Would you throw the sword?

[ghoul-n]

Let's presume you have Roy's body, gear, stats and feats, but mind and free will are of your own.

All in-world rules still apply. You definitely know that there's an afterlife both for you and the child. You also know that there are Raise Dead and Resurrection spells somewhere out there. You know that if Durkon* isn't stopped, the world probably gets unmade next day. You know that you can hit or miss, and also that Durkon* probably won't expect you to continue attacks, nor he has much up in his sleeve if he resorts to a baby shield.

So, would you throw the sword?

Bonus questions:

1) Would you throw the sword if that's a grown man Durkon* was hiding behind?
2) Would you throw the sword if you knew that Durkon* has more means to escape (like, there's another vampire ready to break another teleportation sphere right behind him)?
3) Would you throw the sword if, by means of Oracle's prophesy, you knew that Kudzu will grow into a dwarf that makes Xykon look tame by comparison?

[Toper]

I would metaphorically throw it at anyone trying to figure out when it's philosophically permissible to kill a baby.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I would metaphorically throw it at anyone trying to figure out when it's philosophically permissible to kill a baby.

Concise, correct and coopted as my own answer.

GW

[CJG]

Let's presume you have Roy's body, gear, stats and feats, but mind and free will are of your own.

All in-world rules still apply. You definitely know that there's an afterlife both for you and the child. You also know that there are Raise Dead and Resurrection spells somewhere out there. You know that if Durkon* isn't stopped, the world probably gets unmade next day. You know that you can hit or miss, and also that Durkon* probably won't expect you to continue attacks, nor he has much up in his sleeve if he resorts to a baby shield.

So, would you throw the sword?

Bonus questions:

1) Would you throw the sword if that's a grown man Durkon* was hiding behind?
2) Would you throw the sword if you knew that Durkon* has more means to escape (like, there's another vampire ready to break another teleportation sphere right behind him)?
3) Would you throw the sword if, by means of Oracle's prophesy, you knew that Kudzu will grow into a dwarf that makes Xykon look tame by comparison?

I suspect not. Not only am I taking my psyche, raised in a world without an afterlife et al, but we know that a resurrection requires a willing soul, and that young children aren’t so willing. I think life is too important to waste like that. As for your questions:

1: maybe, I can ask permission or at least explain a resurrection to an adult

2: no, cause escaping is fine by me, we know where he’s headed anyway

3: this is the Hitler question, and no, because oracle or not I don’t accept predestination. Also the oracle is less than clear. Might turn out being Kudzu is worse than Zykon at water polo. Also also, if you do believe in predestination then killing the babybin a world with undead and resurrections doesn’t solve the problem. We are literally experiencing that now!

[Snails]

Until those two clerics are dusted, there is not a compelling tactical reason to attack Greg. Greg sitting there within an anti-life shell is not a world ending threat, for the immediate moment.

[AlignmentDebate]

Of course I'd throw it.



Soft Cover
(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm)
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

I don't see any specific rule to redirect the attack at the creature providing soft cover, so I'm not worried about it.

On the bonus questions, I'd still take the shot in 1 and 2, but not in 3. Why would I waste all that potential loot and XP?

[Peelee]

I would metaphorically throw it at anyone trying to figure out when it's philosophically permissible to kill a baby.


Concise, correct and coopted as my own answer.

GW

Jumping on this bandwagon.

[NerdyKris]

As with most "would you kill a baby" questions, it has the fundamental flaw of ignoring all the non baby killing ways you can accomplish the same task. In this case, as long as Durkon is fighting Roy, he can't complete his goal of mind controlling the council. Roy doesn't even need to kill Durkon, he just needs to keep him busy or in the room until after the vote.

There's never a situation where you have to kill a baby.

[Snails]

As with most "would you kill a baby" questions, it has the fundamental flaw of ignoring all the non baby killing ways you can accomplish the same task.

Yes, the killer trolley charging down the rail line scenarios depend on perfect information about something that it is hard to really know and the demand for a split second decision. In the real world, standing there confused is an acceptable answer.

The real lesson is that it is easy enough to create a set of messy scenarios that will defy one simple formulaic answer, at least no such answer will get anywhere near a consensus acceptance.

Of course, some people cannot resist the temptation to decide they are particularly insightful and courageous because they are willing to apply a simplistic morality to complex scenarios.

[Matt620]

I would throw the sword without hesitation, no matter how great the guilt. One life, or many? Besides, as the OP said, Raise Dead is a thing in this world, and a baby has enough of a Constitution score to lose 2 points of it.

The mission must come first. Morality is a luxury: Those who save the world cannot sacrifice the world just to feel good about themselves.

I'm reminded of a comment in the "Don't Split the Party" commentary. I might not like what happened, I might even find that horrific. But I can get over it given what's at stake.

[NerdyKris]

Again, you might want to look at what the actual scenario is and why you think killing Durkon and the baby is the only option.

[hroþila]

I would throw the sword without hesitation, no matter how great the guilt. One life, or many? Besides, as the OP said, Raise Dead is a thing in this world, and a baby has enough of a Constitution score to lose 2 points of it.

The mission must come first. Morality is a luxury: Those who save the world cannot sacrifice the world just to feel good about themselves.

I'm reminded of a comment in the "Don't Split the Party" commentary. I might not like what happened, I might even find that horrific. But I can get over it given what's at stake.
That's all fine and dandy in the driest hypothetical terms, but unless you can actually establish that throwing the sword is absolutely necessary at that exact moment in order to fulfill your noble mission of saving everybody else (and good luck establishing that), then you're just endangering and quite possibly killing a baby for a fleeting tactical advantage. Also, there's no guarantee that the baby would want to come back.

It's easy to think up super contrived scenarios where it might be the right choice. None of them apply to Roy.

[Matt620]

Again, you might want to look at what the actual scenario is and why you think killing Durkon and the baby is the only option.

I never thought that it was the only option. But how much longer do I have before the world gets unmade?

[NerdyKris]

Why would the world be unmade? Durkon hasn't done anything to the council yet.

[Matt620]

Why would the world be unmade? Durkon hasn't done anything to the council yet.

That we've seen. Why else would Greg be funneling these people into an obvious stalling tactic.

[brian 333]

As a player, Hel yes I'd throw.

As a person I'd have looked for another way around the problem. Like not entering a known to be trapped and otherwise prepared battlefield.

Or I could have done what my brother did in a game: he set his ambush just before the enemy ambush site and did the Clevon Little/Gene Wilder thing. It worked out for him.

The issue here is in allowing the enemy to control the encounter. This is always a mistake. But bailing out of mistakes is the OotS theme all the way back from the first failed spot checks.



Why would the world be unmade? Durkon hjasn't done anything to the council yet.

Actually, he sent Gontor with a copy of Robert's Rules Of Dwarven Order to the council. Even failing here could be a win for Hel if they burn enough time off the game clock for Gontor to quash debate and force a motion to vote onto the floor.

[Albion]

Yeh, I would. I don't have any strong feelings for babies, not that I should let any such play a part in this anyway. I'd aim at Greg's head though. Actually, I might aim at one of the vampire clerics for a change of pace.

[hroþila]

That we've seen. Why else would Greg be funneling these people into an obvious stalling tactic.
Don't kill babies on a hunch.

[theMycon]

I would, but after using my 20' of movement to remove the soft cover.

And, honestly, after dusting the other two clerics. Action economy is king, and getting Belkar* back/taking Haley out of the equation is sorta like killing 2 enemies and getting an ally. Hell, with Belkar's amulet, it's also a 50-50 shot of killing 3 enemies and getting 2 allies back.


*From context clues, it's pretty clear that Elan & Helgya are under Durkula's control. From # of rounds it took to dominate the party, the rest have to be under another vampire's control.

[Resileaf]

You don't get to be a hero by casually throwing swords at babies. Sure, coldly calculating that the baby is an acceptable casualty to keep reality from being unmade is understandable, but if you're going to do it without hesitation, you're not a hero. Heroes don't do things emotionlessly. Heroes get torn up about the awful things they might be forced to do. Heroes would do anything else before killing a baby because they've been asked to choose between killing the baby and save the world. It's an agonizing decision to make.
That's why Roy is a hero. Because he won't kill that baby.

[DaggerPen]

Let's presume you have Roy's body, gear, stats and feats, but mind and free will are of your own.

All in-world rules still apply. You definitely know that there's an afterlife both for you and the child. You also know that there are Raise Dead and Resurrection spells somewhere out there. You know that if Durkon* isn't stopped, the world probably gets unmade next day. You know that you can hit or miss, and also that Durkon* probably won't expect you to continue attacks, nor he has much up in his sleeve if he resorts to a baby shield.

So, would you throw the sword?

No? There's not even a need for that sort of hard moral choice here. There's still plenty of time before Durkon's plan is enacted. Heck, there's still two vampire clerics who aren't Durkon up and about. And even if there weren't, Durkon* is a high-level vampire cleric. He's spam healing himself. One baby's life for one Harm spell from Durkon* is the world's worst tradeoff.


Bonus questions:

1) Would you throw the sword if that's a grown man Durkon* was hiding behind?

Depends, do they have enough HP to be worth burning the Harm from Durkon*?


2) Would you throw the sword if you knew that Durkon* has more means to escape (like, there's another vampire ready to break another teleportation sphere right behind him)?

No, there's still plenty of time to find him again and go with plan B.


3) Would you throw the sword if, by means of Oracle's prophesy, you knew that Kudzu will grow into a dwarf that makes Xykon look tame by comparison?

Attempting to defy prophecy has a way of bringing it about. No.

I realize that my answers here don't really involve a lot in the way of defenses of the sanctity of life or moral questions or that sort of thing, but while I am certainly of the firm belief that killing a baby is Very Morally Wrong, it seems kind of stretching for a quandary to debate this sort of trolley problem when it's not even an actual solution to the problem at hand.

[Dion]

Don't kill babies on a hunch.

I’m glad someone else was thinking this too.

[Emanick]

Let's presume you have Roy's body, gear, stats and feats, but mind and free will are of your own.

All in-world rules still apply. You definitely know that there's an afterlife both for you and the child. You also know that there are Raise Dead and Resurrection spells somewhere out there. You know that if Durkon* isn't stopped, the world probably gets unmade next day. You know that you can hit or miss, and also that Durkon* probably won't expect you to continue attacks, nor he has much up in his sleeve if he resorts to a baby shield.

So, would you throw the sword?

Bonus questions:

1) Would you throw the sword if that's a grown man Durkon* was hiding behind?
2) Would you throw the sword if you knew that Durkon* has more means to escape (like, there's another vampire ready to break another teleportation sphere right behind him)?
3) Would you throw the sword if, by means of Oracle's prophesy, you knew that Kudzu will grow into a dwarf that makes Xykon look tame by comparison?

If I were Roy, I'd attack the blue-robed vampire dwarf. That should free up at least some of the Order to help me. Doesn't seem like a particularly difficult moral question.

Even if I were alone and Greg was the only enemy left, I wouldn't throw the sword in the original scenario, or in bonus scenario 1 or 2. I would look for another way out of the dilemma. I wouldn't in 3, either, if the prophecy specified that it would certainly come to pass. If the prophecy was conditional, however, and only specified that if Kudzu grew up, he would make Xykon look tame by comparison, and if I was alone, and if Greg was the only enemy left, I would probably throw the sword. I believe that the ends don't justify the means, and deliberately killing a baby is probably always wrong, no exceptions. (I say "deliberately" because in some wars it is impossible to avoid killing some civilians by accident, and I don't think all of those are necessarily unjust.) However, there's only so much strain any one principle of mine can take. I don't think I could justify making it likely that millions of dwarves would be condemned to eternal suffering just because I wanted a baby to live to grow up and kill millions of people. I'm sorry, that's just too much. I can't handle that level of idealism. I'd probably just accept that I was doing the wrong thing and throw.

[Dion]

3) Would you throw the sword if, by means of Oracle's prophesy, you knew that Kudzu will grow into a dwarf that makes Xykon look tame by comparison?

I suspect that in the OotS universe, you can’t circumvent a prophecy by just killing someone.

But I’m absolutely certain that in the OotS universe you can’t circumvent a prophecy by KILLING A BABY.

You might as well ask “if there were a trolley full of vampires heading to the World Series, would you push a really, really fat baby (with 1,000 livers) onto the tracks to derail the train and save the New York Yankees from becoming vampires, thus preventing them from forfeiting all future day games?”

[TheStranger]

I suspect that in the OotS universe, you can’t circumvent a prophecy by just killing someone.

But I’m absolutely certain that in the OotS universe you can’t circumvent a prophecy by KILLING A BABY.

You might as well ask “if there were a trolley full of vampires heading to the World Series, would you push a really, really fat baby (with 1,000 livers) onto the tracks to derail the train and save the New York Yankees from becoming vampires, thus preventing them from forfeiting all future day games?”

That's just silly. Everybody knows that Yankees fans are already baby-killers.

[factotum]

I really don't understand this logic that "Oh, there's definitely an afterlife and Raise Dead exists, so you can kill anyone you like without any moral complications". It doesn't work that way, as Miko found out to her cost. Killing someone you don't have to is always an Evil act, so Roy won't do it; I wouldn't do it either, because I don't kill babies for fun and profit.

[RatElemental]

3) Would you throw the sword if, by means of Oracle's prophesy, you knew that Kudzu will grow into a dwarf that makes Xykon look tame by comparison?

I'll echo the people saying that as has been made evident, you can't circumvent prophecy with the death of the subject of said prophecy.

However, if I had a prophecy from the oracle that at this exact moment if I threw the sword I would hit Greg and Kudzu would not be harmed then I would do it.

[factotum]

However, if I had a prophecy from the oracle that at this exact moment if I threw the sword I would hit Greg and Kudzu would not be harmed then I would do it.

Prophecies like that can often be self-fulfilling. Maybe Kudzu only turns evil because he's aware someone who was supposed to be on his side tried to kill him...

[NerdyKris]

I didn't want to spoil Looper for anyone who hasn't seen it because it's a good time travel film, but....


That's the origin of the Rainmaker in Looper. The real way to stop the Rainmaker wasn't to kill him, but to save his mother's life.

[RatElemental]

Prophecies like that can often be self-fulfilling. Maybe Kudzu only turns evil because he's aware someone who was supposed to be on his side tried to kill him...

Well I meant if I had my prophecy instead of the "kudzu grows up to be horrible" one, but that is a fair point if I had both of them. However, if I had a prophecy that Kudzu is going to grow up to be horrible, then no matter what I do he will do so, whether I'm the prophesied causal agent or not due to how prophecies seem to work in OotS.

[Matt620]

You don't get to be a hero by casually throwing swords at babies. Sure, coldly calculating that the baby is an acceptable casualty to keep reality from being unmade is understandable, but if you're going to do it without hesitation, you're not a hero. Heroes don't do things emotionlessly. Heroes get torn up about the awful things they might be forced to do. Heroes would do anything else before killing a baby because they've been asked to choose between killing the baby and save the world. It's an agonizing decision to make.
That's why Roy is a hero. Because he won't kill that baby.

Not sure I agree. I think that someone playing at hero would do something like that. It takes a certain kind of self-interest to put the world at risk to satisfy your own ego.

[Emanick]

Not sure I agree. I think that someone playing at hero would do something like that. It takes a certain kind of self-interest to put the world at risk to satisfy your own ego.

There’s a difference between “playing at hero” and actually being a hero. Resileaf is describing an actual hero, not somebody acting out of self-interest.

[Alcore]

No. Just no.


There simply isn't a reason to throw a sword at a child. Ways of bringing back the dead are the Evil mans excuse for murder. It cheapens the value of life itself.


The unmaking of creation might cause others to waver but not me; his life is not mine to sacrifice, even if I was the father. It would be a tragity to fail.

[martianmister]

It's not like throwing a sword to him is gonna work anyway. He already did it before and it was an uneffective solution.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Not only would doing so be probably be unnecessary right now, but I feel the need to point out that there’s also absolutely no guarantee that you’d be able to resurrect Kudzu.

[brian 333]

Throwing a sword is a horrible way to fight because a sword requires leverage to be effective, and the moment you let go of it it lacks leverage. Plus, it has a very narrow angle of attack because if any part but the point impacts the target the sword bounces off.

Thus I conclude Roy's attack is magical and if it requires a die roll to hit it is a ranged touch attack. In that case, cover is meaningless: either it hits or misses. Either way he can summon it back to his hand, and if it looks like Kudzu is in the way he can prevent it hitting the child by so doing.

So, in game, as a player, I throw the sword. There is no downside, as would be the case of a missed shot with an arrow striking hard cover.

[rferries]

In a campaign of Black & White morality, throwing the sword would be the wrong decision.

But OOTS has Grey & Gray morality - remember that even some of the Good gods are in favour of ending the world, as the souls of their followers will still be preserved. Since death is explicitly not permanent, killing a baby to preserve countless other lives (and to save many dwarven souls from eternal damnation) is the appropriate act.

However, it's not yet necessary to make that choice. As another commenter said, Roy's actions would be better spent on killing the other vampires first. If Hilgya or V are reactivated, their magic could provide an alternative to having to kill the child.

[The Giant]

But OOTS has Grey & Gray morality

It really doesn't.

More to the point:

"Is throwing a sword at a child morally justified?"

Thread locked.