Help with Children as Hostiles

[nakedonmyfoldin]

I’m planning to have a young mastermind who lures children away from their families and convinces them to join his gang. He essentially brainwashed the kids so they steal and kill for him. I think this presents really difficult decision making for the party but I want to walk this fine line between interesting and reprehensible.

How can I best present this challenge to the players, without forcing them to kill children. How else would this mastermind protect themself? Any suggestions good or bad would be greatly appreciated.

[Rynjin]

Doesn't 5e let you do nonlethal damage without penalty?

[nakedonmyfoldin]

Doesn't 5e let you do nonlethal damage without penalty?

Good point, that’s comforting. Although knowing these players, they probably won’t even strike a kid nonlethally.

Another thing I’m doing to ‘slightly’ reduce the moral difficulty is using children that are at least 13 or so.

[Misterwhisper]

I can not imaging that children have many ho at all, one sleep spell should take them out in solid groups.

[Seekergeek]

Our DM once ran us through a similar problem - sleep, web, suggestion, grappling and intimidation/persuasion checks were all very useful as we progressed through their 'clubhouse'.

[Chronos]

My table had a similar situation once: An evil spellcaster was training kids as wizards. The complication was that they were too young to really be learning magic, so any time any of them cast a spell, there was a chance that it'd backfire, with possibly lethal results. Not a problem for the villain, because there are always more urchins on the streets to recruit.

My character (an arcane trickster) ended up being the first to catch up to them, and dealt with them by pickpocketing their component pouches (thus removing the threat they posed both to us and to themselves). He also promised them that, once everything was dealt with, that if any of them still wanted to study magic, he'd find them a responsible mentor, who wouldn't try to push them too fast. Two of them took him up on that offer, and effectively became another Bond for my character (he didn't mentor them himself, too risky, but he still had a stake in their well-being), and became very relevant for his subsequent story.

[Contrast]

One thing to be conscious of (and perhaps to remind your PCs of) is that the knocking unconscious rule requires a melee attack - ranged attacks/spells don't get the option of choosing non-lethal damage.

You could try and leverage this ranged 'advantage' in any combat you design.


I would also be slightly careful with this - beating up children even non-lethally may be something some of your players might not be comfortable with in their leisure time gaming activities.

[NatureKing]

Are your players okay with this?

I play Dnd to have fun. I don't think a DM proving how much of a controversial Edge Lord they are by using child enemies is a particularly enjoyable way to to have fun.

Have you considered just abandoning the idea, because you can't yourself come up with a way to convince your players you are not one of the above, and can't choose one of the hundreds of other options available to a DM for a bad guy.

[Vogie]

I understand doing something like this - I'm personally writing a campaign based on

Grimm's Fairy Tales
William Golding's Lord of the Flies, and
the Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life"
where one of the first turns in the arc is that it isn't a "pied piper" story, but it's actually the kids that are terrorizing their own village... accidentally. They've turned the woods into something as scary as they think it already was , and have

One of the things that I did is that all of the encounters that directly have the party interacting with the kids have solutions that require no damage to come to the kids - You're not fighting the children directly, just their animated oversized toys, things they wished into existence, or solving puzzles/ skill challenges. The only one they'll have to fight directly is the BBEG "Jack" character (based on the antagonist of Lord of the Flies), who is a young teen... but even in that, there will still be a non-violent solution to that encounter (based on the end of the infamous Puss in Boots' fight against the ogre).

[Sigreid]

Glad you know that group because my evoker would sort it out with shatter without consulting the rest of the party first.

[Beleriphon]

I’m planning to have a young mastermind who lures children away from their families and convinces them to join his gang. He essentially brainwashed the kids so they steal and kill for him. I think this presents really difficult decision making for the party but I want to walk this fine line between interesting and reprehensible.

How can I best present this challenge to the players, without forcing them to kill children. How else would this mastermind protect themself? Any suggestions good or bad would be greatly appreciated.

Hiding, pretending to be another kidnapped child. There recent run of Miles Morales: Spider-Man has a good setup using this idea. Miles and Rhino(!) have to save a bunch of kids that are mind controlled and equipped with power armour. They end up getting help from Captain America, which was an odd twist. The end result is that Miles uses a lot of webbing to pin the kids down, and stick their arms to walls.

If you're just dealing with theft and what not, small children aren't really a threat to an armed adult in a pseudo-medieval setting. In fact I'd go with the kids being 6 to 10 years old, and the mastermind being like 13 or 14 at most.

[Segev]

I ran a game once where an evil half-elf bard wererat was infecting kids around town and convincing them that only he could protect them from people discovering their dark secret (of being a wererat), so they had to work for him. Those who got too close to being caught and questioned, he convinced had to run away to live in his lair. He left evidence of kobold attacks killing them. Those who were still able to pass with little to no suspicion, he left in their homes to steal from and spy on their parents.

His lieutenant was an actual orphan who was the oldest of these kids and, despite being lawful evil due to willingly working to master his curse, was very dedicated to the well-being of the younger kids rather than loyal to the wererat-in-chief, and was just waiting for an opportunity to turn on him.

Making them wererats both made the fight itself easier on the players (who were fighting monsters, even if they were monsters they wanted to spare), and made it easier not to accidentally kill them (what with DR 5/silver). The party was low enough level that DR 5 was significant.


This actually led into the quest to find poison love apples grown in a graveyard, wheat cut with a silver sickle under the light of a full moon, and cheese curdled by the gaze of a bassilisk.

[nickl_2000]

There is no reason why a kid wouldn't give up when they have been hurt or they have seen a friend knocked unconscious. Frankly there isn't much reason why a child would surrender/run when they are presented with a superior fighting force. Surrendering, running, or hiding when they are caught doing something that society frowns on seems like a normal response in a child to me.

[Bloodcloud]

If your party has a wizard with sleep, they can probably deal with them easy. A heavy armor master might be able to just ignore them altoghether.

[Mad_Saulot]

Rules of engagement are clear, if a kid points an AK47 at you or your mates you are within your right to gun them down first, happens all the time with child soldiers. Warlords and Religious fanatics throughout time have used children to fight, it has only recently become an issue of morality but in reality when the life expectancy of a human was less than thirty years all soldiers would have been children by our modern standards. Modern morality has no place in fantasy games. Just look at Conan novels, how boring they would be if he was a femanist vegan who refused to kill or steal.

Stats for child-soldiers shouldnt be much different from adult soldiers, both are equally lethal, but if you want use goblins base statblock for child-soldiers.

[Contrast]

Modern morality has no place in fantasy games. Just look at Conan novels, how boring they would be if he was a femanist vegan who refused to kill or steal.

In a few minutes I'm about to go and play in a game where one of the characters likes to go by Captain Vegan. I'll be sure to tell them to stop having fun and realise how boring they are :smallsigh:

[Beleriphon]

Rules of engagement are clear, if a kid points an AK47 at you or your mates you are within your right to gun them down first, happens all the time with child soldiers. Warlords and Religious fanatics throughout time have used children to fight, it has only recently become an issue of morality but in reality when the life expectancy of a human was less than thirty years all soldiers would have been children by our modern standards. Modern morality has no place in fantasy games. Just look at Conan novels, how boring they would be if he was a femanist vegan who refused to kill or steal.

Stats for child-soldiers shouldnt be much different from adult soldiers, both are equally lethal, but if you want use goblins base statblock for child-soldiers.

And I'd argue that a child soldier in a medievalish society is a dumb a idea, when your equipping kids with weapons that they can't carry that defeats the point. As I mentioned a child fighting an adult isn't a fight at all. Children can kill adults, but it requires attacking them completely from surprise, like when they are asleep, or using firearms. A kid with a big knife is slightly threatening, but imagine fighting an 8 year old wielding a kitchen night, when you're decked out like a D&D fighter with a sword, armour and a shield. Who's really going to win there if it comes to blows? Or worse unarmed, go ahead and wrestle a kid under the age of 13, you're going to win by virtue of weighing probably twice what they do.

[Hail Tempus]

If you're going with this idea, I'd really recommend that the kids don't use violence against the PCs. Make them a bunch of thieves that the party has to capture, but make it clear that using deadly force against young children will get them in trouble with the authorities. Most players would be really bothered by having to use violence against children. It's crossing the line.

So, rather than fireballing and stabbing their way through this scenario, the party has to rely on nonlethal means like sleep, web, grappling and the like to catch these urchins.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are your players okay with this?

I play Dnd to have fun. I don't think a DM proving how much of a controversial Edge Lord they are by using child enemies is a particularly enjoyable way to to have fun.

Have you considered just abandoning the idea, because you can't yourself come up with a way to convince your players you are not one of the above, and can't choose one of the hundreds of other options available to a DM for a bad guy.
This. Gotcha Dm'ing is as old as the game itself, but that doesn't necessarily make it good Dm'ing.
At some tables, this works.
At others, all this does is piss off your players.
Lastly, killing is a part of D&D as a default. If you want to play a game where killing rarely takes place, you need to ask yourself: is D&D the game I want to play? We are blessed in this day and age with so many RPG's to choose from.

[Mad_Saulot]

And I'd argue that a child soldier in a medievalish society is a dumb a idea, when your equipping kids with weapons that they can't carry that defeats the point. As I mentioned a child fighting an adult isn't a fight at all. Children can kill adults, but it requires attacking them completely from surprise, like when they are asleep, or using firearms. A kid with a big knife is slightly threatening, but imagine fighting an 8 year old wielding a kitchen night, when you're decked out like a D&D fighter with a sword, armour and a shield. Who's really going to win there if it comes to blows? Or worse unarmed, go ahead and wrestle a kid under the age of 13, you're going to win by virtue of weighing probably twice what they do.

You bring up a point I've always hated about fantasy games, the weapons and armour are wrong, like, objectionally incorrect, ancient weapons and arms were incredibly light, the idea that plate armour is heavy is absurd, it simply isnt, and a child could wierld a zweihander no problem, I remember visiting my cousins forge when I was 12 and they showed my their collection of ancient weapons, I picked up an old german sword that was 8ft long, I could wield it easily. The heaviest armour in reality was chainmail, the lightest was plate, even brigandine (cloth) armour was heavier/bulkier/hotter than plate.

We also should consider that the word "Child" is largely cultural, for instance, if we based adulthood on consent laws then in the USA you are a child til you hit 21 (or 18 you could argue if you use sexual consent rather than universal consent) and in the UK you would be 18 (or 16 if you base it on sexual consent). typically the further east you go the lower the adult age.

In medieval times you were expected to start working before the age of ten and you could marry (and fight) at around that point.

[Sigreid]

And I'd argue that a child soldier in a medievalish society is a dumb a idea, when your equipping kids with weapons that they can't carry that defeats the point. As I mentioned a child fighting an adult isn't a fight at all. Children can kill adults, but it requires attacking them completely from surprise, like when they are asleep, or using firearms. A kid with a big knife is slightly threatening, but imagine fighting an 8 year old wielding a kitchen night, when you're decked out like a D&D fighter with a sword, armour and a shield. Who's really going to win there if it comes to blows? Or worse unarmed, go ahead and wrestle a kid under the age of 13, you're going to win by virtue of weighing probably twice what they do.

Even in modern times some societies have been known to send troops with no chance to attack opponents to use up ammo and fatigue troops before the real fight.

[Hail Tempus]

Rules of engagement are clear, if a kid points an AK47 at you or your mates you are within your right to gun them down first, happens all the time with child soldiers. Warlords and Religious fanatics throughout time have used children to fight, it has only recently become an issue of morality but in reality when the life expectancy of a human was less than thirty years all soldiers would have been children by our modern standards. Modern morality has no place in fantasy games. D&D morality, as described by the alignment system, is generally pretty close to Western, 21st century views.

If a DM wants their setting to have a setting where moral views are different from the base expectation, they should discuss that with their players in session 0. A setting where slavery is accepted by the PCs, women are chattel, and children are routinely used as soldiers in war may be historically accurate, but it would be uncomfortable for many players.

[Beleriphon]

You bring up a point I've always hated about fantasy games, the weapons and armour are wrong, like, objectionally incorrect, ancient weapons and arms were incredibly light, the idea that plate armour is heavy is absurd, it simply isnt, and a child could wierld a zweihander no problem, I remember visiting my cousins forge when I was 12 and they showed my their collection of ancient weapons, I picked up an old german sword that was 8ft long, I could wield it easily. The heaviest armour in reality was chainmail, the lightest was plate, even brigandine (cloth) armour was heavier/bulkier/hotter than plate.

We also should consider that the word "Child" is largely cultural, for instance, if we based adulthood on consent laws then in the USA you are a child til you hit 21 (or 18 you could argue if you use sexual consent rather than universal consent) and in the UK you would be 18 (or 16 if you base it on sexual consent). typically the further east you go the lower the adult age.

In medieval times you were expected to start working before the age of ten and you could marry (and fight) at around that point.

Perhaps, but when it comes right down to it, even ancient societies realized that children weren't very good soldiers. Perhaps I'm not being clear, under the age of 12 or 13 is not particularly useful as a combatant. This might be intentional if you take BBEG who uses captured children of his enemies as cannon fodder, but nobody equips and arms kids in a pre-modern society with the effect being that they are useful in combat.

I'd point out that your big sword is still something at the age of 12 you have to wield in combination with armour, taking blows in return, and the effects of exhaustion. There's a reason we warm about weather being particularly devastating on the young and the old, they just aren't as capable of withstanding the effects over a prolonged period.

The other issue you're run into is children don't have particularly good stamina when it comes to things you'd expect in battle. Eqi

[Mad_Saulot]

D&D morality, as described by the alignment system, is generally pretty close to Western, 21st century views.

If a DM wants their setting to have a setting where moral views are different from the base expectation, they should discuss that with their players in session 0. A setting where slavery is accepted by the PCs, women are chattel, and children are routinely used as soldiers in war may be historically accurate, but it would be uncomfortable for many players.

Ahhh yes the pesky alignment system strikes again, its ok, most people arent trying to recreate the gritty nature of history in a fantasy game and thats cool, but you could if you wanted to. I play Forgotten Realms as a largely frontier wilderness with no overarching laws or culture, its very random depending where you are and if you are within the borders of an established nation, there are vast areas that are not held under any authority.

Take the nation of Thay they are ruled by an "Evil" cabal of Wizards, does this mean that all Thayans are "Evil"? Slavery is legal here, is owning a slave "Evil" I'd argue it depends on how the slaves are treated, for instance in ancient greece and rome slaves were given rights and could enter politics, slavery was a function to prevent starvation because of adverse conditions, it was considered better to sell your kids into slavery than let them starve to death since slaves had to be fed and sheltered under the law.

I'd argue that the Red Wizards of Thay are not "Evil" because they allow slavery, they are "Evil" because of their over-arching motivations and methodology. I'd also argue that a "Good" person could own slaves without offending the gods of alignment based on their own motivations and how they do things, sure if they were terrible to their slaves and regularly beat them into submission and refused to feed them, I'd agree that would be "Evil" but if the slaves were well treated then I'd say that "Good" Thayan wouldnt become "Evil" simply because they owned slaves.

[Segev]

Slavery tends to be more a question of Chaos vs. Law, though it isn't 100% bound up in the alignment system. CE will engage in slavery every bit as much as LN. LG might, though it would do so with very strict rules about how slaves are to be treated, recognizing that the more power the law gives one person over another, the more responsibility for that other's wellbeing the one person has. NG would be leery of it and CG largely horrified by the notion. CN and TN would tend to share ambient beliefs about the subject, with CN having a "but it's not for me!" mindset, or a "I'm an exception" mindset. CE and NE both will engage in it with a view towards being the master, and CE will compound it with slaves being expected to always need an iron boot on their necks because CE would always rise up given the opportunity.

[Hail Tempus]

Ahhh yes the pesky alignment system strikes again, its ok, most people arent trying to recreate the gritty nature of history in a fantasy game and thats cool, but you could if you wanted to. I play Forgotten Realms as a largely frontier wilderness with no overarching laws or culture, its very random depending where you are and if you are within the borders of an established nation, there are vast areas that are not held under any authority. Oh, don't get me wrong. If everyone is on board with it, a low-fantasy campaign set in a world similar to the one in the Conan stories could be a really fun and interesting campaign. I'm just saying that if a DM wants to do the type of campaign where the players get slaves as a reward for completing a quest, everyone needs to go into the campaign with full disclosure of the type of world they'll be playing in.

I wouldn't do a scenario where the players had to use violence against kids, because everyone in my group has children.

[Rafaelfras]

An Anis hag also uses children to spread her wickdness around and uses magic "coins" to conscript then. On Volo you have an aprentice wizard NPC statistics, the mage in the picture is clearly a child, so i would sugest you take then minus the spellcasting and you are good to go.
As for your characters motivations, let then handle the problem their own way. Remember then that they can do non lethal damage and let the figure out the rest, as part as what make the situation interesting

[Sigreid]

Kobold stats could be a great stand in for kids.

[Pex]

Can't help you there. I ran an adventure of Brady Bunch Of The Corn. The party had no problems fighting the evil children. It ended when they killed the leader Oliver.
:smallbiggrin:

[Gallowglass]

I’m planning to have a young mastermind who lures children away from their families and convinces them to join his gang. He essentially brainwashed the kids so they steal and kill for him. I think this presents really difficult decision making for the party but I want to walk this fine line between interesting and reprehensible.

How can I best present this challenge to the players, without forcing them to kill children. How else would this mastermind protect themself? Any suggestions good or bad would be greatly appreciated.

Well I assume this young mastermind is headquartered in a sewer because every child-abducting pickpocket guild cult gang is headquartered in a sewer.

So he should have some alligators. Perhaps advanced albino ones. To guard the base.
And some of the kids should already be dead and turned into child-zombie guards.
Let's see.... Many of the kids should have cute animal companions. So a monkey swarm or a bunch of loyal tow-eared pups with riding dog stats are the order.
Maybe a broken one or something too.

Honestly, killing children is so easy, you'll need to add something else to make the encounter challenging enough.

[Sigreid]

Well I assume this young mastermind is headquartered in a sewer because every child-abducting pickpocket guild cult gang is headquartered in a sewer.

So he should have some alligators. Perhaps advanced albino ones. To guard the base.
And some of the kids should already be dead and turned into child-zombie guards.
Let's see.... Many of the kids should have cute animal companions. So a monkey swarm or a bunch of loyal tow-eared pups with riding dog stats are the order.
Maybe a broken one or something too.

Honestly, killing children is so easy, you'll need to add something else to make the encounter challenging enough.

Nah, he should be a royal prince doing all this for fun because he's bored.

[Wuzza]

I’m planning to have a young mastermind
Awesome dude, I'm so stealing this as a child who's been possessed by one of my BBEG's.

Cant comment on your question though. :smallsmile:

[Chronos]

Quoth Mad_Saulot:

...but in reality when the life expectancy of a human was less than thirty years all soldiers would have been children by our modern standards.
No, in a society where the life expectancy was less than thirty years, most soldiers would be in their 20s, and have 40 or 50 years ahead of them, just like today. Life expectancy is not lifespan, and lifespan hasn't changed much in all of recorded history.

[Composer99]

I’m planning to have a young mastermind who lures children away from their families and convinces them to join his gang. He essentially brainwashed the kids so they steal and kill for him. I think this presents really difficult decision making for the party but I want to walk this fine line between interesting and reprehensible.

How can I best present this challenge to the players, without forcing them to kill children. How else would this mastermind protect themself? Any suggestions good or bad would be greatly appreciated.

EEEEEEVIL children may be a well-worn trope, but it's lost little effectiveness over time.

I think the mastermind would not want to rely on his "wards" (whatever he might call them) for actual defence: in the event of an attack by motivated enemies, especially of the adventurer persuasion, they would be of little use in a straight fight. And with D&D 5e mechanics, they would also not present any serious threat of inflicting either decisive losses or attrition. There is one exception to that: the possibility of having them fight "Tucker's kobolds"-style - always from ambush, running at the first sign of resistance, making liberal use of traps and unusual weapons.

As for other defences, traps are good. Beasts of various sorts are also good, especially ones that can create controlling terrain conditions or inflict conditions on the PCs, such as spiders. Perhaps the people the mastermind's "wards" have killed have been animated as undead, or perhaps the mastermind has gathered some allies who help with the brainwashing or provide some extra muscle.

[Cheesegear]

He essentially brainwashed the kids so they steal and kill for him.

...That's game. My party wouldn't even blink if they were 'forced' to kill them.
Sure, they could deal non-lethal damage - but the party's ranged and spell attackers wouldn't have that option.
Some of them might even feel bad that they killed children. If they feel bad. Good. That's called role-playing.

But, if you're taking the route that killing mind-controlled (mundane or magically) creatures is wrong...Then you're pretty much going to have to apply it to every creature - not just children.


I think this presents really difficult decision making for the party but I want to walk this fine line between interesting and reprehensible.

What makes it reprehensible? That they're children?
But if they were brainwashed adults, it would be fine?

No. The evil mastermind made the party kill children. He's the bad guy. Not the party.


How else would this mastermind protect themself?

Use the Goblin Boss' Redirect Attack ability. Replace [Goblin] with [Child]. And your mastermind becomes very evil.
...Which is exactly how I would do it.

Redirect Attack is pretty much one of the most Evil (mundane) abilities I can think of.

[Chronos]

I'll grant that archers would have difficulty, but spellcasters? You've still got Sleep, Tasha's, Web, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, Stinking Cloud, Fear, Hypnotic Pattern, Entangle, Command, Hold Person... Casters have plenty of options for subduing the kids nonlethally, without even causing any pain.

Oh, and for the martials, don't forget about grappling, either.

Even if the villain is mind-controlling the kids into killing for him, that does not mean that he's forcing the party to kill them. There are plenty of other options.

[Beleriphon]

No, in a society where the life expectancy was less than thirty years, most soldiers would be in their 20s, and have 40 or 50 years ahead of them, just like today. Life expectancy is not lifespan, and lifespan hasn't changed much in all of recorded history.

I was going point this out. Life expectancy is an average that skews downward in pre-modern societies due to high child mortality. If a child can get to 8 or 9 years old they can expect to reach old age. Even modern cultures can have that issue.

If we look at Canada in 1926 infant mortality for infants under a year old was 125 per 1000 births. By 2011 that rate is just over 5 deaths per 1000 births. I'm assuming this is accurate given that I retrieved the info from Statistics Canada. In comparison children between 1 year old and 4 years old in 1926 were 8.4 deaths per 1000 children, and by 2011 its was 0.2 deaths per 1000 (or one in five thousand). That is less then a century, in the middle ages we'd have probably been looking at double the rates from 1926.

Edit: Nix that. Infant mortality before five years old could be as high as 50%. 18th century Sweden was around 1/3 of children died before their fifth birthday, 19th century Germany it was half. I'm going to go out on a limb and probably say that both countries now are similar to the stats I found for Canada.