helping others, compassion and altruism, and Evil defined as harming others, implicitly other than in self defense collective or otherwise, and in a proportionate manner).

Still Gygaxs views as morally repugnant as I find them, are not isolated or unique. We've all seen in a million and one alignment threads, people genuinely attempting to define acts as vile as genocide, infanticide, murder, soul destruction, sexual acts on mind controlled people (i.e. rape) torture, consorting with demons and the agents of Hell, necromancy and worse as being framed as morally good acts when 'done for the greater good'.

We had Rick Sanchez defined as CG in the 5E forums (despite being self admittedly guilty of every crime ever, causing a galactic war killing countless billions simply to split up his daughter and her husband, planting neutron bombs to troll and kill his friends (according to Morty 'not the first time he's done it'), constant child abuse of his grandson, enslaving the population of a micro dimension to power his car, before wiping them out in genocide on a cosmic scale, simply out of spite, multiple murders for petty reasons, and having sex with the population of a mind controlled planet (i.e. rape) etc etc, all done with little or no remorse at all).

You've gotta shake your head sometimes.

This explains the evil in the world by the way. People make the same justifications to themselves when they go out and blow up a cinema full of kids, or march thousands to their deaths in extermination camps. 'Its for the greater good' or 'nits make lice' or 'only doing what needs to be done.'

From where I sit, it's evil. Killing children (even the stupid time travel to kill baby Hitler hypothetical) is evil. You might feel justified in your actions and feel like a righteous man subjectively (and many would), but in my games, your alignment is evil, and you're going to hell for eternity on death (or the Abyss, or wherever).

I have little or no time for people who want to argue 'killing kids is not evil'. It is. As a Lawyer IRL, feel free to make an arguments that child slaughter 'is not evil' to a Judge. It wont get someone very far in court, and it wont get them very far in my games either. The eraser comes out and 'E' gets plonked on the character sheet.

AMFV
2019-01-02, 07:30 AM
We had Rick Sanchez defined as CG in the 5E forums (despite being self admittedly guilty of every crime ever, causing a galactic war killing countless billions simply to split up his daughter and her husband, planting neutron bombs to troll and kill his friends (according to Morty 'not the first time he's done it'), constant child abuse of his grandson, enslaving the population of a micro dimension to power his car, before wiping them out in genocide on a cosmic scale, simply out of spite, multiple murders for petty reasons, and having sex with the population of a mind controlled planet (i.e. rape) etc etc, all done with little or no remorse at all).

Yep, Rick Sanchez is almost certainly CE, I can't imagine that any moderately reasonable person would say otherwise. I mean you could make an argument for NE, but I think CE is probably better.



You've gotta shake your head sometimes.

This explains the evil in the world by the way. People make the same justifications to themselves when they go out and blow up a cinema full of kids, or march thousands to their deaths in extermination camps. 'Its for the greater good' or 'nits make lice' or 'only doing what needs to be done.'

There's a big difference between "blowing up a cinema full of kids" and "shooting a kid who is trying to shoot other kids" or the equivalent, do you disagree?



From where I sit, it's evil. Killing children (even the stupid time travel to kill baby Hitler hypothetical) is evil. You might feel justified in your actions and feel like a righteous man subjectively (and many would), but in my games, your alignment is evil, and you're going to hell for eternity on death (or the Abyss, or wherever).

So if a child is going to kill me (or others, potentially other children) and your only available option is lethal force, then that makes you evil?

Edit:


I have little or no time for people who want to argue 'killing kids is not evil'. It is. As a Lawyer IRL, feel free to make an arguments that child slaughter 'is not evil' to a Judge. It wont get someone very far in court, and it wont get them very far in my games either. The eraser comes out and 'E' gets plonked on the character sheet.

As a lawyer you must be aware that the right to self-defense (a basic human right) extends to self-defending yourself against assailants that are children, yes?

Cluedrew
2019-01-02, 07:40 AM
So, if your group doesn't care about murdering fictional children then they're not actually children?No, it was a funny (although not perfectly clear) way of saying that I think the important issue is not the technical definition of child (which is kind of interesting on its own) but people's comport level.

There are people who could comfortable playing through soldiers at death camps, and not because they are comfortable with death camps in real life. I on the other hand... well I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Anyways, I think we should get back to figuring out if there is a rule-of-thumb for figuring out what a child is. My best guess would be cultural.

BWR
2019-01-02, 07:59 AM
One of the things I like about RPGs and various settings is being able to explore different moralities. Characters I play do not necessarily share all my values - quite rarely, actually.
Sometimes what is considered 'good' in one universe is not what I would accept nor would it be good in another universe, and what would be considered evil is stuff I or another universe consider OK.

Killing immature beings is not always wrong. If there are things that are irredeemably evil, no chance of being Good, then there is nothing wrong with killing them. They are merely Evil in smaller packages.
Case in point, one of my characters had to kill a room full of children. Short version, the Taint in Rokugan can entirely enslave and corrupt someone and someone had infected children to the point of no return. They aren't truly human at that point, so killing them is the right thing to do.

Ken Murikumo
2019-01-02, 08:37 AM
I think you folks are looking at it the wrong way (as humans, no less).

The idea of child you are applying to the situation is what you expect of a human child. Also, take into consideration of what the races in question consider children within their own societies.

You can't just create a mechanical definition of "child" and apply it universally. I think the word (and associated morality) should be applied on a case by case basis. This 50 year old Elf that looks a 10 year old human, are they coddled and schooled like human children or are they acknowledged as adults and allowed to join the military and go to war?

Consider the above as a character in the setting and not as a human in a human only world. What is normal for the setting and what is not morally sound for the setting.




Skyrim defines them as ‘unkillable’, which in DnD-speak would mean ‘has no statblock’


This is untrue actually, skyrim defines them as "child" actually, which affords them many effects, like only being able to interact with furniture with the "child" keyword, cannot be targeted by most spells, and as you said, are unkilllable.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 09:41 AM
There's a big difference between "blowing up a cinema full of kids" and "shooting a kid who is trying to shoot other kids" or the equivalent, do you disagree?

As a lawyer you must be aware that the right to self-defense (a basic human right) extends to self-defending yourself against assailants that are children, yes?

Oh absolutely. I stated as much up thread (killing another human being without their consent is an act of Evil unless done in reasonable self defense, as a last resort, when no other option is open to you, and you act in a manner proportionate to the threat).

Paladins carry swords for a reason and all that.

I would state that it's not a 'good' act to kill, even in self defence. Even the most justified military action, in face of a clearly defined hostile agressor (say the Allied invasion of Europe in WW 2) the killing involved cannot be defined as 'good'. Tens of thousands of people lost their lives in the invasion, and that's not good.

Killing in self or collective defence (as a last resort) is morally neutral. In this case it was reasonably necessary (barring a unilateral surrender of the Nazis without resort to an Allied invasion) to liberate countries that had been invaded and occupied. Even within that context there was a heck of a lot of 'evil' acts and military actions (the Dresden firebombings spring to mind).

Its' the filter I apply to good and evil. Unless the killing was reasonably needed in self defence (collective or otherwise) and no other course of action was reasonably open to you to save your life or the life of another, it's an act of evil.

If baby Hitler picked up a gun and aimed it at you, and your only practical option to save your life in that split second was to shoot him first, then its regrettable, but not evil. Such self defense has always been regarded almost universally across all cultures and legal systems and throughout history as being one of the few times it's OK to take anothers life without sanction for your actions.

I get that people think that 'murdering baby Hitler is justified' which is a different argument than saying it's morally good. If you're a person than thinks baby murder is justified (even baby Hitler), then you're almost certainly not a good person. At a bare minimum your character sheet likely has a 'N' at the end of your alignment section, or maybe even an E.

Its also a little like Punisher or other anti-heroes. Clearly Evilly aligned, but doing what they do (torture, murder and worse) for a 'greater good'. He commits crimes, and tortures and murders people... because they commit crimes and torture and murder people. It's hypocritical in the extreme and, well its evil. There is a reason why Daredevil and others cant work with him for an extended period. He's a monster, and while their goals align (fighting crime) their methods are very very different indeed.

Back on topic, its fairly self evident what a 'child' is. It's an infant incapable of exercising sufficient free will to have capacity for its actions. It doesnt yet know right from wrong.

In Homo Sapiens we usually draw this line at around 12-13 years of age plus or minus a few years (with some gray areas either side depending on the jurisdiction) for a child to have (or lack) capacity to enter contracts, be criminally liable for their actions, be able to consent to sexual activity and so forth. Many legal codes are reasonably flexible around this point, reflecting the fact that it's more of a subjective question as to capacity of a minor ('taking that individuals capacity into account, on a case by case basis') than an objective test ('you must be this old to ride').

By the age of 18 most Humans are considered fully adult, and are legally able to drive a car, be criminally liable for their actions, consent to all sexual activity, vote, own a firearm, smoke, drink, join the Army and so forth.

In a fantasy game we can assume entities like constructs that are 'born' or created as adults with fully formed free will (or at least the illusion thereof), or similar creatures that simply lack childhood or a stage of life like it. It's clearly a subjective question, to be considered on a case by case basis, taking into account the individuals mental capacity to truly know right from wrong, and their ability to truly think and function like an adult.

Orcs who mature quicker might be fully mentally and physically 'adult' by the age of 12, with capacity forming around the age of 6. It might take elves twice as long to their mid 20's to have emotional and mental capacity as an adult, with such capacity forming only after a decade plus of life. Humans probably sit somewhere in the mid point of those two figures, starting to 'understand' the world around them at around age 12, and reaching full maturity at 18 (sans much worldy experience of course!).

Malifice
2019-01-02, 09:51 AM
I think you folks are looking at it the wrong way (as humans, no less).

The idea of child you are applying to the situation is what you expect of a human child. Also, take into consideration of what the races in question consider children within their own societies.

You can't just create a mechanical definition of "child" and apply it universally. I think the word (and associated morality) should be applied on a case by case basis. This 50 year old Elf that looks a 10 year old human, are they coddled and schooled like human children or are they acknowledged as adults and allowed to join the military and go to war?

Consider the above as a character in the setting and not as a human in a human only world. What is normal for the setting and what is not morally sound for the setting.




This is untrue actually, skyrim defines them as "child" actually, which affords them many effects, like only being able to interact with furniture with the "child" keyword, cannot be targeted by most spells, and as you said, are unkilllable.

In DnD at least Elves dont take 50 years to reach maturity from memory. They age slightly slower for the first 20-30 or so years (at around 75 percent that of humans) and then kind of 'freeze' in their mid to late 20's for a few hundred years.

The lucky bastards!

HouseRules
2019-01-02, 12:08 PM
Humans:

Parents are criminally liable for their young children's actions (ages <7).
Juvenile hall will make children liable (7-17-21(?)). Remember that only multiple murders and multiple rapes will go to juvenile hall. Otherwise, a slap to the wrist will occur. Children may stay in Juvenile hall until they turn 21.
Rare severe crimes committed ages 14-17 may be trialed as adult, but are rare.
Crimes committed after 18 will be liable as adult.

What is a child only exist by age categories, or stat-able characters. If it is too young to have a stat block, it is a child or younger.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 12:33 PM
Humans:

Parents are criminally liable for their young children's actions (ages <7).
Juvenile hall will make children liable (7-17-21(?)). Remember that only multiple murders and multiple rapes will go to juvenile hall. Otherwise, a slap to the wrist will occur. Children may stay in Juvenile hall until they turn 21.
Rare severe crimes committed ages 14-17 may be trialed as adult, but are rare.
Crimes committed after 18 will be liable as adult.

What is a child only exist by age categories, or stat-able characters. If it is too young to have a stat block, it is a child or younger.

Good lord, what country do you live in?

Koo Rehtorb
2019-01-02, 12:46 PM
Well no. Its just that Gary Gygax wasnt an infallible moral arbiter. He had his own moral and religious views (that I cant say I agree with at all).

Alternatively. D&D alignment has nothing to do with real world morality, and was never intended to have anything to do with real world morality. And people trying to jam real world morality into it has made it a incoherent mess, like basically every other aspect of modern D&D.

HouseRules
2019-01-02, 01:05 PM
Good lord, what country do you live in?

That's how the law is enforced (not written) in California.

The Glyphstone
2019-01-02, 01:10 PM
Great Modthulhu: Closed for review.