Is Elan a child-killer?

[KingFlameHawk]

Wait...Durkon's a wizard?

He means Dorukan (the similiar name is pointed out in the don't split the party book), the wizard who made the dungeon and all the runes and hired all the good creatures like Celia.

[pendell]

I'm pretty sure they are meant to be the same person. The Giant clearly copied his earlier design. If he intended them to be different characters, he could have given her different clothes, for instance.

I know he said something about how many vatiations on a stick figure are there? But with only two medusas, he could certainly show variations between them.

Think so? I think the Medusa was an unimportant character, so he simply copied-and-pasted. The Giant has demonstrated some real artistic flair in variation at times, down to making pretty much the entire Sapphire Guard in the throne room a different drawing, but he's allowed to be lazy from time to time :).

a) They're not children, and b) yes, they had that chance, but they chose to turn on the Order for no reason other than suddenly deciding being Good was a "phase". At that point they went from being allies of the Order to being a legitimate enemy themselves.

Erm, one of the goblin children betrayed the order. I cannot say that all the goblin children we encountered intended to betray the order or were "going through a phase". It is possible that some of the goblin children might eventually have undergone a genuine alignment shift. Who knows what potential they might have had or not?

*Glares sternly at Elan*
And now we'll never know.

*Elan tears up*
*pendell feels guilty , like he's kicked a puppy*

(We don't even know what happened to the goblin teenagers, anyway, but we do at least know they were deliberately working in Xykon's favour.)

We know that at least ONE of them was deliberately in Xykon's favor, but I don't think we can necessarily assume they ALL were.

And just like the Death Star blowing up, unless explicitly spelled out otherwise I think it's a safe assumption everyone who was around for the earth-shattering kaboom is in tiny little pieces.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Toper]

Because they look exactly the same.

Except they tied their wraps in opposite directions! One of them could be the evil twin! Or it could be the same medusa, but Teevo could be showing a rerun... of the dead.

That's pretty funny, though; nice find.

[Gredival]

Wow, Elan might actually be responsible for the loss of a lot more innocent lives than Belkar. Take that, moralists!

I wouldn't go so far to say innocent. It's definitely not LG to kill enemies who have surrendered, but the fact that they have surrendered does not render them "innocent."

Belkar kept killing them because he's Belkar, but I could also see a CG character making the determination that justice demanded execution for crimes already committed.

It's no less evil either.

But the morality of a child is not easily determined, as they typically lack the capacity for true malice. Whether or not you personally believe this to be true, it is true in OotS ("We generally don't consider childhood escapades") and that is what matters where the comic is concerned.

I think one thing everyone is forgetting here is that these are not toddler children. As Haley pointed out: these are teenagers.

The juvenile/adult distinction exists in law because we believe the diminished mental capacity of children negatives (this is the proper word) the mens rea of their criminal action. When we put children on trial as adults the argument is that the child is sufficiently developed and aware to realize the consequences and wrongness of their actions. The age of 18 is an arbitrary limit the state recognizes because at some point we are going to hold people accountable for their actions despite stupidity/immaturity.

Remember that the one who betrayed the Order to Xykon was after a college recommendation. There is a decent argument to be made that the goblin teenagers were of sufficient mental capacity such they should be held culpable for their actions/alignment.

EDIT: Something I just caught in that comic, Roy justifies taking gifts because they would have been destroyed anyway. So it seems to some extent there is a recognition that final consequences can justify/negative an act.

[zimmerwald1915]

Belkar kept killing them because he's Belkar, but I could also see a CG character making the determination that justice demanded execution for crimes already committed.

But we never see Elan make that determination. He killed the goblins who surrendered because either he 1) didn't know they had and didn't bother to find out, which makes him negligent, or 2) didn't care.

[SPoD]

Why does everyone take such joy in tearing down the good guys in this strip for making mistakes? Was this a conversation that needed to happen, years after the fact? How does this help anyone understand anything about the comic or accomplish anything useful?

It's true what they say: the perfect is the enemy of the Good.

[Red XIV]

yes, they had that chance, but they chose to turn on the Order for no reason other than suddenly deciding being Good was a "phase". At that point they went from being allies of the Order to being a legitimate enemy themselves.

One of them turned on the Order. The other teenage goblin present made it clear that he had no part in it.

[Xondoure]

Elan should not be allowed to go anywhere without a legal guardian.

Well technically that is Roy's job. (and Haley's)

[Nimrod's Son]

One of them turned on the Order. The other teenage goblin present made it clear that he had no part in it.

Yes, that was pointed out over an hour ago. He was still pretty quick to claim his parents were right about "stinky humans", though - a truly Good goblin would surely have understood why Roy was so upset about the betrayal, and try to convince him they were still on the same side.

[pendell]

Was this a conversation that needed to happen, years after the fact?

No statute of limitations on homicide.

How does this help anyone understand anything about the comic or accomplish anything useful?

Well, the thought occurred to me, and turned it 'round and 'round and upside down, and found that it seemed to be right. So I posted it here to see if someone could post a convincing refutation. So far, no one has. At least, not convincing to me.

I think a full and proper appreciation of a character's actions is useful in understanding a comic strip; to appreciate the flaws as well as the good things, and not simply give Elan a pass because he's funny and zany.

It seems to be an issue on this forum that characters such as Belkar or Thog or even Tarquin get a presumption of innocence or non-evil alignment because they make us laugh, or because they're charming, or because they've got fleshtone instead of green skin and teeth. We automatically hate the ugly and love the beautiful, even when the beautiful is doing terrible things and the ugly is doing wonderful things. Compare and contrast the MITD and Tarquin.

I think this disconnect is a fundamental theme of this strip and something the Giant has harped on repeatedly. So I don't think we should give Elan a pass ; to judge alignment we need to consider his actions, not his appearance or the fact that he makes us laugh.

And if this forum isn't for meaningless alignment debates and over-analysis, I don't know what it's for . I say this as no small offender in either regard.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Nimrod's Son]

So I posted it here to see if someone could post a convincing refutation. So far, no one has. At least, not convincing to me.

Remind me again how arguably causing the accidental death of a handful of maybe-Good goblins is any worse than definitely deliberately killing a whole load of probably-not-Good goblins that, really, all belong to the same team? If you're gonna condemn Elan for that, you've got to condemn the whole Order for a great many things.

[Psyren]

Personally, I don't take anything that happened before this strip seriously, alignment-wise. I just don't see the point. That wasn't the focus of the strip back then, and so any moral issues, quandaries etc. we could draw from the characters' actions have no meaningful context. It's a great thing that the comic has matured, but like a child itself, can't be held accountable for the message it conveyed in its infancy.

(Nor the message that can be inferred from it through intentionally judgmental reading.)

[Forum Explorer]

Regarding the death star the first one would have only been crewed by the Imperial Military. Were they all evil? No but they were in direct opposition to the rebellion (who aren't all good) The second one was still under construction though....


Still I don't think any of the children got killed. The children would be kept someplace away from the dungeon along with the weak and infirm. The teenagers were there to learn how to be proper evil goblins. The teenagers probly booked it after getting threatend by the Order and the other evil goblin likely got away after fleeing from Belkar.

Redcloak didn't know about the survivors or didn't want them to be enslaved by Xykon anymore.

[Themrys]

Remind me again how arguably causing the accidental death of a handful of maybe-Good goblins is any worse than definitely deliberately killing a whole load of probably-not-Good goblins that, really, all belong to the same team? If you're gonna condemn Elan for that, you've got to condemn the whole Order for a great many things.

People do condemn Vaarsuvius for the quarter-genocide of probably-not-Good black dragons. While this wasn't accidental, Elan's deed was not accidental either, he did that on purpose because...no idea, maybe he thought it was dramatic.

Maybe Elan is too stupid to know the consequences of his actions, but if this is the case, he needs to be made Roy's ward and not allowed to do anything on his own.

Of course, Belkar is even more dangerous, but people acknowledge that in Belkar's case.

The only person who is (probably) better than Roy thinks in the strip where he stays up the whole night is Haley. She would not run away with the group's treasure...although she might only stay because of Elan.

Even if we do not take things that happened before the comic became more serious into consideration, Elan is still dangerously dumb and Roy's fear that he might just stand around and play on his banjo while goblins kill the rest of the group is not that far-fetched.
(Remember the orc-island-episode? If Lien hadn't begged Elan to do something, he'd just have watched the orcs sacrifice her)

[KoboldRevenge]

And how is this news to almost any story? I mean characters kill random nameless non-plot essential people again and again.
In Ocean's 11 when they set off the EMP they could have killed thousands in car crashes, plane crashes, and hospital equipment failures.

Transformers: they felt the need to bring the alien robot battle to the death into a populated city.

Speed: The amount of damage to the city should have costed them 100 times the ransom cost.

Lord of the rings when the ground swallowed up the bad guys at the end it's a miracle that none of the good guys fell in while they were fighting in close quarters.

Point of the story the writers didn't find the need to flesh out that point in the story that doesn't matter to them.

[TriForce]

did the children Teenagers die becouse of the self-destruct?
very likely yes

should we care?
just as likely: no

as explained in the comic, the only reason they were "good" at the moment the order encountered them was becouse they wanted to do whatever pissed of their parents, meaning they were all evil, just acting like they were good. meaning that they would be just as dispicable and evil as their parents as soon as they grew out of it.

a very obvious conclusion, case dismissed

[Leecros]

He means Dorukan (the similiar name is pointed out in the don't split the party book), the wizard who made the dungeon and all the runes and hired all the good creatures like Celia.

I'm well aware of that.

[Warren Dew]

Whether or not you personally believe this to be true, it is true in OotS ("We generally don't consider childhood escapades") and that is what matters where the comic is concerned.

"Escapade" implies a relatively harmless prank - something that likely wouldn't be held against an adult, either. There isn't any implication there that children get pass on truly evil actions.

It seems to be an issue on this forum that characters such as Belkar or Thog or even Tarquin get a presumption of innocence or non-evil alignment because they make us laugh, or because they're charming, or because they've got fleshtone instead of green skin and teeth. We automatically hate the ugly and love the beautiful, even when the beautiful is doing terrible things and the ugly is doing wonderful things. Compare and contrast the MITD and Tarquin.

Thog has green skin, so his favorable treatment obviously isn't because of fleshtone skin. In fact, it seems to me that if anything, Thog and Therkla and Redcloak tend to get more of a pass than they deserve on these forums, precisely because they have green skin.

[Cerlis]

You think Elan was smart enough to remember the children where there (if indeed they where) when he pressed it.



Have fun talking about some made up character, cus you're obviously not talking about elan

[Bleak Ink]

Personally, I don't take anything that happened before this strip seriously, alignment-wise. I just don't see the point. That wasn't the focus of the strip back then, and so any moral issues, quandaries etc. we could draw from the characters' actions have no meaningful context. It's a great thing that the comic has matured, but like a child itself, can't be held accountable for the message it conveyed in its infancy.

(Nor the message that can be inferred from it through intentionally judgmental reading.)

I am inclined to agree with you, good sir. ...Hence lurking about this thread rather than posting.

did the children Teenagers die becouse of the self-destruct?
very likely yes

should we care?
just as likely: no

as explained in the comic, the only reason they were "good" at the moment the order encountered them was becouse they wanted to do whatever pissed of their parents, meaning they were all evil, just acting like they were good. meaning that they would be just as dispicable and evil as their parents as soon as they grew out of it.

a very obvious conclusion, case dismissed

This, however, I will gladly engage in.

As you stated: no matter how they behaved, or what they claimed, or their motivations, regardless of personal action, belief or ambition, they were and always would be Evil. I believe this is your point, yes?

Now, does Monster-Race-sentenced Alignment detract from the fact that those teenagers were youths who had in all likelihood (not possibility. Likelihood.) never done anything morally or ethically corrupt enough to earn the title Evil, as, say, a human youth would?
Would killing dozens of Evil human teenagers be justified so quickly?

meaning that they would be just as dispicable and evil as their parents as soon as they grew out of it.

a very obvious conclusion, case dismissed

Despicable: an adjective. Deserving hatred and contempt.
Now, to throw further my personal opinion into this, I find using the term despicable in reference to an entire population of sentient, family-forming groups horrific. I'm not trying to verbally attack you, really I'm not... I'm just saying. It seems wrong.

Regarding the death star the first one would have only been crewed by the Imperial Military. Were they all evil? No but they were in direct opposition to the rebellion (who aren't all good) The second one was still under construction though....


Still I don't think any of the children got killed. The children would be kept someplace away from the dungeon along with the weak and infirm. The teenagers were there to learn how to be proper evil goblins. The teenagers probly booked it after getting threatend by the Order and the other evil goblin likely got away after fleeing from Belkar.

Redcloak didn't know about the survivors or didn't want them to be enslaved by Xykon anymore.

I vastly prefer this idea to the original. The thought of hundreds of families dying because of, pre-character-depth or no, Elan's lack of intelligence makes me like him less.

[Occasional Sage]

So the Chaotic Moron did something chaotic and moronic with unforeseen yet possibly terrible consequences. Give me a second, I have the New York Times on the phone.

Um, you know that the "chaotic" alignment deals with the response to laws and authority, not your ability to act rationally, right?

Personally, I don't take anything that happened before this strip seriously, alignment-wise. I just don't see the point. That wasn't the focus of the strip back then, and so any moral issues, quandaries etc. we could draw from the characters' actions have no meaningful context. It's a great thing that the comic has matured, but like a child itself, can't be held accountable for the message it conveyed in its infancy.

(Nor the message that can be inferred from it through intentionally judgmental reading.)

Hasn't Elan himself said something very similar to Haley? I don't remember the context to track it down, but she told him she was impressed by something he did, and he pointed out that the stakes have gotten higher since the early strips and it's time for him to buckle down and be more serious.

[G-Man Graves]

To anyone arguing that "Goblins are always evil, so nothing of value was lost", I regret to inform you that that's not how it works. I believe is is stated in both PHB and Book of Exalted Deeds that to kill all members of a race due to their alignment is evil. Hence, V performed and evil act, as did Elan.

[snoopy13a]

Recklessness and negligence are two different things. By using them interchangably, you are confusing the argument.

Negligence is an objective test. Basically, it is whether the conduct is unreasonable and creates a foreseeable risk of harm. The standard measured is a "reasonable person" standard. If there is gross negligence then the negligence can have criminal implications. However, if it is only simple negligence then you're dealing with tort law.

Recklessness involves two components:
1) The person's conduct must have been unreasonable and created a foreseeable risk of harm
2) The person was aware of the risk and disregarded it. Note, the person did not intend the harm.

Awareness of the risk is the difference between negligence and recklessness. Essentially, "I didn't know any better" excuses one from recklessness but not negligence.

Assuming that:

1) The Dungeon follows common-law (which is a big assumption as it might be considered a lawless area)
2) The common-law is applicable to the killing of good-aligned creatures
3) There were good-aligned creatures killed when the tower blew up

Then there are two possiblities:

1) Elan is unaware that pressing the self-destruct button will create a risk that innocents will die. However, a reasonable person would certainly be aware of this risk. If Elan can prove unawareness this then he is likely has a mens rea of criminal negligence and is either guilty of criminally negligent homicide or in some jurisdictions, manslaughter.

2) If Elan is aware that pressing the button will create a risk that innocents will die but did not intend to do so then he will have a mens rea of recklessness.

The reckless mens rea creates a new problem. Murder is defined as an unlawful killing with malice aforethought.

Malice is defined in four ways:

1) Intent to kill
2) Intent to cause grievous bodily harm that results in death
3) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human (can probably can sub in sentient here) life (called depraved indifference murder)
4) Felony Murder - death resulting from the commission or attempt of a dangerous felony such as burgarly, arson, robbery, rape, etc.

Note the third definition. A reckless unlawful killing can either be murder or manslaughter. A prosecuting attorney would argue that pressing a self-destruct button in a dungeon with innocents inside demostrates a depraved indifference to human life and constitutes murder even though the person might not have intended the death.

So, Elan could be convicted of murder if he was aware of the high risk to life created by pressing the button.
4)

[Bleak Ink]

To anyone arguing that "Goblins are always evil, so nothing of value was lost", I regret to inform you that that's not how it works. I believe is is stated in both PHB and Book of Exalted Deeds that to kill all members of a race due to their alignment is evil. Hence, V performed and evil act, as did Elan.

I love your statement, however I don't think Elan intentionally killed them. Their deaths were the result of his "shiny button, must push" mentality. Agreed, regardless.

[Dvandemon]

Because they look exactly the same.

I'm pretty sure they are meant to be the same person. The Giant clearly copied his earlier design. If he intended them to be different characters, he could have given her different clothes, for instance.

I know he said something about how many vatiations on a stick figure are there? But with only two medusas, he could certainly show variations between them.

Of course, he would go through the slight effort to make another medusa distinguishable just so the fans would not be confused

Would the Prosecution and Defense please cite any and all evidence. Elaborate all points to avoid confusion. This is a legal battle

[Cúchulainn]

OBJECTION: By the power of plot, those kids all got away!
REBUTTAL: So we reduce the charge from manslaughter to Child endangerment and Reckless endangerment . Even if the power of plot magically saves the kids, Elan still had a responsibility either to ensure their safety or to demonstrate the pressing need to destroy the dungeon despite the innocent deaths it would probably cause. He did neither. Thus in this one aspect he is worse than his father, who may be a murderer and a tyrant but we've never seen him kill a child.

THEREFORE, I conclude that Elan is a menace to any and all creatures who cross his path , who get between him and dramatic potential.

Responsibility is a big word to use against a chaotic character, especially Elan. He was under no obligations to save, warn or rescue anyone within a hostile controlled fortress, regardless of creed, race, age or for any other reason. There is no doubt in my mind that Elan acted and has always acted recklessly; he casually endangers his own team mates, of which all alignments are represented, and no one bats an eyelash. Trying to apply real world laws and the psychology they are based on to actions like these is self-defeating and pointless, it's why the infamous black dragon mother morality arguments still go on in some circles.

To the broader morality argument, from what we've seen from the comic, Roy would be equally culpable for letting someone "clearly" deranged and unbalanced as Elan walk around free before and after the events of the explosion. He was judged in heaven for Belkar's misdeeds, however Elan's alleged GREATER misdeeds were never even mentioned, so I find it hard to believe Elan is walking around with a hundred gallons of innocent blood weighing down his bags of holding.

Finally, to address the last quoted statement: no.

[pendell]

So, Elan could be convicted of murder if he was aware of the high risk to life created by pressing the button.
4)

In that case I , personally, would drop the reckless charge but hold the "negligent" charge. Because the two components of recklessness are 1) knowledge and 2) willful disregard resulting in a finding of 3) malice.

Elan is defended from the first component by virtue of being dumber than a box of rocks, . With 1 down, 2 fails. Plus, the argument of "Elan is malicious" is easily defeated by character witness -- give me the ability to show his life as seen through these strips, and I think any unbiased jury would agree Elan hasn't got a malicious bone in his body. I can't accuse him of malice with a straight face, and all here know I'm not exactly shy about nailing him when he DOES deserve it.

Remind me again how arguably causing the accidental death of a handful of maybe-Good goblins is any worse than definitely deliberately killing a whole load of probably-not-Good goblins that, really, all belong to the same team? If you're gonna condemn Elan for that, you've got to condemn the whole Order for a great many things.

I'm not seeing any argument here that Elan isn't guilty of criminally negligent homicide, only that additional charges may be filed after this court adjourns. Your motion is noted, counselor :).

Regarding the death star the first one would have only been crewed by the Imperial Military. Were they all evil? No but they were in direct opposition to the rebellion (who aren't all good) The second one was still under construction though....

The deaths of innocent people on the death star -- and if you read the novel by that same name there was at least one Alderaanian on the ship who punched out a guard for celebrating the destruction of his home planet -- could reasonably be considered "collateral damage". Military law recognizes that some civilian casualties are unavoidable in war, and they are acceptable provided 1) The deaths are incidental to a real military purpose and 2) the civilian casualties are not way out of proportion to the goal gained.

For example, if, say, a BBEG takes a hostage and uses him as a human shield, and I have no way to save the world but to kill both him and the hostage, that's collateral damage. I have no choice but to stop him, and no alternatives. It's not disproportionate. If the BBEG is hiding in a house and I wound up accidentally killing the family living there as well in the course of getting him out, that's not disproportionate. If the BBEG is hiding in a house and I destroy the whole city in the hopes of getting this one man -- that IS disproportionate. That would be wrong.

The rules of war say that because taking innocent hostages or threatening innocents is one of the first items in the BBEG handbook. That's why he's a BBEG. If you aren't willing to sacrifice innocents, you won't be able to fight him at all.

So, with that background, what military purpose was served by destroying the castle? Xykon was dead and the other goblins had surrendered. So it's not like blowing up the death star , where it was necessary to save not only Yavin 4 but any other planets the death star might reasonably destroy. So far as I can see, there is no pressing reason to destroy the dungeon, and everyone in the order except Elan thought it was a bad idea.

Still, there may be the makings of a defense case here -- we could argue that the goblin's childrens deaths were "collateral damage" in the course of a military operation , said operation being to keep the gate out of evil hands. Roy and company could reasonably argue they had no way to defend the gate , and were therefore forced to destroy it in order to safeguard the cosmos. They could also argue that they could not reasonably search and evacuate the entire dungeon, so their only recourse was to push the self-destruct button and hope that the dungeon inhabitants knew what to do in the event of self-destruct.

The weakness in that defense is it is obvious that wasn't what Elan had in mind, and I think intent matters here. Because unlike "weakening of the fabric of the universe" , which they had no reasonable way of knowing, they SHOULD reasonably know what happens when the dungeon collapses. "He didn't think it through" opens him up to charges of manslaughter, as above.

Responsibility is a big word to use against a chaotic character, especially Elan.

Responsibility -- that we demand that creatures account for their actions -- is common to all sapient beings regardless of alignment. A chaotic alignment describes how a creature meets those obligations, it does not excuse them. That's why there's a difference between "chaotic good" and "chaotic evil".

Elan has demonstrated previously that he seriously considers the impact his actions have on others. Although his mental capacity is limited, when he broke out of cliffport jail he left an apology note when he was forced to steal clothing. He chose to be faithful to Haley when tempted to take Therkla as his girlfriend. He chose to tell Haley the truth about that escapade rather than conceal it. He refused to murder Kubota when he surrendered , and then rebuked Vaarsuivius both for murdering Kubota and suggesting Elan lie about it.

Elan is not an Int-2 creature devoid of responsibility. He is a chaotic good character who, despite his humor, really does try to do right by other people he comes across. I think he's shown more character development than almost any other character in the strip. Which is why I hope he comes to the realization I've discussed and finds some way to make it right.

Trying to apply real world laws and the psychology they are based on to actions like these is self-defeating and pointless,

But it's part of the strip. We had dozens of strips worth of courtroom drama, so laws do come into play.

To the broader morality argument, from what we've seen from the comic, Roy would be equally culpable for letting someone "clearly" deranged and unbalanced as Elan walk around free before and after the events of the explosion. He was judged in heaven for Belkar's misdeeds, however Elan's alleged GREATER misdeeds were never even mentioned, so I find it hard to believe Elan is walking around with a hundred gallons of innocent blood weighing down his bags of holding.

Objection! We can only speculate at their reasons for not judging Roy's actions, and this post is already long enough :).


======
In sum, in my mind Elan is cleared of "reckless" but is still open to charges of gross negligence and possible manslaughter. We may be able to get him off that if we can demonstrate that the castle's destruction was a military necessity. Thoughts?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

Elan is the most dangerous member of the Order. Always has been. A lot of his character development after what happened with Therkla was finally realizing, oh, hey, being stupidly well-meaning doesn't guarantee people won't die.

[Nimrod's Son]

I'm not seeing any argument here that Elan isn't guilty of criminally negligent homicide, only that additional charges may be filed after this court adjourns.

That's because I haven't made an argument yet. I'm merely asking you to acknowledge that the killing of the goblin teens (a) is for all intents and purposes no worse than any of the other goblin slayings in the dungeon and (b) might not even have happened.

Your motion is noted, counselor :).

It doesn't appear that it is.

But if you're pressing additional charges: might I suggest you start with Roy, his commanding officer, who knew the stakes of the situation far better than Elan did, and despite having clear tactical direction for his other underlings gave Elan a direct order to do exactly what he pleased during the battle. Because there was no way Elan could "influence" things. Yet, as has been pointed out, we know that Celestia itself doesn't consider this as a blip.

[Warren Dew]

Now, does Monster-Race-sentenced Alignment detract from the fact that those teenagers were youths who had in all likelihood (not possibility. Likelihood.) never done anything morally or ethically corrupt enough to earn the title Evil, as, say, a human youth would?

To the contrary, in D&D beings are evil because they do evil acts. That a race is "usually evil" is shorthand for saying that individuals of that race usually do a preponderance of evil acts. Evil teenagers have done evil acts; it's not just a matter of intent.

To anyone arguing that "Goblins are always evil, so nothing of value was lost", I regret to inform you that that's not how it works. I believe is is stated in both PHB and Book of Exalted Deeds that to kill all members of a race due to their alignment is evil. Hence, V performed and evil act, as did Elan.

I've never seen anyone actually find a quote from the player's handbook saying that. Someone linked recently to the author's own post here that killing evil beings is not evil, in reference to all the baddies Roy has killed. Optional supplements often contradict each other, so while the Book of Exalted Deeds might say something like that, it wouldn't mean much.