Kobold-murdering PC. How would you handle it if you were DM?

[5ColouredWalker]

Actually, you don't, the precise wording of the BoED notwithstanding. The BoED's entire reason for existence is to discuss exalted good-

Did you read the bolded part, where it spells out that deliberately attacking a group of non-combatants with intent to kill because they were an evil race is an evil act?

Oh look, The DM even says that the BoED is in play at his table. So the DM's reading of the alignment system, and the RAW of the alignment system disagrees with this action not being evil. Depending on what sort of Lawful the Crusader is, you could argue that the action wasn't Chaotic [Say, if his rules were based off his own code, instead of Law/Religious Law.], and I'd accept that without hesitation, but the DnD universe states that his act was evil.

Where you trying to be Exalted Good, I would agree that it's irrelevent, because not showing mercy when someone surrendered would cause you to lose exalted status, but there's not evidence they weren't combatents to start with, they never attempted to fight, and you've no proof they've ever fought, making them non-combatants.

And again, this is not the point of the discussion.


As a side note to the DM, I did decide to take a quick look at the BoVD, technically what he did wasn't murder by it's definitions. If it was though, the rules would support the area creating 1-4 shades or some-such. [The area could be a 'Bad Feeling' area, an example of what creates it is a Brutal Murder (This wasn't strictly Murder, but he did beat four surrendering humanoids to death.), an example effect is an Undead arising.]. The area could also now feel wrong in some way, but it wouldn't detect as evil.

As another thought, the 'feeling wrong' may draw the dungeon to create something evil in that area to take advantage of the lingering evil, and try to make some benefit of it, say creating some 'Alway's Evil' creature which lairs in the area, that tried to increase the local evil to make more powerful effects. This could create a sub-quest where the area needs to be consecrated, and people need to hope that the Dungeon didn't permanently learn something, but was instead experimenting with the area since it felt off.

[runeghost]

Having read the OP's Update #2, I'll try to respond to the question he wants answered: how to deal with the LG PC who committed a CE act? I think the answer depends on how you handle alignment in your game. Does intent matter, and is alignment "big" or "small"?

First, intent. The OP needs to decide if the LG crusader *knew* he was committing a CE act, or if he *thought* (wrongly) that he was doing the right thing. If intent doesn't matter, then he slides an appropriate amount to the other end of the alignment spectrum no matter what. If intent does matter, then I'd suggest that he deity try corrective action rather than just letting him fall. Send him a dream, have him denied divine power until he atones, have him lectured by a superior so that he understand what he did wrong and why it was wrong.

Second, how "big" is alignment in your world? This is going to affect how far his act pushes him.

In some games, alignment is what I call "small". LG means acting like the best of the Knights of the Round Table. There's not much room for error or variation. Stealing some bread to feed a hungry family puts you right into NG. Beating up a dryad for trying to charm a party members puts you in LN. (For just but unnecessary violence.) And killing a bunch of unthreatening, defenseless kobolds drops you right out of LG in to either LN (if you had the authority but used it wrongly, or maybe even further, into marginal NG or full neutrality. (I think pushing it farther than that for a single extended act is too much, even in a tighter alignment system.)

And that's not just limited to LG. In a small-alignment world, killing goblins, especially defenseless ones, drops you right out of good, on the spot. Stealing anything, or breaking your word means that "L" is gone, no matter what it was in front of. Any unjustified killing is Evil. (Though what constitutes justified killings varies by campaign and can include a lot, sometimes.) Most NPC peasants and villagers are LN, NG, N, or CG. Many merchants and others the PCs deal with are probably CN or LE, if not worse.

"Large" alignment has a lot of room inside each alignment. LG means doing your best to be just, merciful and benevolent. But its not perfect. The king who rules reasonably well, but has normal human failings, and even gets into wars with his fellow kings can still be LG. (And so can the people he fights!) Most NPCs will be LG, or within 1 step of it. Only people living beyond civilization are really Neutral, with those who are NG generally being friendly and welcoming, though they may have their own customs which they respect. (As an extreme case, that could even potentially include burning MUs at the stake for trafficking with demons!) CG is reserved for wandering free spirits who, while well-intentioned, will *not* hold themselves bound by arbitrary laws under any circumstances - only elves and a few solitary wanderers are CG. A greedy and selfish tax collector is likely LN. Good allows for plenty of failings, as long as ones heart is in the right place. Neutrality is manifest in selfishness and thoughtlessness, or sometimes a very active quest for balance. Evil folk are those who regularly and actively seeking to injure others. An execution-happy, power-hungry king or band of murderous bandits would be "only" LE. CE is reserved for truly inhuman depths of depravity, like demons who revel in blood, fear, pain and suffering.

This is obviously a spectrum, but I think D&D originally leaned towards the "large" side of things, and that's how I play these days. It means that there's a big different between even a LG and a neutral PC. And because LG "only" means generally following the law as best the character understand it, and trying to be a decent being, I end up with a lot *more* LG and NG PCs than I used to.

Under what circumstances murder-hoboing is acceptable depends a lot more on the reality of the campaign world than on how you run alignments. Though they are obviously connected. If orcs are literally demon-spawned monstrosities moved by hatred for life, then murder-hoboing them is probably okay. If they're just people born on a different "side", well, that's a more complicated question. And if they're just people who look and live differently, that's potentially another game entirely.

I will also throw in here at the end that there is a broad convention in D&D-flavored RPGs that kobolds *are* some flavor of inherently evil, and murderhoboing them is acceptable, if not expected. So give the player the benefit of the doubt unless you know otherwise. Which doesn't mean you can't clarify how things work a little differently in your game.

[Telok]

That's a nice division Runeghost. I can see how it can be very relevant to alignment. I do something different.

In my games alignment isn't a moral code, it's a fundamental force of the universe, sort of like thermodynamics or atomic bonds. So an alignment is a supernatural aura that someone has if they take sides in a cosmic struggle. People take sides by becoming a champion of one of gods. The gods took sides long ago. All divine spellcasting classes and diety specific prestige classes give you an alignment. All the gods have specific codes of conduct (some of the more evil ones are just "kill stuff") and specific punishments. Transgressors go from warning nightmares and visions, to a reduction of divinely granted powers, to the punishments, to death. But your alignment does not change.

Someone who summons demons or animates the dead isn't [Evil], they might be a wicked nasty person who needs killing but just being annoying to your neighbors isn't [Evil]. An [Evil] person might actually be a pretty nice guy most of the time, but by chosing sides he's an agent in a cosmic cold war. He gets neat toys or powers from his patron but he also has a list of do's and dont's, is marked for death by the other sides, and the penalty for failure is worse than death.

[NichG]

Right, but over the last 12 years I've never once even seen anyone walk out for any reason resembling your two example ones. Not just in my games but in any and I've seen plenty of DMs getting flak for trying to have consequences in their games without anyone walking out over it. It could be luck of the draw with your players but by the time it happens 3 times, you should try and see if there are other explanations.

Sometimes the player walking out is a good thing. I've been in a game with a player who got grumpy every time he was told 'no' for any reason and actively tried to socially sabotage the game each time. The DM burned out pretty quickly, and it would have been better for all involved if he had just been told 'please don't come back' or decided that on his own.

[hamishspence]

In some games, alignment is what I call "small". LG means acting like the best of the Knights of the Round Table. There's not much room for error or variation. Stealing some bread to feed a hungry family puts you right into NG. Beating up a dryad for trying to charm a party members puts you in LN. (For just but unnecessary violence.) And killing a bunch of unthreatening, defenseless kobolds drops you right out of LG in to either LN (if you had the authority but used it wrongly, or maybe even further, into marginal NG or full neutrality. (I think pushing it farther than that for a single extended act is too much, even in a tighter alignment system.)

And that's not just limited to LG. In a small-alignment world, killing goblins, especially defenseless ones, drops you right out of good, on the spot. Stealing anything, or breaking your word means that "L" is gone, no matter what it was in front of. Any unjustified killing is Evil. (Though what constitutes justified killings varies by campaign and can include a lot, sometimes.) Most NPC peasants and villagers are LN, NG, N, or CG. Many merchants and others the PCs deal with are probably CN or LE, if not worse.

"Large" alignment has a lot of room inside each alignment. LG means doing your best to be just, merciful and benevolent. But its not perfect. The king who rules reasonably well, but has normal human failings, and even gets into wars with his fellow kings can still be LG. (And so can the people he fights!) Most NPCs will be LG, or within 1 step of it. Only people living beyond civilization are really Neutral, with those who are NG generally being friendly and welcoming, though they may have their own customs which they respect. (As an extreme case, that could even potentially include burning MUs at the stake for trafficking with demons!) CG is reserved for wandering free spirits who, while well-intentioned, will *not* hold themselves bound by arbitrary laws under any circumstances - only elves and a few solitary wanderers are CG. A greedy and selfish tax collector is likely LN. Good allows for plenty of failings, as long as ones heart is in the right place. Neutrality is manifest in selfishness and thoughtlessness, or sometimes a very active quest for balance. Evil folk are those who regularly and actively seeking to injure others. An execution-happy, power-hungry king or band of murderous bandits would be "only" LE. CE is reserved for truly inhuman depths of depravity, like demons who revel in blood, fear, pain and suffering.

I prefer to think of it this way - "Large" Good and Evil categories, mean that Good can be anything from saintly to only a little bit altruistic and self-sacrificing toward strangers - and Evil can be anything from truly vile to merely a little crueller than the average.

[Socksy]

If Races of the Dragon is not explicitly in play at the table, it has all the relevance to said table as Where's Waldo?

While that's true, the Kobolds-as-PCs thing was in the Monster Manual too, and I'm pretty sure that one's in play.

Right, but over the last 12 years I've never once even seen anyone walk out for any reason resembling your two example ones. Not just in my games but in any and I've seen plenty of DMs getting flak for trying to have consequences in their games without anyone walking out over it. It could be luck of the draw with your players but by the time it happens 3 times, you should try and see if there are other explanations.

20 years and 3 players works out as one every 6 or 7 years.

[Hawkstar]

That's a nice division Runeghost. I can see how it can be very relevant to alignment. I do something different.

In my games alignment isn't a moral code, it's a fundamental force of the universe, sort of like thermodynamics or atomic bonds. So an alignment is a supernatural aura that someone has if they take sides in a cosmic struggle. People take sides by becoming a champion of one of gods. The gods took sides long ago. All divine spellcasting classes and diety specific prestige classes give you an alignment. All the gods have specific codes of conduct (some of the more evil ones are just "kill stuff") and specific punishments. Transgressors go from warning nightmares and visions, to a reduction of divinely granted powers, to the punishments, to death. But your alignment does not change.

This is kind of how I use alignment as well, except without Gods as middlemen in the struggle.

Someone who summons demons or animates the dead isn't [Evil], they might be a wicked nasty person who needs killing but just being annoying to your neighbors isn't [Evil]. An [Evil] person might actually be a pretty nice guy most of the time, but by chosing sides he's an agent in a cosmic cold war. He gets neat toys or powers from his patron but he also has a list of do's and dont's, is marked for death by the other sides, and the penalty for failure is worse than death.

I'd say someone who summons demons and animates dead are [Evil], or are [Neutral] (But have [Evil] support), but simply because those are powers exclusive to those of [Evil] alignment, and [Neutral] people Evil sometimes supports. And, of course, being a wicked, nasty person that needs killing generally puts someone as [Evil] not as a conscious choice, but because they embody [Evil]'s ideals and advance its cause by being an exemplar of [Evil]. "What would the world look like if everyone acted like you" is one way to determine Alignment.

[Hawkstar]

While that's true, the Kobolds-as-PCs thing was in the Monster Manual too, and I'm pretty sure that one's in play.

Do keep in mind that the Monster Manual also has several Demons and Devils as playable characters (Non-"-" level adjustment), and it's "Kobolds as Characters" (As in "Kobolds with Classes and Class Levels"), not "Kobolds as Player Characters"

[goto124]

"What would the world look like if everyone acted like you" is one way to determine Alignment.

I thought it would determine Lawfulness, but that's best left for another thread.

[AxeAlex]

The posters that want to make me into the bad guy are making some pretty big assumptions about things I've done and making "points" based on those assumptions as if they are facts. The really ironic part is the main criticism is that I haven't communicated OOC, an assumption reliant upon ignoring things I have pretty clearly communicated multiple times in this thread.

Point taken.

I don't want to make you into a bad guy even if I try to stand up for the guy who can't speak for himself in this thread. I don't even think you did wrong. And, for the record, I too prefer moral complexity and "monsters" with "realistic" motivations and goals.

But, honestly, i've never seen anytime a GM and a Player go into an in-game "arms-race" to see who will "win and teach the other" that ever turned out well.

You communicated with the guy, good, but his actions seems to either indicate that either he didn't care, either he didn't get it. Or even something ELSE, since he is not here to explain or defend himself. Maybe he thinks you are unfair (EX: that you favor the other players), or that your have a flawed vision of D&D (EX: Monsters are not meant to be talked to), or whatever else that makes him think he is right and your are wrong.

Now if he didn't care, I think you should explain to him that his in-game actions are ruining the experience for others, and that it is a cooperative game, a team game. And that he should make efforts to get along with the other characters JUST AS THE OTHERS GUYS ARE MAKING EFFORT TO STICK WITH HIM.

Because honestly, the rest of the group would NOT tag along his psychotic character, so they are twisting their character's personality and goals and the whole versimilitude of the universe by accepting to travel with him. Why would the burden of making the group work fall on the other players, but not him? That's unfair.

If it's anything else (He didn't get it, he thinks you are wrong, etc.), it can ALSO be solved entirely OOC without having to resort to in-game "punishment".

Now, some ideas in this thread are smooth enough to deliver a message without being confrontational or claiming moral superiority and exclusivity, but I think the problems comes from OOC issues, you seem to think so yourself.

[BootStrapTommy]

Do keep in mind that the Monster Manual also has several Demons and Devils as playable characters (Non-"-" level adjustment), and it's "Kobolds as Characters" (As in "Kobolds with Classes and Class Levels"), not "Kobolds as Player Characters"

Just checked the 3.5 MM. No rules under "demon" or "devil" for PCs. As for kobold, the heading is specifically "Kobold Players" not "Kobolds with Class Levels".

"What would the world look like if everyone acted like you" is one way to determine Alignment.

For a real life comparison of how this kind of reasoning is used see Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

[Hawkstar]

Just checked the 3.5 MM. No rules under "demon" or "devil" for PCs. As for kobold, the heading is specifically "Kobold Players" not "Kobolds with Class Levels".

The heading is "Kobold Characters", not "Kobold Players"

And under "Demon" and "Devil", several of the entries have "Level Adjustment: +[X]", which means that yes, it can be a PC.

[LibraryOgre]

This wasn't a "gotcha scenario." This was a communication breakdown between a DM who assumed - reasonably, given the evolution of the game - that an intelligent creature which posed no threat would be taken as such, and a player who assumed - as you seem to - that Kobolds are walking bags of xp.

I'm not so sure I agree with that, given the situation of the game... monsters that appear in the dungeon become more powerful as time goes by. If you're viewing kobolds as monsters, then eliminating them early is a different situation.

[BootStrapTommy]

The heading is "Kobold Characters", not "Kobold Players"

And under "Demon" and "Devil", several of the entries have "Level Adjustment: +[X]", which means that yes, it can be a PC.

Every stat block in the MM has the Level Adjustment entry. And for the record, there's a huge difference between having a marked Level Adjustment and explicitly having a table describing how to stat it out as character.

[neonagash]

The "40 years of gaming history and player expectations" were broken decades ago, when people started exploring the complexities of actually talking to the monsters instead of simply killing them. The broken bits were smashed further when, in 3.5, Kobolds - among other traditional "monstrous" races - were statted for play. And the broken, smashed bits were then violated by a passing dog when, in Races of the Dragon, WotC went into extensive detail about Kobold society, psychology, and daily life. This isn't a new, sudden invention by the DM that runs afoul of years of tradition and rules; it's a perfectly reasonable action taken by a DM who has read the books.

This wasn't a "gotcha scenario." This was a communication breakdown between a DM who assumed - reasonably, given the evolution of the game - that an intelligent creature which posed no threat would be taken as such, and a player who assumed - as you seem to - that Kobolds are walking bags of xp.

None of that stuff changed them from being monsters. It just made them better thought out monsters.

Statting for play didn't change anything either. Hell with savage species you could reasonably play anything in the book if you wanted to. That doesn't mean nothing in the book is a monster anymore.

[Keltest]

None of that stuff changed them from being monsters. It just made them better thought out monsters.

Statting for play didn't change anything either. Hell with savage species you could reasonably play anything in the book if you wanted to. That doesn't mean nothing in the book is a monster anymore.

What exactly are you using to define them as monsters? That theyre in the monster manual?

[neonagash]

Are you seriously suggesting that the idea that not literally every single ugly critter commits a capital crime by existing is not only new to D&D, but that it actually needs to be justified? If so, I hate to tell you this, but you haven't exactly been spending those last 40 years with your finger on the pulse of gaming culture.

You think forums are gaming culture? LOL. gaming culture is the 95% of gamers who have never been on a forum and don't care about any of this crap.

Forums are a tiny percentage of GMs. That's all. Nothing we talk about here or elsewhere represents gaming culture.

[Keltest]

You think forums are gaming culture? LOL. gaming culture is the 95% of gamers who have never been on a forum and don't care about any of this crap.

Forums are a tiny percentage of GMs. That's all. Nothing we talk about here or elsewhere represents gaming culture.

112% of statistics on the internet are made up.

[Hawkstar]

Every stat block in the MM has the Level Adjustment entry. And for the record, there's a huge difference between having a marked Level Adjustment and explicitly having a table describing how to stat it out as character.

That's because, being 1HD humanoids, Kobolds have special rules for being characters that aren't covered in the DMG.

[TheIronGolem]

You think forums are gaming culture? LOL. gaming culture is the 95% of gamers who have never been on a forum and don't care about any of this crap.

Forums are a tiny percentage of GMs. That's all. Nothing we talk about here or elsewhere represents gaming culture.

Strawman. I'm talking about a lot more than just forum discussions; this is something that comes up all the time in both in-person discussions and actual live-table games, has done so for decades, and has been applied to just about every "monster" race up to and including demons. Maybe you've only played in beer-and-preztel games where 100% of all kobolds/orcs/whatever are irredeemably evil monsters that should be killed on sight. And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. But don't try and sell me on the notion that any deviation from that model is new or strange, because I damn well know better.

I'll also note that nobody's fooled by your attempt to suggest that thousands of gamers discussing games and gaming somehow "doesn't count" as gaming culture just because they do it on Internet forums.

[LibraryOgre]

What exactly are you using to define them as monsters? That theyre in the monster manual?

We are all in the Monster Manual somewhere, are we not? My entry lies between Elemental and Ethereal Filcher."

(Incidentally, in post 2e editions of the game, that means only Humans are not monsters; 1e, 2e, and Classic all had humans in the MM).

[Keltest]

(Incidentally, in post 2e editions of the game, that means only Humans are not monsters; 1e, 2e, and Classic all had humans in the MM).

Indeed. I would suggest that "is a monster" makes a pretty bad justification for killing something using that definition.

[LibraryOgre]

Indeed. I would suggest that "is a monster" makes a pretty bad justification for killing something using that definition.

Sure, but then we can talk about the broader definition of monster in the game world.

Previous editions made the semi-arbitrary distinction of humans, demi-humans, semi-humans and humanoids. Humans were self-explanatory; semi-humans were half-elves and half-orcs, demi-humans were "those non-human, yet humanoid, races who are generally good and allied with humans", and humanoids were "those non-human, yet humanoid, races who are generally non-good and not allied with humans." So the Neutral lizardmen were humanoids, as were the evil orcs and kobolds. The settings assumed a more or less constant war between "humanoids" and the humans and demi-humans.

As noted, humans and demi-humans (and semi-humans, but they were usually rolled into the demi-human category) were given a lot more agency than humanoids. You COULD wind up dealing with an evil elf who was simply an evil elf, and certainly you could encounter evil humans (there were, in fact, a couple MM entries specifically of evil humans, IIRC), but you would seldom encounter a good orc or goblin who wasn't somehow special (the exception were Dragonlance Minotaurs, whose place in the world somewhat upgraded them to demi-humans, so good minotaurs were somewhat less rare, especially thanks to Richard Knaak).

Did the 3.x DMGs go into alignment demographics among populations? If a population is "Usually" LE, what does that say about the population of LN and NE? CE, N, and LG? NG and CN? CG? What kind of probability are we looking at that you'll meet a LE elf, instead of a CE one? I'd think that if a society has a heavy predisposition towards a given alignment, the next most common alignments would be those within one step of that predisposed alignment, and the least likely would be those that are 4 steps away (LE to CG, LG to CE). A LN person in a LE society is going to have some trouble, as will a NE person in the same society... but a CE person will be trouble. A LG person will be trouble. A CG person in a LE society? They're so far gone, they might as well be crazy.

[BootStrapTommy]

(Incidentally, in post 2e editions of the game, that means only Humans are not monsters; 1e, 2e, and Classic all had humans in the MM).

Not an entirely relevant correction, but humans do make an appearance in 5e MM, in the NPCs sections where most archetypes are default stated out as human.

[neonagash]

What exactly are you using to define them as monsters? That theyre in the monster manual?

That would be a good start.

Add in generally and historically evil. As well as pretty much always worshipping evil dragons and evil gods in the lore of various editions. And theres more then enough to label them monsters.

Add in the fact these particular ones were discovered inside of a magical monster summoning and empowering dungeon and I would have done the same thing as a character.

[neonagash]

Strawman. I'm talking about a lot more than just forum discussions; this is something that comes up all the time in both in-person discussions and actual live-table games, has done so for decades, and has been applied to just about every "monster" race up to and including demons. Maybe you've only played in beer-and-preztel games where 100% of all kobolds/orcs/whatever are irredeemably evil monsters that should be killed on sight. And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. But don't try and sell me on the notion that any deviation from that model is new or strange, because I damn well know better.

I'll also note that nobody's fooled by your attempt to suggest that thousands of gamers discussing games and gaming somehow "doesn't count" as gaming culture just because they do it on Internet forums.

Thousands? Try a couple hundred active posters. Between all the boards.

[TheIronGolem]

Thousands? Try a couple hundred active posters. Between all the boards.

All what boards? Are you now moving the goalposts by claiming that by "forums" you exclusively meant the Playground? So do all other forums suddenly count as gaming culture and this one doesn't?

I'd invite you to retrace your steps now, because you've strayed far from your position of "murdering helpless kobolds isn't evil because they don't exist in real life", the defense of which you've apparently abandoned.

[BootStrapTommy]

Thousands? Try a couple hundred active posters. Between all the boards.

You have little actual knowledge of the scope of the Internet, don't you?

[cucchulainnn]

as someone who has played on and off since 1979 or so, it was always understood that monsters was anything not controlled by a player. it wasn't until i started playing MMOs in the early 2000's that i had heard the term NPC which i felt worked better and started using it too.

when i say it was understood, we didn't have a meeting to determine it. that is just the way it was used.

it seems to me that this player enjoys playing murderhobos where the rest of them don't, not a bid deal in the long run. different play styes and all.

[Diamondeye]

Did you read the bolded part, where it spells out that deliberately attacking a group of non-combatants with intent to kill because they were an evil race is an evil act?

Yes I did, and I explained that the BoED is not always in play.

Oh look, The DM even says that the BoED is in play at his table. So the DM's reading of the alignment system, and the RAW of the alignment system disagrees with this action not being evil. Depending on what sort of Lawful the Crusader is, you could argue that the action wasn't Chaotic [Say, if his rules were based off his own code, instead of Law/Religious Law.], and I'd accept that without hesitation, but the DnD universe states that his act was evil.

A) Did the player fully understand and have access to the BoED? The DM will of course say "yes" but even if he's telling the truth as he understands it the player might not understand it or have read it as thorougly as he thinks. I am pretty sure he has not memorized it.
B) This brings us back to the issue of what the DM is actually complaining about. If the player chose the wrong alignment because he customarily plays that way, it's a simple matter of correcting his alignment entry. There's no cause to complain about "murder" and it shouldn't annoy anyone after that. If it's that the player just kills everything and destroys encounters for everyone else then it's either disruptive play, or the player does NOT understand alignments as well as the DM thinks.

Where you trying to be Exalted Good, I would agree that it's irrelevent, because not showing mercy when someone surrendered would cause you to lose exalted status, but there's not evidence they weren't combatents to start with, they never attempted to fight, and you've no proof they've ever fought, making them non-combatants.

And again, this is not the point of the discussion.

Not only is it not, but "noncombatants" is not a meaningful concept in DND. In fact, it's rather rapidly ceasing to have meaning in the real world, but I don't have time to give you a class on the realities of what combat is actually like as opposed to the sanitized version the public demands from the comfort of their easy chairs.

Fundamentally, the problem is that people have a hard time with the idea that "good" in the game doesn't always correspond to what we think is "good" in real life. There are reasons for this, most revolving around people being uncomfortable with the idea that their personal idea of good may not be as absolute as they think. More importantly though, real world ideas of good may be simply fundamentally unworkable in fantasy worlds. For some reason though it seems very hard for people to grasp that game good and evil are not commentary on people's real character.

I've seen no shortage of people on this very forum saying precisely that, in some cases implying someone needs psychological help for disagreeing with them. Aside from the absurdity of trying to diagnose mental illness over a game discussion forum there is a large portion of the game community that takes itself and its GAMES way too seriously.

Murder, n., the unlawful killing of a person, especially with malice aforethought

Murder is defined not by its moral quality, but by whether it is lawful.

This is true. Therefore, one ought to be pointing to a law prohibiting killing "noncombatants" in the self-regenerating dungeon and arguing if this action is chaotic.

And for the last time, the literature does not explicitly state that kobold are inherently Evil! There is no line in any 3.5 material which states "Kobold will always be Evil and irredeemable in the eyes of the Alignment system" like there is for demons and devils. Since that is the case, you're the one begging the question by discounting the act on the supposition that the kobolds were Evil.

Yes it does. It states they are usually evil. That points to evil being inherent in their nature. Why else would they be usually evil as opposed to, say, halflings, who are not? Because they're uglier?

You are assuming that a creature is only inherently evil if it is supernaturally so. There is no reason for this to be the case. There is no reason a creature can't overcome it's "inherent" qualities either. It's a fantasy world.

The assumption is not safe if the objective reality of the situation contradicts the assumption.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The assumption is made BEFORE the player/character find out the facts. If they had the facts, they wouldn't need to assume, now, would they?

Sure, statistically you might be more likely to be right, but that doesn't preclude being wrong.

Obviously. So what?

I'm not attempting to apply any legal concept there. I'm applying common sense. In a world were it's easy to objectively prove Evil, acting without doing so is a bit lazy. You can totally do it, but if you get it wrong you've no one to blame but yourself. What consequences naturally flow from that only make sense.

Not everyone has ready access to the means to do so. Everyone is not capable of casting alignment-determining magic. Even classes that can often don't have it available. As for "Common sense", that's just a code for "I'm going to argue my own argument makes more sense because I say it does." Don't appeal to "common sense".

But if the kobold are not Evil, than the Crusader's judgement that they were does not reflect an objective reality. Namely the objective reality that, despite his belief otherwise, the kobolds were not actually Evil. His judgement was wrong. Regardless of how the Crusader felt about it, it does not correspond to the objective reality that these particular kobolds existed within that group of kobolds not included in the qualifier "usually".

It does not matter that his judgement was wrong; it was reasonable under the circumstances. Koblods are generally evil, they were in this "regenerating dungeon", and kobolds are know to employ subterfuge regularly.

That's how objective realities work. They correspond to what actually is the case, not what we believe is.

Which is irrelevant. The existence of facts an actor is not aware of at the time do not affect the morality of his actions. In real life they don't even affect the LEGALITY of his actions. Mistake of fact is a defense to many offenses, especially when the actor could not reasonbly have known all the facts.