Is it evil to kill neutral monsters?

[Florian]

@Jon_Dahl:

Correct me if I´m wrong, but all of that leaves me with the impression that you want to create a moral Dilemma where none has to be.

[Clistenes]

Villagers tell a story about a snakelike monster of a lake. It hasn't done anything, but the villagers have spotted it and they are scared to death. A band of adventurers ambush it (it sometimes visits the beach for unknown reason to pick up some roots), almost kill it, but it pleads for it life and promises to reward the PCs if the spare its life. The adventurers spare its life and receive lots of gold. They never bother the water naga again, even though they didn't know it was one.

This was just one example. Some monsters, that really look like monsters, are neutral, and they are rich, and no one likes them. Can they be attacked, killed, robbed, without losing your good/neutral alignment?

The way you tell it, the naga was minding its own business and the players were a bunch of muggers. Yes, they would shift one step from Good to Evil and from Law to Chaos.

I mean, if how an intelligent creature looks were enough reason to kill it, then Dragons, Mindflayers and Beholders are fully justified to kill and eat humans, because humans don't look anything like them...

Now, if they attacked the naga by mistake, they would get a pass, but they shouldn't take the gold if they want to keep their Good alignment.

[Jon_Dahl]

@Jon_Dahl:

Correct me if I´m wrong, but all of that leaves me with the impression that you want to create a moral Dilemma where none has to be.

Of course. Why not?

[ThisIsZen]

The way you tell it, the naga was minding its own business and the players were a bunch of muggers. Yes, they would shift one step from Good to Evil and from Law to Chaos.

I mean, if how an intelligent creature looks were enough reason to kill it, then Dragons, Mindflayers and Beholders are fully justified to kill and eat humans, because humans don't look anything like them...

Now, if they attacked the naga by mistake, they would get a pass, but they shouldn't take the gold if they want to keep their Good alignment.

I don't think individual actions should result in alignment shifts, except in extreme circumstances, and this doesn't feel like that to me. Also, why a shift towards chaos?

[Albions_Angel]

Speaking as someone who tried to create a moral dilemma only to have my group ignore it for 10 sessions then implode violently on the 11th, settling 30 year old out of character grievances in game, when the rest of us didnt know such grievances existed, be very, very careful.

Look, moral issues can be brought up by a DM, and sometimes should be. Simple "are you sure you want to do that?" comments. But also be careful that your players dont feel tricked into doing things by you (being tricked by characters is one thing, being misled by the DM is another). This naga situation that you proposed. I cant tell if its a fake situation or not, but lets assume its not for now.

Are the players adventurers for hire? Have they been killing monsters the entire game? Did you make the villagers seem scared of the creature? Did you ask them for knowledge checks when they saw it? If you did, did you tell them the typical alignment of such creatures (a fairly common bit of knowledge they should get along with the creatures name. Come on, everyone knows undead are evil for example, and to never trust a fey, highlighting that one is of evil alignment and one is usually chaotic, and often evil). Did the Naga instantly fight back before submitting? Was the naga armed? Did you mention its appearance in a negative way?

If you didnt give them warning it was neutral, or made them think, through subtle hints, that it was evil, then their actions ARE ON YOU. No one else. Players, and their characters, will do logical things. If they have been monster hunters for 3 years, they will kill monsters on sight if people tell them they are scared. And thats not a evil act, even if the monster turns out to be good. Its not a good act, but it is basically true neutral. Its the normal action. The standard. the more you push the players to become accustomed to that, the more you reward them for striking first and asking second, the more YOU push that act to be GOOD AND LAWFUL.

Be very careful with moral dilemmas. I learned a lot from my last campaign. I will modify, and strive to make my players think again, but I wont be forcing such choices on them ever again.

[Jon_Dahl]

Speaking as someone who tried to create a moral dilemma only to have my group ignore it for 10 sessions then implode violently on the 11th, settling 30 year old out of character grievances in game, when the rest of us didnt know such grievances existed, be very, very careful.

You tempt me to find out if such grievance exist at my table.

[Clistenes]

I don't think individual actions should result in alignment shifts, except in extreme circumstances, and this doesn't feel like that to me. Also, why a shift towards chaos?

Stealing is chaotic.

In some cases, a lone action could be enough. If a "Lawful Good" character assaults and mugs a traveler in a road, well, sorry, that's not a a Lawful Good character. If a "Neutral Good" character kills baby kobolds, that isn't a Neutral Good character.

In this case, depending on the naga's reaction and words and on how much the characters knew, I think it could be enough. If they knew that the naga hasn't hurt anybody, and the naga was crying "why are you hurting me? I have done nothing wrong!" while they attacked it, and after surrounding it explained that it had never hurt anybody and never would do, and they still took the money instead of apologizing... Well, that's not different from kicking the door of your neighbour and punching him until he gives you his life savings.

[Darth Ultron]

Villagers tell a story about a snakelike monster of a lake. It hasn't done anything, but the villagers have spotted it and they are scared to death. A band of adventurers ambush it (it sometimes visits the beach for unknown reason to pick up some roots), almost kill it, but it pleads for it life and promises to reward the PCs if the spare its life. The adventurers spare its life and receive lots of gold. They never bother the water naga again, even though they didn't know it was one.

This was just one example. Some monsters, that really look like monsters, are neutral, and they are rich, and no one likes them. Can they be attacked, killed, robbed, without losing your good/neutral alignment?

It does depend on how you want to play alignments.

1. Can a good person kill any evil person always, yes or no? For the classic game this answer is easy: yes. Any good person can freely kill any evil person at any time.

2. Can a good person kill any neutral person always, yes or no? Again, for most classic games the answer is easy: yes. Any good person can freely kill any neutral person at any time.

If you want to answer ''no'' to one or both questions.....well, now your entering crazy lawyer lands. Now you have to sit down and work out a complex alignment frame work of how/why/when/where can good kill.

And it's endless. Just take the example. Ok, so who owned the lake? Anyone? Was the naga trespassing? Does the naga have to obey human laws? Do humans have to obey naga laws? If the naga knew the locals were ''crazy idiots'', why did it scare them? And so on.

[Cosi]

Stealing is chaotic.

But murdering someone and taking all their stuff is lawful. Also good. As long as those people are evil. If adventuring is morally acceptable, I don't understand how theft could possibly not be.

If a "Neutral Good" character kills baby kobolds, that isn't a Neutral Good character.

But those Kobolds are evil. Was murdering their parents evil? If not, why is murdering their children evil?

D&D alignment is insane. Attempting to enforce definitions of good that people use in the real world on it gives you insane results. The issue in question is just a case of poor communication, which is not enough to make someone fall under any reasonable definition.

[The Grue]

To answer the question in the title, "Is it evil to kill neutral monsters?", we are effectively asking the question "Is killing an inherently evil act?" Well, even Good adventurers kill things all the time, so evidently not. This answer also serves the more detailed example in the OP.

However, this answer is a problem for anyone who recognizes the difference between ethics and D&D Ethics.

[Cosi]

To answer the question in the title, "Is it evil to kill neutral monsters?", we are effectively asking the question "Is killing an inherently evil act?" Well, even Good adventurers kill things all the time, so evidently not.

But they're killing evil things. You know, like Orcs. Or Goblins. Or Kobolds. Things that need a good killing.

The disturbing implications of that moral stance are left as an exercise for the reader.

[Necroticplague]

To answer the question in the title, "Is it evil to kill neutral monsters?", we are effectively asking the question "Is killing an inherently evil act?" Well, even Good adventurers kill things all the time, so evidently not. This answer also serves the more detailed example in the OP.

However, this answer is a problem for anyone who recognizes the difference between ethics and D&D Ethics.

Killing isn't evil. Murder, on the other hand, is. Killing something for a good reason (they regularly raid us, burn our crops, attacked us first....) is neutral, and may even rarely be Good. However, attacking something for no reason beyond what boils down to racism, is evil. It's one thing if they were neutral, but still detrimental (the deer may not be evil, but nobodies losing sleep over shooting one to keep it off a farm). This naga wasn't even that. If you replaced the naga with a human sorceror picking spell components, would this even be a question at all?

[Âmesang]

But they're killing evil things. You know, like Orcs. Or Goblins. Or Kobolds. Things that need a good killing.

The disturbing implications of that moral stance are left as an exercise for the reader.

"So what you're saying is the best way to combat murder and thievery… is with murder and thievery."
"What? My character sheet says I'm Good! It's okay if I do it!"

[Anlashok]

But murdering someone and taking all their stuff is lawful. Also good. As long as those people are evil. If adventuring is morally acceptable, I don't understand how theft could possibly not be.

Do you really need someone to explain to you why there's a difference between killing, say, a band of marauding orcs who have been pillaging and murdering and killing an innocent person who has done nothing wrong?

The distinction does not seem like a particularly hard one to make.

But those Kobolds are evil. Was murdering their parents evil? If not, why is murdering their children evil?

Well, probably because they're children and in this example it doesn't appear they have committed any evil acts?

Doesn't sound nearly as insane as you make it out to be.

Again, for most classic games the answer is easy: yes.

What 'classic' game? I don't think I've ever heard anyone in any game ever describe good as "freely able to kill anyone that isn't also good at any time for any reason". That doesn't even make sense "classic" or not.

The disturbing implications of that moral stance are left as an exercise for the reader.

The 'disturbing' implications of the stance that sometimes when people do bad things you have to kill them? I don't think that's particularly shocking, even if it is disappointing.

[Cosi]

Killing something for a good reason (they regularly raid us, burn our crops, attacked us first....) is neutral, and may even rarely be Good.

Do you really need someone to explain to you why there's a difference between killing, say, a band of marauding orcs who have been pillaging and murdering and killing an innocent person who has done nothing wrong?

If retaliating against the Orcs for their raiding parties is good, then retaliating against the Humans for their raiding parties is necessarily also good. They are the same thing. Either they are morally the same, or your moral system is incredibly racist.

Well, probably because they're children and in this example it doesn't appear they have committed any evil acts?

But that is not in fact how D&D morality works. D&D morality is not utilitarian. You aren't evil because you spend your free time abusing puppies or murdering children. You are evil because your alignment line says "evil". The alignment line of baby Kobolds says evil exactly as much as the alignment line of adult Kobolds does. How, according to game morals, is killing the adults okay but killing the babies not?

The 'disturbing' implications of the stance that sometimes when people do bad things you have to kill them? I don't think that's particularly shocking, even if it is disappointing.

The horrifying part isn't that people use lethal force like that (although to be frank, that is horrifying). It's that there are "evil races" that you get to kill. That is not on any level okay. At least, not if the game asks you to think about morality in any depth.

[Anlashok]

If retaliating against the Orcs for their raiding parties is good, then retaliating against the Humans for their raiding parties is necessarily also good. They are the same thing. Either they are morally the same, or your moral system is incredibly racist.

Well, yeah. And virtually every D&D campaign I've ever played in or seen or heard about has human or elf or so on bandits or cultists or necromancers or whatever. And I've seen more than a few campaigns with good orcs. So I'm not seeing a huge problem.

But that is not in fact how D&D morality works. D&D morality is not utilitarian. You aren't evil because you spend your free time abusing puppies or murdering children. You are evil because your alignment line says "evil". The alignment line of baby Kobolds says evil exactly as much as the alignment line of adult Kobolds does. How, according to game morals, is killing the adults okay but killing the babies not?

Because a respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings are two explicit features of the Good alignment in D&D.

So killing a group of kobolds who have been undermining a dwarven stronghold is one thing, but certainly not the children or members of the kobold tribe that surrender or what have you.


Now, yeah, there are campaigns that don't have as many hard, moral questions in them, but those campaigns won't present these questions in the first place because the bad guys will be obviously bad guys and there won't be prisoners of war and children that you have to consider in the first place, because those campaigns aren't designed for such.

[Necroticplague]

If retaliating against the Orcs for their raiding parties is good, then retaliating against the Humans for their raiding parties is necessarily also good. They are the same thing. Either they are morally the same, or your moral system is incredibly racist.

Not sure why you're quoting me. I completely agree with you on that point.

The horrifying part isn't that people use lethal force like that (although to be frank, that is horrifying). It's that there are "evil races" that you get to kill. That is not on any level okay. At least, not if the game asks you to think about morality in any depth.

Amen to this. Always found the idea of an inherently evil non-outsider really weird. I just assume it was a relic of older times (i.e, it looks like an implicit O.K. of racism because nobody saw anything wrong with that at the time).

[Cosi]

Well, yeah. And virtually every D&D campaign I've ever played in or seen or heard about has human or elf or so on bandits or cultists or necromancers or whatever. And I've seen more than a few campaigns with good orcs. So I'm not seeing a huge problem.

First, I don't think that's typical overall.

Second, evil humans or elves are typically individuals who are personally culpable, while orcs are culturally guilty.

Third, evil humans and elves make things worse for good, not better. If the cities of orcs will accept humans and elves (even if they are the evil dark-skinned elves) and the cities of humans will not accept orcs, then those cities are more tolerant and, by modern standards, more good.

Because a respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings are two explicit features of the Good alignment in D&D.

But you totally just killed those kobold adults. You did not, instead, take them prisoner and justly try them for their crimes. Yes, killing children is worse but that is in so small part because it is more obviously abhorrent, not because it violates some different principle.

Not sure why you're quoting me. I completely agree with you on that point.

Editing. The original draft of that post had a bit specific to you (and that line) about cycles of vengeance (we raid them because they raid us) being pointless, but I ended up truncating it.

Amen to this. Always found the idea of an inherently evil non-outsider really weird. I just assume it was a relic of older times (i.e, it looks like an implicit O.K. of racism because nobody saw anything wrong with that at the time).

Yep. Old school D&D has even more explicit and uncomfortable racist parallels, like the pygmies. There are deep problems with race in the fantasy genre, especially when you consider that orcs and humans can interbreed (and are therefore the same species). Even classics like LotR are, albeit unintentionally, racist and anti-modernism.

[Florian]

Of course. Why not?

Because it doesn´t work out and doesn´t create a fulfilling game experience, that´s why. D&D/PF doesn´t cover the whole "Moral Dilemma" thing well and can only offer the stick, no carrot here. Either you play a class that can fall or you simply don´t care at all in that regard.

[Jon_Dahl]

Because it doesn´t work out and doesn´t create a fulfilling game experience, that´s why. D&D/PF doesn´t cover the whole "Moral Dilemma" thing well and can only offer the stick, no carrot here. Either you play a class that can fall or you simply don´t care at all in that regard.

My players always care about everything.

[Anlashok]

First, I don't think that's typical overall.

Looking over a few campaign ideas and modules and such, more often than not the worst villains I tend to find are humans and elves or undead that used to be humans and elves.

And evil dragons and outsiders but that's another subject entirely.

But you totally just killed those kobold adults. You did not, instead, take them prisoner and justly try them for their crimes. Yes, killing children is worse but that is in so small part because it is more obviously abhorrent, not because it violates some different principle.

Yes, the kobold adults that we just established were attacking people.

Forget the child argument entirely: A group of kobolds attack a character. The character kills them. A second group of kobolds surrenders to the character and the character does not kill them. There's no moral or ethical inconsistency here and I'm not sure why you're insisting there is one.

[Cosi]

Yes, the kobold adults that we just established were attacking people.

I'm going to have to contest that. The question posed by the OP was "is it wrong to attack someone unprovoked if they are neutral". Implying that it is in fact totally okay to attack people unprovoked if they are evil rather than neutral.

[Anlashok]

I'm going to have to contest that. The question posed by the OP was "is it wrong to attack someone unprovoked if they are neutral". Implying that it is in fact totally okay to attack people unprovoked if they are evil rather than neutral.

Well, in the specific example we were talking about where people were positing that it was a good act to slaughter children the kobolds were attack people.

The particular question in the OP got answered a while ago. It's not a good act to attack someone without provocation.

[Clistenes]

But murdering someone and taking all their stuff is lawful. Also good. As long as those people are evil. If adventuring is morally acceptable, I don't understand how theft could possibly not be.



But those Kobolds are evil. Was murdering their parents evil? If not, why is murdering their children evil?

D&D alignment is insane. Attempting to enforce definitions of good that people use in the real world on it gives you insane results. The issue in question is just a case of poor communication, which is not enough to make someone fall under any reasonable definition.

I don't usually play games about murdering innocent people, but most often about protecting innocent people against monsters.

I don't think anybody would have any objections to say killing a person-eating troll or bugbear to protect a farmer, even in real life.

[Coidzor]

Of course. Why not?

Well, it doesn't seem to fit with what your group wants, going off the example in the OP.

[Sheogoroth]

I would say that it depends on reason and perspective.

If you are cruel and enjoy torturing rats with a hacksaw, that's pretty evil. But putting out a rat trap to kill rats in your basement is not evil.

It's like the fascinating 3E deity Zarus- basically the Human Paragon deity that believes that humanity is the superior race. Now, D&D has him at LE, but he isn't arguing genocide, merely Jingoism and xenophobia which seems more like LN.

I think the ethics of killing in this case are move of a scale. I don't think the racism argument works here, since ethnicity is comparatively a single level of separation with culture and various minor appearance(skin tone, height, etc.) Then you throw into the mix humanoids of different races, but generally the same, and your are dealing with major genetic differences(life-span, several feet in height differences, tusks, tails, vastly different colors, extra appendages, etc.) that's two degrees of separation in my book, a little more understandable, prejudices could be maintained without an evil alignment, one could argue evil seizure of land or 2nd class citizenry could be nonevil, certainly not good, but not necessarily evil.
Then we move onto three degrees of separation- take the Doppelganger, vaguely humanoid in shape, but a far cry from anything human. No one would call it a 'person.'
Then, for four degrees. if you move onto something that is clearly a creature, like a Dragon which, while intelligent, if a group of peasants had preconceived notions about them and went smashing gold dragon eggs just to be safe, I don't think that would be an evil act.
And finally, we have something like an Ent which does not even fall into the same Kingdom as animalia.
But whether you're killing a Gold dragon, an Ent or a Doppelganger- your action is evil based on both how you perceive the creature you are killing AND why you are killing it: for fun or out of necessity. Aligned acts are ultimately based on the facts as you perceive them at the time.

I think this is such a hard discussion because we really lack the language to discuss "degrees of human-ness".

[hamishspence]

It's like the fascinating 3E deity Zarus- basically the Human Paragon deity that believes that humanity is the superior race. Now, D&D has him at LE, but he isn't arguing genocide, merely Jingoism and xenophobia which seems more like LN.

Xenophobia is pretty LE:

3.5 PHB:

Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

[Psyren]

It depends on a couple of factors for me, but they boil down to violence being the last resort for a Good actor.

1) Is the creature intelligent/can it be reasoned with? Pathogens like bacteria and viruses are both living and neutral, but there is no way to reason with them and so destruction is the only option if they are threatening other living creatures. In a more D&D-specific context, oozes and certain predatory plants and animals fall into a similar bucket - without an ability to let you communicate to these creatures, the risk they pose to innocents just by operating on instinct is too great.

2) Is it possible to remove the conflict from the situation without resorting to violence? Even if you can't communicate with a tiger, you might be able to move it, or relocate the humans its threatening. Maybe it's only attacking because human loggers are threatening its territory or human foragers are wandering too close to its den/cubs. Getting the humans to respect its boundaries would be a victory, and reward just as much experience as disposing of it - moreso I would argue because the outcome is better as you haven't orphaned a bunch of tiger cubs in the process.

3) Are the innocents being threatened not actually innocent? Pursuant to the above, they may be deliberately provoking the creature in the hopes that an adventurer will kill it for them and get some material gain in the process. This would never be a good act on the part of the PC, though if they were truly duped it wouldn't be evil either. Evil requires either volition or negligence towards the consequences.

If the answer to all of these is no, then killing might be the only option available and it would be morally jusitifed and thus not evil. Even if one of these is yes, all the PC has to do is try - if you're a druid for instance and you fail both your wild empathy check to move a tiger and your diplomacy check to relocate the humans, killing the tiger may result in the least harm overall even though you failed.

[Telok]

Now I want to run a game set in a valley with an efl town on one side and an orc town on the other. The elves send out a call for good adventurers to clear out the monsters and bandits in the valley for loot and fame. The orcs send out a call for bandits (evil adventurers) and monsters because the valley is full of people carrying 4000 gp swords and armors and carrying 10,000 gp in diamond dust.

Each town jacks up prices and rides the gravy train of buying stuff from adventurers for 1/2 and reselling at full price.

[Bohandas]

Stealing is chaotic.

Often but not always

Impulsive or compulsive theft is chaotic. but A well organized, carefully planned well-coordinated Ocean's Eleven-style multi-person heist is probably going to be neutral of lawful, as is a military raid or espionage mission to retrieve some macguffin from the authorities of an enemy nation.

D&D alignment is insane. Attempting to enforce definitions of good that people use in the real world on it gives you insane results.

The ironic thing is that it actually makes sense that they're insane because of the way that the outer planes work re. belief