Would this be an evil act?

[Jon_Dahl]

Disclaimer: The PCs in game do not have any alignment-related class abilities. They can have any alignment.

For my next D&D session:
The PCs find a village that has been ravaged by sporebats (FF p. 161). The village hero has managed to kill one of the sporebats before succumbing under their assault. The sporebats have killed almost everyone in the hamlet. The PCs must face the aggressive sporebats and either kill them or flee from them.

The village hero's son, who has Down syndrome, has survived, since the village hero had a secret hideout for him in his house. Once the boy sees through a peephole that the PCs are there and have saved the day, he comes out and mourns his dead father. He says that his father wanted him to have all his gear if something happened to him. If the PCs let him have all the gear, they gain no loot from the encounter. The son is not willing to give anything to the PCs, since it was his late father's wish that he would get all the gear. He is determined to keep all the gear.

If the PCs just take some or all of the gear without letting the boy have his inheritance, would that count as a neutral, mildly evil or strongly evil act? There will be no witnesses and it will be easy.

I will reward the PCs handsomely in their next encounter if they don't take any of the boy's inherited gear. However, the PCs will find some of the gear very useful and definitely worth taking, and the mentally deficient boy - who will be packing gear worth 21k gp - is clearly a 1st-level commoner at best.

[the_david]

The village hero's son, who has Down syndrome, has survived,
I don't think I've ever seen something like this before in an rpg. I guess there's a first time for everything.

Why do you put morality tests in your game? I don't think it adds anything to the story, so why bother? Do you want to punish your players for looting?

Edit: it would be an unlawful act, as they're breaking the law.

[Khedrac]

I'm not sure it's an evil act, or if so, only mildly. What it is, is a chaotic act.

To a significant extent the state of the child is irrelevant to the nature of the act. Something that makes the boy less likely to survive is evil, and there his capacity, or lack thereof, affects which actions make him less likely to survive; but how you have potrayed the situation rules this out.

It also depend on what the law of the land is - it might not be legal for the boy to inherit even if that is the late hero-father's wish! You need to have this clearly established (and known) before you pull this scenario.

For example, without going into details (because it goes towards real world politics) there was a country where it used to be the law that if someone died away from home, the possessions they had on them belonged to landowner in whose property they died. There was one extreme case where the landowner responsible for road upkeep not only didn't, but then claimed the property of a traveller who died because the roads were that bad... I believe this was well outside the intent (and probably the letter) of the law, but rich landowners tended tobe able to twist the law.

[hamishspence]

Theft from the needy is specifically called out as evil in FC2. I could see it qualifying as theft, and the boy as qualifying as "needy".

[Telonius]

My answer: it doesn't matter. If none of the PCs have alignment-based abilities, then no single action is going to do anything to them. It's only when there's a pattern of behaviors that it could have implications on alignment. (Truly extreme stuff is an exception, and this isn't quite on the level of selling your soul, heroic self-sacrifice, or things like that). Even if they do shift in alignment, there's only a few cases where it will matter mechanically - whether they're affected by Blasphemy & co., whether they can hold certain magic items without taking penalties, and so on.

If you really need a Good Place score for this, I'd call it mildly evil, definitely chaotic.

[Kayblis]

Switch 'down syndrome kid' with 'sickly kid', because the specific disease is irrelevant. Calling for empathy accomplishes nothing in alignments. The boy is not fending for himself in this world and need the loot to survive, he still lives in his town with the other villagers and the immediate danger was eliminated.

With that said, this is not exactly stealing, but it's definitely a Chaotic act. It's Neutral in the good/evil side. Not everything has to be good/evil, the other axis exists for a reason. This situation in itself sounds like a kinda **** move, saying "either you get no loot for this adventure or you're a bad bad person". If this becomes a pattern, expect players to just stop caring and becoming actually evil because being anything other than that is just a straight penalty.

[tyckspoon]

Switch 'down syndrome kid' with 'sickly kid', because the specific disease is irrelevant. Calling for empathy accomplishes nothing in alignments. The boy is not fending for himself in this world and need the loot to survive, he still lives in his town with the other villagers and the immediate danger was eliminated.


I feel like this might be an excuse to say 'no, the kid won't let you trade him other items, he wants his dad's stuff' or, for example, getting him to agree to surrender his inheritance so the adventurers can use it to protect other people, or in trade for making sure the kid gets to somewhere safe/delivered to somebody who can take care of him since his family is dead and home village destroyed. Which is kind of a cheap shot if so?

In the absence of any proof of the kid's claim, I would agree that this is more a Law/Chaos bent question than one of Good and Evil. The kid does not currently posses the items, would not be materially better off for having them, and there's nobody else around to confirm either the dead man's wishes or that the kid in question is in fact his son. If there is a tradition of law in this world/region of the world, the appropriate thing to do would be to deliver the kid and the items to the nearest appropriately empowered adjudicator and place a salvage claim to be weighed against the kid's claim to be the rightful inheritor.

[Doctor Awkward]

If a dilemma is ever governed by professional and/or societal legal guidelines with respect to a given time or place, it's an ethical issue.

If a dilemma is ever governed by personal views that transcend cultural norms, it's a moral issue.

Ethics = Law vs Chaos
Morals = Good vs Evil

[Saint-Just]

I'm not sure it's an evil act, or if so, only mildly. What it is, is a chaotic act.

To a significant extent the state of the child is irrelevant to the nature of the act. Something that makes the boy less likely to survive is evil, and there his capacity, or lack thereof, affects which actions make him less likely to survive; but how you have potrayed the situation rules this out.

It also depend on what the law of the land is - it might not be legal for the boy to inherit even if that is the late hero-father's wish! You need to have this clearly established (and known) before you pull this scenario.

For example, without going into details (because it goes towards real world politics) there was a country where it used to be the law that if someone died away from home, the possessions they had on them belonged to landowner in whose property they died. There was one extreme case where the landowner responsible for road upkeep not only didn't, but then claimed the property of a traveller who died because the roads were that bad... I believe this was well outside the intent (and probably the letter) of the law, but rich landowners tended tobe able to twist the law.

On the other hand what I think is the most widespread law (or maybe even the rule when it's not formally legalised) would be that hero's things would go either to his next of kin or to his community. Laws like "it belongs to landowner" tend to appear in societies with long legal traditions and many explicit laws.

In any case I would regard taking hero's things as stealing - it would be in overwhelming majority in historical and modern societies, so if you follow the rule "like reality unless noted", well...



In the absence of any proof of the kid's claim, I would agree that this is more a Law/Chaos bent question than one of Good and Evil. The kid does not currently posses the items, would not be materially better off for having them, and there's nobody else around to confirm either the dead man's wishes or that the kid in question is in fact his son. If there is a tradition of law in this world/region of the world, the appropriate thing to do would be to deliver the kid and the items to the nearest appropriately empowered adjudicator and place a salvage claim to be weighed against the kid's claim to be the rightful inheritor.

Unless the game set in exact Fantasy Counterpart of some RL historical society, then by default it's unreasonable to assume any "salvage rights" or "finders fee" - they tended not to exist at all, or at least limited to very few specific categories (some of vehicles, trade goods, catlle) not to personal items.

[Conradine]

Take the stuff, you stole from a needy disabled boy.
Leave the stuff, you give up good loot which could help you saving more lives, in the hand of someone who's unable to use, or even defend, it.

Either way, if there's a Paladin in the group, he would fall.

[TIPOT]

I mean giving a kid an incredibly large and easily portable fortune by itself seems an incredibly bad idea. What happens when a less moral individual kills him and takes the stupidly valuable haul?

It's probably a chaotic act to just take something without mentioning, but I could see it be pushed in any alignment direction depending on the reasoning behind the act.

[Goaty14]

Deciding whether or not to take the phat lootz is a Law/Chaos act, I agree on that with everybody else here.

What the REAL Good/Evil act is, is deciding what to do with the village boy, which probably goes along the lines of:
Good: Take the kid with you until the next town/village/etc. He's utterly defenseless on his own, and bears no chance of survival, especially without any villagers around to aid him.
Neutral: Leave to kid to the elements. If he dies, that's natural selection and not your fault.
Evil: Murder/Enslave the village boy. I shouldn't have to explain why this is an evil choice.

[False God]

First, drop the "down syndrome" ****. It's garbage. You want the kind to be dumb? Helpless? Unskilled? Go for it. There's no reason to include any real-world condition. Maybe he's got "magic brain", like, magic has literally fried part of his brain. We get it, yadda-yadda-yadda the kid ain't gonna put the gear to good use.

Is the act of taking the loot "evil"? No; cruel, selfish, generally "not nice", yeah sure. Illegal even? Maybe, all you've got is a kid's word that "this dead guy" is his dad and said dead guy wanted this kid to have all his stuff. I mean, maybe that guy was the kid's dad, maybe he wasn't. But taking it to a court of law and arguing that the kid has no right to any of this stuff because of his age and because the kid can't prove his claims is probably letting my LE nature get the better of me. Maybe everything that kid said is true. Maybe that kid hid like a coward and did nothing to help as his entire town was murdered, maybe the only reason the kid survived is because he brought the sporebats to town in order to kill his dad and get all of his dad's expansive stuff. I mean just because this kid can't even begin to comprehend the law doesn't mean he can't be a capricious little snot, I mean all kids are right?

No no, forcing a small child to go through a medieval "court system" without any kind of representation against a highly intelligent and highly skilled lawyer (me) is evil. Taking his stuff without all of that? That's just mean.

[denthor]

Good person will do something because it helps someone.

A neutral person will look at the situation and decide if it helps them or others so long as the last example survives to continue no problem. If you want to hunt something to extinction then they will switch side to maintain balance.

An evil person will extract every last copper from a situation.

Yes stealing from this boy would be an evil act. Circumventing the law, denying him a chance to pay his way in life, and theft by force good people do not do this.

[Thunder999]

Not evil, probably chaotic. The kid isn't going to use the stuff, might be lieing about the man's last wishes and would probably just get killed for it anyway.

In the average DnD world heroes helping themselves to dead people's stuff is pretty much expected and might even be legal.

[vasilidor]

Take the stuff, you stole from a needy disabled boy.
Leave the stuff, you give up good loot which could help you saving more lives, in the hand of someone who's unable to use, or even defend, it.

Either way, if there's a Paladin in the group, he would fall.

no, this is not a catch 22 scenario. if you threw this at a paladin as a catch 22 scenario you would qualify, in my opinion, as a jerk DM.

I say it would be evil to just leave him there. he is a child with no one to care for him. moreover he is likely to be physically disabled. in a world such as dungeons and dragons that would be the same as murder.

even in modern times it would be considered wrong to leave a child to themselves if they were alone* and lost in the wilderness or lost in the street. atleast get the kid to a police station or something. or in the case of the child in the original post, get him to an orphanage.

*parents whereabouts unknown, even unto the child.

[Jay R]

They know who the owner is. They don't even have conquest rights; they didn't kill the hero.

This is clearly and unambiguously evil (and of course unlawful). The kid probably has no source of income except selling his lawful, inherited goods.

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you all for the comments and feedback so far.

[Asmotherion]

Disclaimer: The PCs in game do not have any alignment-related class abilities. They can have any alignment.

For my next D&D session:
The PCs find a village that has been ravaged by sporebats (FF p. 161). The village hero has managed to kill one of the sporebats before succumbing under their assault. The sporebats have killed almost everyone in the hamlet. The PCs must face the aggressive sporebats and either kill them or flee from them.

The village hero's son, who has Down syndrome, has survived, since the village hero had a secret hideout for him in his house. Once the boy sees through a peephole that the PCs are there and have saved the day, he comes out and mourns his dead father. He says that his father wanted him to have all his gear if something happened to him. If the PCs let him have all the gear, they gain no loot from the encounter. The son is not willing to give anything to the PCs, since it was his late father's wish that he would get all the gear. He is determined to keep all the gear.

If the PCs just take some or all of the gear without letting the boy have his inheritance, would that count as a neutral, mildly evil or strongly evil act? There will be no witnesses and it will be easy.

I will reward the PCs handsomely in their next encounter if they don't take any of the boy's inherited gear. However, the PCs will find some of the gear very useful and definitely worth taking, and the mentally deficient boy - who will be packing gear worth 21k gp - is clearly a 1st-level commoner at best.

Depends on how they go about it. They could Lawfully demand a fee or otherwise compensation for their services, and work out a bargain from the loot's price. To work out a fair price consult the table of a spell casting, and pay each character as if they were casting a spell of the highest leevel they could cast if they were full casters of their level.

As a good act would be to at least leave some of the inheritence to the boy.

Taking everything without negotiations is stealing, and thus a chaotic act.

Killing people stopping them from stealing, would be an evil act.

[Thunder999]

The spellcasting service prices are for doing the casting safely, not for risking their lives.

[GrayDeath]

Take the stuff, you stole from a needy disabled boy.
Leave the stuff, you give up good loot which could help you saving more lives, in the hand of someone who's unable to use, or even defend, it.

Either way, if there's a Paladin in the group, he would fall.

Lol....not really, no, because they (at least any Paladin I would play) would take the Kid up as their Page, at least until they can safely get him to a city where his future can be secured.


More serious, John_Dahl: I will never udnerstand why you keep setting up so incredibly contrieved "Haha, no you cant take another option, you must suffer HAHAHA" situations for your players.
Its really bad style.


To the actual question:

I see it as unambigiously chaotic but (if they give him at least remotely equal exchange for them) in no way Ecil act to take the stuff.
Assuming as you said it would be really useful, I assume the Characters are Low level.
So at worst, a good group would take the stuff, use it to help the village, then return anything they still have to the boy afterwards, hereby teaching him how to act Good.

A group that simply does not care will take the stuff and ignore the boy.

Anything else (killing him, manipulating him, etc) would be Evil for sure.

[Saint-Just]

The spellcasting service prices are for doing the casting safely, not for risking their lives.

On the other hand fee for the service presumes agreement beforehand. Good Samaritans may receive reward from people they save but cannot demand a fee (and the law is unlikely to support such claims).

[SirNibbles]

"THEFT
Any child can tell you that stealing is wrong. Villains, however, often see theft as the best way to acquire what they want. Evil people pay only for things they cannot take. An evil character needs a reason not to steal. Fear of being caught is the most common deterrent, but sometimes a villain elects not to steal an item because he or she doesn’t want to incur the wrath of its owner."

Book of Vile Darkness, page 7: Evil Acts


It seems pretty cut and dried to me. There's no need to try to apply your own morality- it's already in the rules.

[Boci]

It seems pretty cut and dried to me. There's no need to try to apply your own morality- it's already in the rules.

Its never cut and dry if you have to quote BoVD, because then you open yourself up to the obvious counterpoint of "Yes, but you're quoting BoVD, which is a stupid book".

[hamishspence]

Mostly, BoVD just extrapolates from the PHB. Hurting and oppressing others in general, and the innocent in particular, tends to be evil.

Theft can reasonably be said to be a form of hurt, a form of oppression.

[Asmotherion]

Its never cut and dry if you have to quote BoVD, because then you open yourself up to the obvious counterpoint of "Yes, but you're quoting BoVD, which is a stupid book".

BoVD is not a stupid book, it's one of the coolest supplements in 3.5

Not liking something doesn't make it stupid. I don't like pop music, that doesn't mean it's stupid.

In any case, on a Raw perspective, this indicates that that's how morality works for the D&D world, and on lack of contradicting RaW, he's right, you're wrong.

[Boci]

BoVD is not a stupid book, it's one of the coolest supplements in 3.5

Not liking something doesn't make it stupid. I don't like pop music, that doesn't mean it's stupid.

Cool and stupid are not mutually exclusive. I like Book of Vile Darkness too. Its an awesome grabbag of flavour, nasty and downright disgusting toys and treats to spice up villains in a game that isn't too concerned with nuanced representations of morality. Its also stupid. Like, really, really stupid. And sometimes downright insulting, but thankfully mostly just stupid.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jon_Dahl
For my next D&D session….

I have to agree with others who have pointed out that this feels a little contrived.

That said, I’d also like to give you, and your players, the benefit of the doubt. Presumably your players have been with you a while and are used to your style as a DM, so the complaints about loot probably have no relevance in your campaign. You mention you’ll reward the PCs in the subsequent encounter, so I’m assuming your players have seen this before and will trust you to even things out overall.

Jay R summed it up the best—stealing the boy’s inheritance is utterly wrong, both legally and morally, and any arguments about how he can’t use it himself are transparently self-serving.

Looting from the bodies of fallen enemies is one thing; stealing from a living person is entirely another. It’s not only firmly evil, but selfish and cruel as well.


Originally Posted by Boci
…because then you open yourself up to the obvious counterpoint of "Yes, but you're quoting BoVD, which is a stupid book".

Calling a rulebook “stupid” is not a productive way to discuss the rules.

[Boci]

Calling a rulebook “stupid” is not a productive way to discuss the rules.

Its BoVD. Have you read BoVD? It's stupid. Specifically, the fluff parts that deal with the nature of evil. Heroes of Ruin is far better take on evil from a fluff perspective.

[Saint-Just]

Calling a rulebook “stupid” is not a productive way to discuss the rules.

The tone may be wrong but I think it is reasonable to say that the local consensus is that BoVD/BoED are dissimilar in their treatment of morality to other supplements, so quoting from it is definitely not the best way to present the argument.

Note, that I have argued that it is a theft before, so this is not an attempt to defend taking things from the fallen bystanders as neutral, merely stating my opinion on public opinion on BoVD.

[dude123nice]

Everyone saying that it's a law/chaos choice is wrong. Taking the kid's stuff is evil. From the dawn of mankind passing down things from parent to child has been the norm in almost any society, excluding the existence of a will, or extreme circumstances. It's not so much a law, as the most moral way of handling such situations, that was then codified into a law in most places because it make so much sense, and everyone agreed.

And there is another thing. This is not an issue of some rich, or at least well off, kid wanting to keep more wealth than he needs. This isn't a issue of leaving weapons and items to him so he can defend himself. This is an issue of someone who has had problems relating to people his entire live, wanting to keep the mementos of his murdered father. A father who was probably one of the only people he could relate on at least some level. The kid's world has already shattered once with the death of said father. It would only shatter further if the PCs were to just callously take his father's stuff away. It's not something grounded in logic but in emotion. For someone with down syndrome, it's probably too hard to try to explain it logically. And it would be an emotionally devastating blow to the kid. Do people not understand how incredibly cruel it would be to take his late father's belonging away from him? And considering that, in addition to being cruel, they also have no moral or legal right to those things, and it is evil.

Whether they would use the items to loater doo good has no bearing on the morality of the situation right now. Good deeds at a later date are just that. Here, now, it would be an evil act.

I don't like being the dude throwing shade around, but it honestly feels like people are trying to rule-lawyer this as not being an evil act. And it's disturbing to see happen.

[Boci]

The tone may be wrong but I think it is reasonable to say that the local consensus is that BoVD/BoED are dissimilar in their treatment of morality to other supplements, so quoting from it is definitely not the best way to present the argument.

Yeah, I figured people would get what I was going for when I said BoVD was a "stupid book". I was a little surprised two posters seemed to rush to defend it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by dude123nice
…it honestly feels like people are trying to rule-lawyer this as not being an evil act. And it's disturbing to see happen.

You’re not wrong. There’s been conflation, to put it mildly, between the PC perspective and the player perspective, which has led to some unfortunate contortions of logic in an attempt to whitewash what is plainly outright theft.


Originally Posted by Saint-Just
…I think it is reasonable to say that the local consensus is that BoVD/BoED are dissimilar in their treatment of morality to other supplements, so quoting from it is definitely not the best way to present the argument.

You’ve presented this point much better than others have.

[Boci]

You’ve presented this point much better than others have.

I'm a firm believe that "It's stupid" is an adequet addition to the discussion of whether a book that includes "Dinbar is a masochist who enjoys kidnapping female gnomes and then forcing them to inflict pain on him in devient sexual scenarios. Then he murders and dismembers them." should be taken as a guide to morality. It clearly lacks the retraint, tact and awareness to tackle such a complex subject, in ways obvious enough that "It's stupid" is adequet shorthand. As mentioned the mechanics are pretty cool though.

[hamishspence]

Its BoVD. Have you read BoVD? It's stupid. Specifically, the fluff parts that deal with the nature of evil. Heroes of Ruin is far better take on evil from a fluff perspective.

And Champions of Ruin repeats the BoVD list of Evil acts.

BoVD itself at least makes some concessions, with certain acts (lying, and Acts Of Vengeance) being described as "not always Evil".

[Boci]

And Champions of Ruin repeats the BoVD list of Evil acts.

BoVD itself at least makes some concessions, with certain acts (lying, and Acts Of Vengeance) being described as "not always Evil".

I was thinking of the different motivations for evil, which were better in Champions of Ruin. Plus it handles the topic of depravity and evil acts with far more restraint and less gorging for shock horror value.

[ciopo]

Everyone saying that it's a law/chaos choice is wrong. Taking the kid's stuff is evil. From the dawn of mankind passing down things from parent to child has been the norm in almost any society, excluding the existence of a will, or extreme circumstances. It's not so much a law, as the most moral way of handling such situations, that was then codified into a law in most places because it make so much sense, and everyone agreed.

And there is another thing. This is not an issue of some rich, or at least well off, kid wanting to keep more wealth than he needs. This isn't a issue of leaving weapons and items to him so he can defend himself. This is an issue of someone who has had problems relating to people his entire live, wanting to keep the mementos of his murdered father. A father who was probably one of the only people he could relate on at least some level. The kid's world has already shattered once with the death of said father. It would only shatter further if the PCs were to just callously take his father's stuff away. It's not something grounded in logic but in emotion. For someone with down syndrome, it's probably too hard to try to explain it logically. And it would be an emotionally devastating blow to the kid. Do people not understand how incredibly cruel it would be to take his late father's belonging away from him? And considering that, in addition to being cruel, they also have no moral or legal right to those things, and it is evil.

Whether they would use the items to loater doo good has no bearing on the morality of the situation right now. Good deeds at a later date are just that. Here, now, it would be an evil act.

I don't like being the dude throwing shade around, but it honestly feels like people are trying to rule-lawyer this as not being an evil act. And it's disturbing to see happen.

My take on this is that the player characters do not KNOW the circumstances the way the GM presented them to us here.

let's pretend the child isn't in the picture at all. Party stumble upon a massacred village, clean up the sporebats, finds no survivor. The gm describe the dead villagers and note that there is one surrounded by some sporebat corpses, upon closer inspection this guy was evidently a retired adventurer or whathaveyou and has "phat loot".
Now, maybe someone feeling paladiney will say something along the lines of "we should bury this gear with his owner" or "we should find their next of kin"

That may be the reality-adjacient behavior if the party isn't a party of scoundrels, but in a GAME, which DnD IS, that gear is the metagame reward for solving the encounter, so I pretty much doubt even the paladin will have any qualms putting that gear to better use. We are not, after all, desecrating a tomb or whatever.

In the scenario as presented? After the party cleaned up the sporebats, after looting the corpse of the one person that pinged detect magic, some random urchin pops out of nowhere and wants that equipment?

well,I probably would give it to him, because on a meta level I read this as a fake choice where giving up this equip now will probably result in some better reward because who would do good if it wasn't rewarding?

I joke, in the lense of my current character (NG) I would not care about the gear, but offer to bring the child to the nearest town.

I don't particularly see what "good" is leaving "wealth" in the hand of someone that can't defend said wealth, so clearly the "good" route is gifting that equip to a random good-aligned deity temple in exchange for them taking care of that child, at least until it's old enough / trained enough to use it.

Or neutrally leave him the gear and him there where he is, go on to the dungeon or whatever, find him death when coming back from the dungeon, get the equip anyway /shrug, that would be poignant storytelling about uncaring adventurers and maybe the players would behave as better people next time /shrug2

[dude123nice]

That may be the reality-adjacient behavior if the party isn't a party of scoundrels, but in a GAME, which DnD IS, that gear is the metagame reward for solving the encounter, so I pretty much doubt even the paladin will have any qualms putting that gear to better use. We are not, after all, desecrating a tomb or whatever.

DnD is an RPG. A Role Playing Game. If the DM's group were only playing it as wargame, I'm sure he would have said so, or maybe just never have made this post. So we should assume that they are playing it as intended. In that case, roleplaying your character's actions according to their in game personality is part of playing the game. And should not be contingent on getting better rewards later to make up for being a 'good boy' this time.


I don't particularly see what "good" is leaving "wealth" in the hand of someone that can't defend said wealth.

As I spent a whole paragraph describing in my previous reply, the boy needs to have those things, for emotional and psychological reasons. It would be cruel to take them from him. I feel like what Palanan said is true. In fact I'll expand on it, and say that people often don't seem to treat NPCs as living beings, even tho that's what they are supposed to be in the story, and don't give 'illogical' desires of theirs, based feelings and emotions, any weight. I'm pretty sure that any judgement on morality would consider complete disregard of other people's wants, opinions or feelings as being wrong. You could say that, morally, the kid is entitled to do what he wants with those objects as long as he isn't harming someone else or infringing on their rights. And him just keeping those things isn't doing either.

And if you're taking him to a good aligned temple to have him taken care of, there is still no reason why they would take those items away from him, short of extreme cases, like him using them to hurt himself. Unless the temple requires them as payment for taking care of him, but in that case it's not a good temple. There is just no reason why he can't both keep the items, AND be taken care of somewhere.

[Saint-Just]

My take on this is that the player characters do not KNOW the circumstances the way the GM presented them to us here.

let's pretend the child isn't in the picture at all. Party stumble upon a massacred village, clean up the sporebats, finds no survivor. The gm describe the dead villagers and note that there is one surrounded by some sporebat corpses, upon closer inspection this guy was evidently a retired adventurer or whathaveyou and has "phat loot".
Now, maybe someone feeling paladiney will say something along the lines of "we should bury this gear with his owner" or "we should find their next of kin"

That may be the reality-adjacient behavior if the party isn't a party of scoundrels, but in a GAME, which DnD IS, that gear is the metagame reward for solving the encounter, so I pretty much doubt even the paladin will have any qualms putting that gear to better use. We are not, after all, desecrating a tomb or whatever.


Yeah if the child is not present here then the action is not evil. It is still may or may not be exactly lawful (small-l, meaning laws of the land, not alignment), but I would be really surprised if there is any consequences. But if the child is present (and no, sole survivor of the village is not "some random urchin" - he may be lying nut that is not the same as "random urchin" on the street of a town saying "hey, you've got my father's stuff") then you have a strong reason to suspect that to take the things for yourself would be theft. So you either believe the "urchin" or at least take some steps to check his story (and if it checks out then things are rightly his).



I don't particularly see what "good" is leaving "wealth" in the hand of someone that can't defend said wealth, so clearly the "good" route is gifting that equip to a random good-aligned deity temple in exchange for them taking care of that child, at least until it's old enough / trained enough to use it.


It is not "good" to leave him his father's things, it's "not evil". More responsible course of action would be indeed to leave him and his belongings to some guardian of good repute.

I also want to point out that maximally responsible would be not merely "gift his equip" to the temple but to try to find out how large is the typical endowment and if his things cost significantly more than the typical endowment then try to organize things in such a way that the boy would receive a remainder of his wealth later. Otherwise you've sponsored the charitable cause with the money which are not yours, and while it is not evil it is also unlikely to be good (redistribution on the basis of "to everyone according to their need" is usually not in tenets of the most good religions in fiction).



Unless the temple requires them as payment for taking care of him, but in that case it's not a good temple.

Unless we're in the Tippyverse temples would not have magically (magically, ha!) have unlimited resources. Unless the temple have enough funds to feed and clothe each and every orphan it is more than reasonable to demand that those who posess wealth should cover the expenses incurred (broadly speaking would you as a hypothetical good cleric take away one of his things from the boy, or reduce the quality and quantity of food for him and for other dozen of your wards? And no, raising more money is not an option - you are already doing it as best as you can).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by ciopo
…but in a GAME, which DnD IS, that gear is the metagame reward for solving the encounter….

Gear isn’t a metagame reward; gear is by definition an in-game reward, only usable by characters in the game. The satisfaction as a player of your character getting gear is another matter.


Originaly Posted by The OP
…gear worth 21k gp….

The OP hasn’t specified exactly what the inherited gear will be, other than “very useful,” but at 21k gp, there are probably a few items that would leave the boy better-protected than if he had nothing at all. Amulets, rings, mithril chain are all possibilities, and the boy could use any one of them to improve his safety.

Arguments claiming without evidence that the boy can’t use the gear, and therefore it’s somehow the greater good for the party to take that gear, are pure sophistry.


Originally Posted by ciopo
…so I pretty much doubt even the paladin will have any qualms putting that gear to better use.

Any paladin who steals an inheritance from a child shouldn’t just fall, he should be dismembered by indescribable horrors and never be seen again.


Originally Posted by dude123nice
In that case, roleplaying your character's actions according to their in game personality is part of playing the game. And should not be contingent on getting better rewards later to make up for being a 'good boy' this time.

This is the essence of it. Unfortunately a lot of people in role-playing games don’t really see the point of playing a different character, which is missing out on a good part of the game.


Originally Posted by dude123nice
…people often don't seem to treat NPCs as living beings, even tho that's what they are supposed to be in the story….

Sadly this is also very true, to the heartbreak of GMs who try to portray their NPCs as fully-fleshed residents of a coherent campaign world.


Originally Posted by dude123nice
There is just no reason why he can't both keep the items, AND be taken care of somewhere.

Absolutely this. If the party wants to take the boy to a temple or some other protected location, that’s noble of them, but that doesn’t give them the right to dispose of the boy’s property. It’s his, period.

[dude123nice]

Unless we're in the Tippyverse temples would not have magically (magically, ha!) have unlimited resources. Unless the temple have enough funds to feed and clothe each and every orphan it is more than reasonable to demand that those who posess wealth should cover the expenses incurred (broadly speaking would you as a hypothetical good cleric take away one of his things from the boy, or reduce the quality and quantity of food for him and for other dozen of your wards? And no, raising more money is not an option - you are already doing it as best as you can).

Yeah, let's ignore that, IRL, monasteries or churches or temples could accept homeless or disabled or impaired people, either into their ranks, or as lay people, and allow them to live their lives there, contributing to maintaining the community with manual or skilled labor, in exchange for having somewhere to stay. Of course the autistic child COULD decide to rather give his things away to have a comfy life, but if he prefers to learn to do some sort of simple jobs or tasks for the,community, that he can maybe be competent enough at to leave his life, he can choose to do that if he values keeping his heirlooms more. Course things might not work out. Maybe he can't really adjust enough to be able to work. Maybe he has problems integrating into the communities. Maybe lending his heirlooms when in time of need would be an appropriate compromise. But you see, these are the kind of complicated decisions and situations that would be encountered by someone who was actually trying to take good care of the boy, not greedy adventurers trying to justify getting good loot from the adventure.

[Saint-Just]

Yeah, let's ignore that, IRL, monasteries or churches or temples could accept homeless or disabled or impaired people, either into their ranks, or as lay people, and allow them to live their lives there, contributing to maintaining the community with manual or skilled labor, in exchange for having somewhere to stay.

People who were accepted into the ranks usually had been forbidden to have personal property. Free care was primarily for the indigent, not for the merely temporary disabled. And when religious institutions have cared for the children of the wealthy they almost universally did so for pay(yes the child is homeless, but assuming he is given his father's things he is also very wealthy).

And FFS, the OP said "Down syndrome" , not "autistic". I do not think highly of bringing modern classifications into the fantasy world, but he was consistent. You are conflating very different things.

[dude123nice]

People who were accepted into the ranks usually had been forbidden to have personal property. Free care was primarily for the indigent, not for the merely temporary disabled. And when religious institutions have cared for the children of the wealthy they almost universally did so for pay(yes the child is homeless, but assuming he is given his father's things he is also very wealthy).

And FFS, the OP said "Down syndrome" , not "autistic". I do not think highly of bringing modern classifications into the fantasy world, but he was consistent. You are conflating very different things.

Considering how the OP described his behaviour, the kid obviously has Down that impairs him intellectually, which is pretty much the same as if he had autism, for the purpose of this discussion at least. He probably can't take care of himself, and it's nigh impossible to reason with him to give up the items willingly.

And IRL most societies and communities would only qualify as neutral. Since we are assuming his being taken to a temple or monastery or some place that is actually good, i doubt that it would be impossible to allow him to somehow keep those items as mementos. I also said that he should be taught or trained in some way of contributing to the community.

[ciopo]

Any paladin who steals an inheritance from a child shouldn’t just fall, he should be dismembered by indescribable horrors and never be seen again.
that was in the no child scenario

Absolutely this. If the party wants to take the boy to a temple or some other protected location, that’s noble of them, but that doesn’t give them the right to dispose of the boy’s property. It’s his, period.
I did close the statement with the "until the boy can use the gear"

I don't disagree with the sentiment! I'm just saying I can totally see how grizzled adventurers could suspect the boy claims, putting aside how it's a bit contrived that he pops out on his own when the situation is resolved.

I feel it would be more interesting that he's found when the party "searchs for survivors" ( that's what good people would do, no?) , they find him in a basement, plus some other youths in other basements. One of the children points at the shiny new whateverarmour one of the player is wearing saying "hey! that's my father armour!", it's the armour they looted from the corpse earlier.

That sounds more believable to me and the other survivors would probably corroborate it

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by ciopo
that was in the no child scenario….

My apologies, I don’t mean to misrepresent what you said.


Originally Posted by ciopo
…putting aside how it's a bit contrived that he pops out on his own when the situation is resolved.

I think we can agree that the entire scenario is a little contrived, although it does make sense that if he’s hiding in a safe room, he’d stay hidden until all the monsters are killed.

This is the sort of scenario which is easier to judge after the fact, because we don’t know a lot of the fine details which would only come out in play. Not sure if there’s more than can be said until the session is played and the PCs make their decision.

[Saint-Just]

And IRL most societies and communities would only qualify as neutral. Since we are assuming his being taken to a temple or monastery or some place that is actually good, i doubt that it would be impossible to allow him to somehow keep those items as mementos. I also said that he should be taught or trained in some way of contributing to the community.

You mentioned IRL institutions first.

I really, really have a beef with the notion that Good temple cannot demand pay for taking care of someone with 21k GP in items. Maybe if the chirch is aflush with resources they would do it for free, but it is not a reasonable default assumption.

Note please that I have also said that just "donating the items to the temple in exchange for raising the boy" is not good either because it is disproportionate to the costs which would be incurred in caring for the boy for the next N years (in fact I have said so before I have read your first message). But even organization concerned only with charity (and most of the churches aren't) would still have to get resources to care for the boy from somewhere. Given the price tag even one of the (presumably numerous) items would pay for his stay and then some.

[False God]

You mentioned IRL institutions first.

I really, really have a beef with the notion that Good temple cannot demand pay for taking care of someone with 21k GP in items. Maybe if the chirch is aflush with resources they would do it for free, but it is not a reasonable default assumption.
Although I think in our rather modern (and imo warped) notions that you must have nothing before people are willing to help you (and often they only do so for their own gain) I have to agree that a child with 21k gp in items doesn't really need charity. He needs a guardian. Which he could likely afford for a looooong time with some of that gear, very little of it even. He could easily buy a plot of land, hire some hands, start a small farm and still have some funds left over.

But again per the OP the kid is neither smart nor rational, the first part can't be helped and the second can. The second part of course should be attempted by a "good party". But the DM has already set that the child is indigent and will not be swayed from the loot.

The real travesty of the situation is that there isn't really a moral choice here. The DM has already determined that there is no chance of a resolution beyond the options of "take the gear, to heck with the kid" or "go home empty handed". The good-aligned members might have great diplomacy skills, attempt to explain how they can help the child, how the child has no way to protect themselves or their new loot, how the child can't even use the loot, and maybe even if they don't get any loot, they'd still be able to convince the child to do some good with it.

But those options don't exist, for no reason other than "The DM said so." which is terrible. This is why there's no real moral choice here. The party can attempt whatever resolution they want but they will always fail. The only routes to success are "take the loot" and "don't take the loot". And this is why I don't play paladins in older editions anymore.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by False God
He needs a guardian. Which he could likely afford for a looooong time with some of that gear, very little of it even. He could easily buy a plot of land, hire some hands, start a small farm and still have some funds left over.

He does need a guardian, so beyond the issue of the gear, there’s a question of whether the party will help find him a guardian, one way or another. A truly good party would devote themselves to making sure he’s safe and taken care of before moving on. Some of my current players would do exactly that.

As for buying a plot of land, the boy’s father is described as the “village hero” who owns a house with a safe room, so clearly he was well off. More than likely he owned land as well as the house, so both land and house should also be inherited by the boy.

More than a guardian, the boy needs a responsible steward to look after the land. Again, a genuinely good party would help the boy find such a steward.


Originally Posted by False God
The real travesty of the situation is that there isn't really a moral choice here. The DM has already determined that there is no chance of a resolution beyond the options of "take the gear, to heck with the kid" or "go home empty handed".

Of course there’s a moral choice. Take the gear or don’t.

“Go home empty-handed” is one outcome, and it may not be to the party’s immediate profit, but it’s the consequence of a moral decision. Giving up a benefit to yourself for the benefit of another is the very essence of a moral choice.

Is this a contrived moral choice, yes. Is this likely to be met with player complaints and crankiness, yes. Would those complaints be justified, quite probably. But this is absolutely a moral choice regardless.

[Grim Portent]

No one going to mention that the party could put funds towards the child's stay with a suitable guardian, leave them with their inheritence and trust that in time the child will either stop mourning and pass on the items or die peacefully and pass them on?

The child isn't capable of giving up the equipment for sentimental reasons, is already in distress and needs help. The good thing would be to take the child and their inheritence to an orphanage, or try to find a relative, family friend or even just someone who might owe a favour to the deceased hero to care for the child and pay any required donations for the childs entrance into an orphanage or similar out of party funds. Even if no donations are actually required for the new caregiver to take in the child I'd still expect a good person to offer them something for taking in the child.

[Keltest]

I feel like people are greatly overestimating the liquidity of this guy's equipment. If youre a random village peasant (and a child at that) what the heck are you going to do with a mithril sword or whatever? Where would you even begin to go to sell it? Does his village have a magic-mart that just buys random dungeon treasure for an infinite supply of local currency? He's not going to fight with it, not for years at least, and he isn't specifically intending to pursue a life of adventure in the immediate future anyway. So the idea that the theoretical wealth value of the treasure will see him set for life is wrong, to say nothing of the fact that the kid explicitly doesn't want to part with the actual items anyway. One way or another, the value of the equipment to the kid is entirely sentimental, not practical.

[D+1]

Disclaimer: The PCs in game do not have any alignment-related class abilities. They can have any alignment.

For my next D&D session:
The PCs find a village that has been ravaged by sporebats (FF p. 161). The village hero has managed to kill one of the sporebats before succumbing under their assault. The sporebats have killed almost everyone in the hamlet. The PCs must face the aggressive sporebats and either kill them or flee from them.

The village hero's son, who has Down syndrome, has survived, since the village hero had a secret hideout for him in his house. Once the boy sees through a peephole that the PCs are there and have saved the day, he comes out and mourns his dead father. He says that his father wanted him to have all his gear if something happened to him. If the PCs let him have all the gear, they gain no loot from the encounter. The son is not willing to give anything to the PCs, since it was his late father's wish that he would get all the gear. He is determined to keep all the gear.

If the PCs just take some or all of the gear without letting the boy have his inheritance, would that count as a neutral, mildly evil or strongly evil act? There will be no witnesses and it will be easy.

I will reward the PCs handsomely in their next encounter if they don't take any of the boy's inherited gear. However, the PCs will find some of the gear very useful and definitely worth taking, and the mentally deficient boy - who will be packing gear worth 21k gp - is clearly a 1st-level commoner at best.

My first question is why would you want to present your players with a moral trap for their PC's? Is this going to be fun just having them making the choice? Setting aside for a moment whether it's actually evil to take the gear, if they CHOOSE evil will that be fun or useful in your game or are you actually going to punish them for it? Yes, they'll have the gear but the obstacle you've put in front of the PLAYERS to have their characters get the gear is for their characters to DO evil in order to have some reward other than XP for the session. Obviously if they take the gear you're not going to reward them later for their choice but is this really a choice you want them to make? You're TEMPTING them TO. DO. EVIL. WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT?

If they do the right thing; the thing that you clearly WANT them to choose to do as players and as PC's (because you're seemingly trying to have one choice be wrong and the other be right, not just evil vs. good alignment), then you intend to reward them for their choice later anyway. But they don't know that. Are you sure that players aren't just going to see it as an invitation to start the murderhobo routine by simply taking whatever's not nailed down? Or are they going to see it as the first sign that you don't intend to give them rewards for doing the right thing other than just a warm and fuzzy feeling for having done it? When you give them rewards later, I can only assume after having done more stuff to "earn" rewards, how the hell are they supposed to know that you're then actually repaying them for previous choices? Do you just give them extra stuff and flat out tell them, "You're getting extra stuff right now because you made the right choice before?"

More to the point - is playing Morality Minefield what the players really signed up for? And what's with including the factor of not just being lured to steal candy - but to steal it from babies with genetic disorders? What if they say "yes" to that choice? Will THAT be fun and interesting game play for all? Is that really the road you want to LET your campaign start down? Here's a real stopper: What are you gonna do if one of the players says, "My little sister has Down's and I am sickened that you even make this an opportunity for PC's to grab at?" Honestly, there's just no good reason I can fathom that this situation you're engineering has any need of that kind of factor thrown into it, and it's already unclear to me why intentionally planting all the PC's in this sort of situation is appealing gaming in the first place.

My attitude on this sort of thing is this: If the players want their PC's to go evil, if that's a side of their PC's development that they WANT to explore, then they can AND WILL do it on their own. They DO NOT NEED the DM tempting them to it, nor trapping them into it, nor railroading them into it in any fashion. Like as not they'd have already MADE evil PC's if they wanted their PC's to be evil. If you want the PC's in the game to be evil, just tell the players. If you want your game to actively explore tensions between moralities and intra-party conflicts because some PC's are mean, creepy and evil and others don't like that, perhaps that's something you should first clear with your players.

So, I'd say drop the idea that the kid has Down's. It's an unnecessary mine you don't need. Kid claims he is supposed to inherit Dad's gear. So be it. That's rather the norm anyway isn't it? That children inherit their parents possessions upon their deaths? Why should PC's even begin to assume any different such that the kid would need to so strenuously point that out? If the PC's really want to just take the gear as "payment due" - they'll do it. You don't need to intentionally try to arrange the scenario to tempt them to take it and make a moral choice. If that's something YOU consider to be evil, so be it. But I'm reasonably confident that without you egging them on, you know by pointing out that the kid has all this valuable gear and he's REALLY not mentally or physically equipped to stop you from taking it... Well, the PC's will simply leave the kid the gear, probably take the added step of ensuring that he's not just gonna be left alone and helpless in a vacant village REGARDLESS of whether he's pointedly incapable of caring for himself from that point or not, and they'll move on being fully satisfied with a warm and fuzzy feeling. And if you want to reward that later, then be sure to make that apparent it's WHY you're rewarding them or else the point of the exercise of having made that choice at all is lost. Do good and you get rewarded, do bad to get your rewards and you get those rewards anyway? Where's that gonna take things?

[Bohandas]

Regardless of whether or not it's evil it's definitely ungood.

That said, there's some precedent for it not being evil in game terms. The official 3e CRPG adaptation of Temple of Elemental Evil has random encounters with bandits and pirates who are neutrally aligned.

[hamishspence]

The official 3e CRPG adaptation of Temple of Elemental Evil has random encounters with bandits and pirates who are neutrally aligned.

That may come under "a mixture of good and evil behaviour may result in a Neutral alignment".

Also, Theft from the needy is unambiguously evil (though not nearly as evil as murder - FC2) but theft from the "not needy", may be a little greyer.

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you, everyone, for the discussion so far!

[dude123nice]

You mentioned IRL institutions first.

I really, really have a beef with the notion that Good temple cannot demand pay for taking care of someone with 21k GP in items. Maybe if the chirch is aflush with resources they would do it for free, but it is not a reasonable default assumption.

Note please that I have also said that just "donating the items to the temple in exchange for raising the boy" is not good either because it is disproportionate to the costs which would be incurred in caring for the boy for the next N years (in fact I have said so before I have read your first message). But even organization concerned only with charity (and most of the churches aren't) would still have to get resources to care for the boy from somewhere. Given the price tag even one of the (presumably numerous) items would pay for his stay and then some.

IRL institutions are mostly neutral, at best. I still haven't seen anyone make an argument to the contrary. The reason that the idea of a Good institution clashes with what we know about how they work in reality is precisely because Good societies and organisations are unrealistic and could almost never manage to keep themselves afloat in the real world. But if you're playing DnD, that's precisely the kind of societies and organisations that need to exist, to fit the setting.

I think the way that Good societies and organisations could be made to work, fluff wise, is that people donate money in order to help the unfortunate, out of their own free will. Paying your stay at such an institution is ok if you are capable of doing so. But as Keltest mentioned, his father's adventurer gear probably isn't easily sellable. Even if you find a way to sell it, you'd have to sell entire pieces, and it's highly unlikely that anyone could recover or buy them back at a later date, considering that adventurers are the most likely people to buy them. Face it, you can't use the adventurer's gear to pay the kid's stay without permanently depriving him of them, and I think that appropriating mementos of someone else's murdered parents, without their consent, is a cruel thing to do, no matter the justification.

[False God]

Of course there’s a moral choice. Take the gear or don’t.

“Go home empty-handed” is one outcome, and it may not be to the party’s immediate profit, but it’s the consequence of a moral decision. Giving up a benefit to yourself for the benefit of another is the very essence of a moral choice.

Is this a contrived moral choice, yes. Is this likely to be met with player complaints and crankiness, yes. Would those complaints be justified, quite probably. But this is absolutely a moral choice regardless.

But the gear is not of benefit to the child. He doesn't need it, particularly if as you suggest his father was likely well off and landed already. He can't use it because he is both a child and incapable (for *reasons*).

I mean, if we replaced the situation with a dragon. For XYZ reasons the party has found the dragon lair empty, a great dead white(I use white because white's tend to be dumb) dragon lies in the middle of room, when all of a sudden an adorable baby dragon comes out crying over its mommy and demanding that the players simply leave, as taking any loot would be just be too much for the little thing to bear. There are diamonds and gems and loot galore and a lair that would make even the proudest dragon happy.

Is the situation the same because I've replaced a "dumb" child that it's socially unacceptable to kill with a dumb dragon that it's socially acceptable to kill, if not morally righteous to do so?

The "child" in this situation is to me, little different from a dragon aside from the fact that it is not socially acceptable to kill human children(many gamers would likely argue it is even morally righteous to kill "monster" children). He has much. He needs for little (save a parental figure), he has wealth, land, a home (assuming it wasn't destroyed or sustained only light damage in the sporebat attack). But he WANTS this loot, but can't use it. He WANTS the loot but doesn't need it. He is intransigent towards rational argument that the gear should be donated to those who can use it (the party or otherwise).

Certainly we humans have laws to follow, so taking the "loot"(air quotes because it's shrodingers loot, it both is and isn't loot) would definitely be an unlawful choice, but an evil or immoral one?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by False God
But the gear is not of benefit to the child.

This is irrelevant. The gear is the child’s property, period. No one has a right to take his property. No one has a right to arbitrarily claim the child can't use his property and therefore should give it up.

Beyond this, you can’t make any claims about whether or not the gear is a “benefit” to the child, because we don’t know what the gear is. An amulet of natural armor is a benefit to anyone who puts it on, and there may be one in the gear. There may also be a +2 ring of protection, which would also be a benefit. Anyone can wear a ring and benefit from its properties.

Until we know what the gear is, no one can make any definitive statements about whether the child can use it.


Originally Posted by False God
…rational argument that the gear should be donated to those who can use it….

Just because you can use something doesn’t mean you have the right to take it from someone else.

There is no “rational argument” to support disinheriting a child just because a selfish adult wants to.


Originally Posted by Jon_Dahl
Thank you, everyone, for the discussion so far!

At this point you should probably tell us exactly what the gear is, since that’s information the players will have in-scene which we do not.

You might also tell us more about the situation, because it feels like a lot is being left out.

[dude123nice]

But the gear is not of benefit to the child. He doesn't need it, particularly if as you suggest his father was likely well off and landed already. He can't use it because he is both a child and incapable (for *reasons*).

I mean, if we replaced the situation with a dragon. For XYZ reasons the party has found the dragon lair empty, a great dead white(I use white because white's tend to be dumb) dragon lies in the middle of room, when all of a sudden an adorable baby dragon comes out crying over its mommy and demanding that the players simply leave, as taking any loot would be just be too much for the little thing to bear. There are diamonds and gems and loot galore and a lair that would make even the proudest dragon happy.

Is the situation the same because I've replaced a "dumb" child that it's socially unacceptable to kill with a dumb dragon that it's socially acceptable to kill, if not morally righteous to do so?

The "child" in this situation is to me, little different from a dragon aside from the fact that it is not socially acceptable to kill human children(many gamers would likely argue it is even morally righteous to kill "monster" children). He has much. He needs for little (save a parental figure), he has wealth, land, a home (assuming it wasn't destroyed or sustained only light damage in the sporebat attack). But he WANTS this loot, but can't use it. He WANTS the loot but doesn't need it. He is intransigent towards rational argument that the gear should be donated to those who can use it (the party or otherwise).

Certainly we humans have laws to follow, so taking the "loot"(air quotes because it's shrodingers loot, it both is and isn't loot) would definitely be an unlawful choice, but an evil or immoral one?

Yeah, it would be morally wrong to take the loot from the child. The fact that he can't use it does not make him any less the owner of it. That's not how ownership works. Deciding on your own that someone can't make use of their possessions and that, thus, you should take them is stealing. And, both IRL and in DnD, stealing is almost always wrong, unless you are either doing it out of desperate reasons like your own survival, or the target you're stealing from acquired their wealth in a morally bankrupt ways to begin with. Those are the cases where it merely becomes chaotic. A big part of what made the archetypal CG hero, Robin Hood, sympathetic in his story is the fact that almost all nobles in the middle ages had basically no actual right to all their riches. Abusing and basically stealing from peasants was near universal, so taking from the rich wasn't just redistributing wealth, it was taking wealth back from the people who had stolen it in the first place.

And yeah, taking a dragon hoard from a baby dragon who was obviously trying to stop you would also be wrong. I find it particularly hilarious that you bring up how some parties would even considering murdering the baby dragon, whe the Giant hinself has gone onto long discussions about how murdering children of monster races is absolutely reprehensible.

Are you perhaps confused or surprised that archetypal adventurer behaviour is basically evil under any reasonable moral system, in DnD or otherwise? Well here's news flash for you, that's exactly the reason why the whole "adventures are murder hobos" meme was created. Because people noticed that, without GOOD in story justifications, the tipical adventurer behaviour just ammoumts to basically going around, killing and stealing whatever they want.

[Segev]

What is the purpose of this scenario, anyway?

Why would the father leave these things to his son who not only can’t use them, but can’t take care of himself? Leaving specific instructions on how his son is to be cared for would make more sense.

A more classic variant would be for the son not to be special needs, but normal needs for his age, and quite young. It would make sense for the hero’s expressed wish to his young son be that he get the gear when he’s inheriting his father’s role. That the child is to young to do so is tragic, and hard for a child to understand.

But with a son who can never succeed him and use the gear to provide for himself, the will makes no sense. It is cruel and thoughtless of the father.

[Boci]

What is the purpose of this scenario, anyway?

Why would the father leave these things to his son who not only can’t use them, but can’t take care of himself? Leaving specific instructions on how his son is to be cared for would make more sense.

A more classic variant would be for the son not to be special needs, but normal needs for his age, and quite young. It would make sense for the hero’s expressed wish to his young son be that he get the gear when he’s inheriting his father’s role. That the child is to young to do so is tragic, and hard for a child to understand.

But with a son who can never succeed him and use the gear to provide for himself, the will makes no sense. It is cruel and thoughtless of the father.

The father wanted the son to have his gear, not neccissarily use it. As for why no instructions as to who will take care of his son, the father probably didn't know the whole village was going to be wiped out by spoorbats, so likely he imagined someone else from the village would look after him, and may even have asked a family who agreed.

The scenario is a little contrived, but it does make sense.

[Elkad]

I didn't like Downs either, but in d&d that might actually be better than just having a 7 int. A Heal spell might fix the kid.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Segev
Why would the father leave these things to his son who not only can’t use them, but can’t take care of himself?

Life isn’t perfect, and not even a wise father can plan for every contingency. Blaming the father is pointless and misguided. You might as well blame every parent for not anticipating every possible scenario.


Originally Posted by Elkad
A Heal spell might fix the kid.

I’m sure there are Downs advocates who would argue strongly that people with Downs don’t need “fixing.”

This being one more reason why using Downs in this situation is likely to cause, at best, a lot of counterproductive side discussion.

[Saint-Just]

I think the way that Good societies and organisations could be made to work, fluff wise, is that people donate money in order to help the unfortunate, out of their own free will. Paying your stay at such an institution is ok if you are capable of doing so. But as Keltest mentioned, his father's adventurer gear probably isn't easily sellable. Even if you find a way to sell it, you'd have to sell entire pieces, and it's highly unlikely that anyone could recover or buy them back at a later date, considering that adventurers are the most likely people to buy them. Face it, you can't use the adventurer's gear to pay the kid's stay without permanently depriving him of them, and I think that appropriating mementos of someone else's murdered parents, without their consent, is a cruel thing to do, no matter the justification.

You still haven't addressed the idea of limited resources. Maybe Good temple with more income than expenditures would take that child in ads ask for nothing (or maybe they are building up a reserve fund to be used in case of disasters and wouldn't want to sabotage that effort - because it could mean the difference between the life and death for many people if disaster strikes). But it is unreasonable to assume that the temple has a plenty of money as a default.

Now, if the child has literally nothing than Good temple would probably try to find funds to feed and clothe them somewhere. That would mean doing some other thing less, worse, or not at all (and yes not all those things are charitable - let's say they leave the lanterns lit day and night during Significant Days, but still not doing them would be sabotaging the temple's mission) And yes probably priests of a Good temple would try their hardest to find that money somewhere in that case, and do some other thing less, worse or not at all. But doing the same concessions for someone who are very wealthy but refuses to part even with some of his wealth?

Another poster said that Good characters should pay for the child to be taken care of. Unless you have a society with no troubles in the living memory (and in a typical adventuring setting you are in fact more likely to here about brigands robbing people, monsters eating people, evil overlord enslaving people, evil magic blighting the crops etc. etc.) you are guaranteed to meet people in even worse situation than that child. An orphan who lives on the street. A maimed beggar (seriously a guild of beggars have been in an official rulebook - and you don't establish the guild with one or two or three people). Shouldn't those money be put to better use by helping those in the worse situation? And if you say "Of course you should pay for this orphan and for that orphan and for a beggar too" you've basically established that a vow of poverty is a prerequisite to be considered Good which is not how morality presented even in the Books of Extreme Dissimilarity.

P.S. You keep using the plural. Things, mementos. Either you don't see the difference between depriving the child of one memento among many and depriving them of all of them, or you're missing one of my points.

[Segev]

Life isn’t perfect, and not even a wise father can plan for every contingency. Blaming the father is pointless and misguided. You might as well blame every parent for not anticipating every possible scenario.So the father didn't know his kid, hasn't raised him, and doesn't know the kid's special needs nor inability to use the gear?

I'm only reacting to what we've been given about the scenario. If there's more nuance to the father's will, we haven't been told that. As presented, he's left his son an inheritance he cannot use and lacks the mental wherewithal to translate into something that can support him. That's not "failure to plan for every contingency," that's "leaving his son nothing but trouble."

I should emphasize that I'm not asking this to justify the players, but because I find the situation unbelievable. I'm explaining exactly why it feels contrived, to me: it's not something that would really come up, not as presented.


I’m sure there are Downs advocates who would argue strongly that people with Downs don’t need “fixing.”

This being one more reason why using Downs in this situation is likely to cause, at best, a lot of counterproductive side discussion.
Let's NOT go down this road. This way lies flame wars.

(I almost said "madness," but am not sure that wouldn't be misconstrued as somehow being insulting, and that wasn't my intent. So I apologize for the less catchy phrasing.)

[Keltest]

On that note, add me to the list of posters who are skeptical about the idea of the guy's equipment being the only possible inheritance the kid can get from his father. I could see how it has sentimental value, but does the hero not have anything else to his name? A favorite book, a blanket from his own childhood, a freaking house? Does he have a bat cave like setup where he keeps all his hero-ing equipment that the son doesn't know about that he actually lives in while the son sleeps on the streets?

We really need some more information here. As it is, the kid is probably better off if the party takes some/all of the father's gear, leaves the kid with the money for it and escorts him back to civilization. The kid will be sad, but he also wont be starving to death in the middle of a now-slaughtered town with nothing to help him survive and no means of obtaining those things.

Also, since I haven't seen many people bring it up, im really against the idea of having a hidden morality prize. If you don't want the players to be evil, tell them out of character and then stop giving them morality traps. If youre ok with it, let evil pay off better than good sometimes. Then it becomes an actual interesting conflict instead of being good just automatically being the better option.

[Boci]

On that note, add me to the list of posters who are skeptical about the idea of the guy's equipment being the only possible inheritance the kid can get from his father. I could see how it has sentimental value, but does the hero not have anything else to his name? A favorite book, a blanket from his own childhood, a freaking house?

How is that relevants? The presence of a favoured book or blanket doesn't change the fact that the hero also owned expensive magical items and is entitled to designate an heir for them (in the absence of codified laws that specify otherwise), for which their own child is a perfectly reasonable choice.

[Keltest]

How is that relevants? The presence of a favoured book or blanket doesn't change the fact that the hero also owned expensive magical items and is entitled to designate an heir for them (in the absence of codified laws that specify otherwise), for which their own child is a perfectly reasonable choice.

The main argument against taking the items is that it would deprive the kid of the sentimental value of his inheritance (since it lacks any practical value for him). Whether or not there is anything else the kid would have of his father's is thus totally relevant.

[Boci]

The main argument against taking the items is that it would deprive the kid of the sentimental value of his inheritance (since it lacks any practical value for him). Whether or not there is anything else the kid would have of his father's is thus totally relevant.

The main argument should be "It's his stuff, he can leave it to his son". But even if we look at the sentimental angle, its still sentimental even if they also have a book or blanket, since his dad is a hero and these were his tools, so its still a poor comparison.

[Saint-Just]

We really need some more information here. As it is, the kid is probably better off if the party takes some/all of the father's gear, leaves the kid with the money for it and escorts him back to civilization. The kid will be sad, but he also wont be starving to death in the middle of a now-slaughtered town with nothing to help him survive and no means of obtaining those things.

Ok, now I feel like a radical centrist because I want to say that if the law of the land and custom of the people is that children inherit their parents property (and it is very likely to be that way) then there is no cause to take the boy's things. Yes, heroes should not leave the boy in the middle of nowhere (if there is a significant cause to doubt that the boy would be able to fend for himself , then arguably even forcibly taking him to the town is the right action, if the boy doesn't understand his situation, because boy being distressed is preferable to the boy being dead) but taking things from him because he wouldn't be able to put them to the good use seems either self-serving or inviting radical redistribution of property in general based on very non-traditional morality (it may be fun to play with the second assumption, but you do not encounter it all that often in D&D).

As I and many others have said the boy needs a guardian. But if a party takes a time to find a guardian then there is no cause to take anything from the boy for themselves. A responsible and conscientious guardian may sell some things (because feeding and clothing the boy for years to come is not something that people should be expected to do without any compensation), but there is no cause for the party to profit from that (even if the y gave the bay a few travel rations on the way).


Also, since I haven't seen many people bring it up, im really against the idea of having a hidden morality prize. If you don't want the players to be evil, tell them out of character and then stop giving them morality traps. If youre ok with it, let evil pay off better than good sometimes. Then it becomes an actual interesting conflict instead of being good just automatically being the better option.

On that let me agree with you. The crime may not pay, but that's because society as a whole puts significant effort to make it so. Plenty of morally sketchy and exploitative decisions do pay. So unless you have a world where gods literally intervene to thwack every sinner on the head and to reward every humanitarian, you're better off with no obvious material reward. If your players wouldn't do good things unless they are rewarded for them by DM, then just let them enjoy their ill-gotten gains, but please, do not turn the game into morality play.

[Keltest]

The main argument should be "It's his stuff, he can leave it to his son". But even if we look at the sentimental angle, its still sentimental even if they also have a book or blanket, since his dad is a hero and these were his tools, so its still a poor comparison.

The rights of the father to have it go to a specific person is a strictly law/chaos issue. The impact on the son is the only part that makes it a good/evil issue, and frankly, leaving it to the kid ends up doing a lot more harm to him than good IMO. As was pointed out above, the equipment is nothing but sentimental trouble for the kid. Anything short of the PCs taking the kid and bringing him somewhere safe almost certainly leads to his death.


Ok, now I feel like a radical centrist because I want to say that if the law of the land and custom of the people is that children inherit their parents property (and it is very likely to be that way) then there is no cause to take the boy's things. Yes, heroes should not leave the boy in the middle of nowhere (if there is a significant cause to doubt that the boy would be able to fend for himself , then arguably even forcibly taking him to the town is the right action, if the boy doesn't understand his situation, because boy being distressed is preferable to the boy being dead).

As I and many others have said the boy needs a guardian. But if a party takes a time to find a guardian then there is no cause to take anything from the boy for themselves. A responsible and conscientious guardian may sell some things (because feeding and clothing the boy for years to come is not something that people should be expected to do without any compensation), but there is no cause for the party to profit from that (even if the y gave the bay a few travel rations on the way).

You may have missed it, but I did specify that the party should leave the kid with the monetary value of the items they take. Unless they happen to be within walking distance of a major city, its unlikely the adopted guardian would have any better ability to sell the stuff than the kid himself. Most villages aren't even going to have that much wealth in total, let alone sitting around in a shop waiting to be paid out. The players are, ironically, probably the only ones who could turn that gear into something the kid or a guardian can use to help him survive.

[Boci]

The rights of the father to have it go to a specific person is a strictly law/chaos issue. The impact on the son is the only part that makes it a good/evil issue, and frankly, leaving it to the kid ends up doing a lot more harm to him than good IMO. As was pointed out above, the equipment is nothing but sentimental trouble for the kid. Anything short of the PCs taking the kid and bringing him somewhere safe almost certainly leads to his death.

You're conflating two issues. Yes, the child will need help. But that is independant of the child having what his father left him. As others have said this doesn't sit well with a lot of people because there's good way the players can get the loot, but that kinda how it works. Adventurers don't fit in well with society as a whole.


You may have missed it, but I did specify that the party should leave the kid with the monetary value of the items they take. Unless they happen to be within walking distance of a major city, its unlikely the adopted guardian would have any better ability to sell the stuff than the kid himself. Most villages aren't even going to have that much wealth in total, let alone sitting around in a shop waiting to be paid out.

You can't sell something for a stranger when they don't want you to.

[Keltest]

You're conflating two issues. Yes, the child will need help. But that is independant of the child having what his father left him. As others have said this doesn't sit well with a lot of people because there's good way the players can get the loot, but that kinda how it works. Adventurers don't fit in well with society as a whole.



You can't sell something for a stranger when they don't want you to.

Again, law versus chaos. Law says "I don't have the right to tell them to stop being dumb." Chaos says "The kid needs money for food more than he needs something to remember daddy by."

[Boci]

Again, law versus chaos. Law says "I don't have the right to tell them to stop being dumb." Chaos says "The kid needs money for food more than he needs something to remember daddy by."

No, those are very extreme opinions, each with a law and chaos slant. The chaos one in particular is infringing on evil by appointing themselves to be the judge of what is best for another, which is not a typically chaos thing to do. Chaos is about choice and freedom, so a lot of chaotic characters would respect the freedom of the child to choose to keep them.

[Keltest]

No, those are very extreme opinions, each with a law and chaos slant. The chaos one in particular is infringing on evil by appointing themselves to be the judge of what is best for another, which is not a typically chaos thing to do. Chaos is about choice and freedom, so a lot of chaotic characters would respect the freedom of the child to choose to keep them.

Chaos holds little value for the merits of tradition or doing things "because its the right way to do it." It would be one thing if they were stealing from an adult, but this is a kid. He is literally incapable of deciding what is best for him. So unless youre willing to take the extreme position that every parent, babysitter and schoolteacher is evil, you may want to rethink your stance a bit.

The kid needs food and shelter. The equipment can provide neither of those, either in the short or long term, in the hands of the kid.

[Boci]

Chaos holds little value for the merits of tradition doing things "because its the right way to do it." It would be one thing if they were stealing from an adult, but this is a kid. He is literally incapable of deciding what is best for him. So unless youre willing to take the extreme position that every parent, babysitter and schoolteacher is evil, you may want to rethink your stance a bit.

No I don't. Remember what I said: "You can't sell something for a stranger when they don't want you to."

"every parent, babysitter and schoolteacher" is not a stranger, and neither would a guardian. The stance outlined would fit, if the PCs choose to become the boys guardian. But if they dont ,they forfeit any right to decide what's best to do with the child and his equipment. And choas should hold a lot of value in the child's choice to keep their father's equipment, if that's what they choose to do.


The kid needs food and shelter. The equipment can provide neither of those, either in the short or long term, in the hands of the kid.

Short term the PCs can and should give those to him. Longterm if for the kid's new guardians to decide on, not the PCs.

[Saint-Just]

You may have missed it, but I did specify that the party should leave the kid with the monetary value of the items they take. Unless they happen to be within walking distance of a major city, its unlikely the adopted guardian would have any better ability to sell the stuff than the kid himself. Most villages aren't even going to have that much wealth in total, let alone sitting around in a shop waiting to be paid out.

A) From the OP party is unlikely to have that much cash on hand (because the items was intended to significantly bump the power level of the party) and if you allow any discounts on the forced sale, well...

B) In general most tables doesn't have the situation where it's a-ok for the heroes to expropriate what they need for the greater good. No, not even if they leave monetary compensation. Think about it: if they wouldn't steal enchanted wall-hanger from the duke and would take the items from the boy then the only difference here is that the duke is powerful and the boy is weak. And exploiting weakness for your own goals, well...

C) Leaving boy with GP and no guardian is only inviting trouble. Leaving boy with a responsible guardian (people have suggested a good-aligned temple but that needn't be an only option) leaves an option of leaving things to the guardian who is likely not to sell all of them (both because they do not need that much money to feed the child and because items have a sentimental value for their ward).

I have redacted my previous post, but not fast enough, so let me repeat it: It may be very fun to exploit radical redistribution of goods, but the default assumption is that the heroes pay at least lip service to the norms of the society. And one of those norms in most cases is that property rights have nothing to do with who can make the best use of property. Even your typical Merry Men/Outlaws of the Marsh usually resort to robbing from the rich because rich have became richer by flouting either the custom (E.g. by instituting previously unheard-of taxes) or law (just straight up demanding more money than the law allows), not because they want to make new social order with no rich and no poor.

[Keltest]

No I don't. Remember what I said: "You can't sell something for a stranger when they don't want you to."

"every parent, babysitter and schoolteacher" is not a stranger, and neither would a guardian. The stance outlined would fit, if the PCs choose to become the boys guardian. But if they dont ,they forfeit any right to decide what's best to do with the child and his equipment. And choas should hold a lot of value in the child's choice to keep their father's equipment, if that's what they choose to do.

From where I sit, youre trying to convince me here that the Chaotic Good option here is to condemn the kid to death in the wilderness or give an unasked for burden to another family or group without providing any additional means of supporting this burden. There isn't really any way* that the kid gets to both keep all the items and end up without making somebody's life harder for the choice. Yeah, he's a stranger, but he's being compensated for it fairly and he's ultimately better off for it. That sounds pretty definitionally Chaotic Good to me.

*excluding the PCs paying for his upbringing out of charity, but I don't think "the PCs literally have to pay a tax to maintain their good alignment" is a resolution anybody would be satisfied with, or wants to entertain.

[Boci]

From where I sit, youre trying to convince me here that the Chaotic Good option here is to condemn the kid to death in the wilderness or give an unasked for burden to another family or group without providing any additional means of supporting this burden.

Nope. I'm saying short term the PCs can and should look after him, and do not deserve the gear in return for that. Longterm it is for the kid's new guardians to decide on what do to with the gear, not the PCs.

So unless the PCs become his new guardians, they don't get a say on what happens to the gear.

[Keltest]

Nope. I'm saying short term the PCs can and should look after him, and do not deserve the gear in return for that. Longterm it is for the kid's new guardians to decide on what do to with the gear, not the PCs.

So unless the PCs become his new guardians, they don't get a say on what happens to the gear.

If they end up in the situation where they have to decide what to do with the kid, they are absolutely acting as his guardians until they deliver him to somebody else.

[Boci]

If they end up in the situation where they have to decide what to do with the kid, they are absolutely acting as his guardians until they deliver him to somebody else.

There are mountains between "temporary guardians until we can hand him off to someone else" and "guardians for as long as he needs them".

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Keltest
The main argument against taking the items is that it would deprive the kid of the sentimental value of his inheritance (since it lacks any practical value for him).

No, the main argument is that stealing from a child is wrong.

Some people are continuing to argue that because the child supposedly can’t use the gear, the child has no right to it. This is morally and ethically untenable. The father’s property has passed to the son, and thus the gear belongs to the child. “Practical value” is irrelevant to the claim of ownership and not a valid basis for ignoring the rights of a child.

Apart from being morally indefensible, the claim that the child can’t use the gear is a false premise, because without knowing what the gear is, no one can definitively say whether it can’t be used. I’ve noticed that most of the pro-theft commenters have conveniently ignored this issue.


Originally Posted by Saint-Just
…taking things from him because he wouldn't be able to put them to the good use seems either self-serving or inviting radical redistribution of property in general….

This indeed.


Originally Posted by Saint-Just
A responsible and conscientious guardian may sell some things (because feeding and clothing the boy for years to come is not something that people should be expected to do without any compensation)….

Maybe, but feeding and clothing the child probably won’t be much of an expense, maybe a few dozen gold a year. A qualified guardian should be able to handle that out-of-pocket, without needing to sell specialized magical equipment.

This also applies to suggestions to take the child to a temple or monastery for safekeeping. Those institutions can easily afford an extra bowl of rice every morning, and they likely receive donations for exactly this situation.

Also, since the father's house passed to the child, the easiest solution might be to rent out the house and send all profits to a fund in the child's name, less a monthly maintenance fee.


Originally Posted by Keltest
You may have missed it, but I did specify that the party should leave the kid with the monetary value of the items they take.

This is even worse than outright theft. We don’t know what the magic items are, but there’s a good chance one or more of them can provide tangible benefits, such as bracers of armor or a ring of seven lovely colors.

Leaving him in the street with a pile of coins is utterly reprehensible, because he’s not going to buy anything in a depopulated village.

And forcing someone to give up their property for something else is still theft, no matter the market value. This approach is morally reprehensible and purely self-serving—as are any claims that since the party is now collectively the child’s guardian, they are somehow qualified to take all his property.


Originally Posted by Keltest
We really need some more information here.

At this point I feel like the OP is holding back this information just to see where the discussion goes. Several of us have asked to know exactly what items comprise the gear, but although the OP has indicated he’s following the discussion, he still hasn’t answered that very basic question.

This is unfair, since the players will know this information up front, yet it’s deliberately being withheld from us.

Full disclosure, I’m still a little frustrated by the OP’s last thread, in which he let the discussion flop all around for a long while before revealing some critical information that should have been included in the OP. I have a feeling there may be a similar situation here.

[Keltest]

There are mountains between "temporary guardians until we can hand him off to someone else" and "guardians for as long as he needs them".

True, but "this kid's survival is our responsibility" is not one of them. The kid cant eat for free and has no resources of his own with which he can directly pay for food with.

[Saint-Just]

If they end up in the situation where they have to decide what to do with the kid, they are absolutely acting as his guardians until they deliver him to somebody else.

Yes, exactly. They are acting as guardians. And responsible guardians (especially temporary guardians as their position is more suspect) would need to look in the best interest of their ward and not to their own. Pray tell me what benefit is there for the child to have gold instead of items at the moment when he would be handed over to someone else? I want to bring to your special attention a situation where the party does take to themselves one item (probably the cheapest or least significant to the child) and adds its' full value to the child's possessions. How is child better off with 21K gold as opposed to 300 gold and 20.7K in items?

[Keltest]

Yes, exactly. They are acting as guardians. And responsible guardians (especially temporary guardians as their position is more suspect) would need to look in the best interest of their ward and not to their own. Pray tell me what benefit is there for the child to have gold instead of items at the moment when he would be handed over to someone else? I want to bring to your special attention a situation where the party does take to themselves one item (probably the cheapest or least significant to the child) and adds its' full value to the child's possessions. How is child better off with 21K gold as opposed to 300 gold and 20.7K in items?

Because 21k in gold can be used for his upbringing in a way that bracers of defense cant? What the heck does a kid need with bracers of defense anyway? He isn't adventuring and he isn't even fully grown, using those items is the absolute last thing he should be doing. If the PCs are going to let him be doing that, they may as well stab him themselves, because at least then they would be honest about their responsibility for the harm that comes to him.

[Boci]

True, but "this kid's survival is our responsibility" is not one of them. The kid cant eat for free and has no resources of his own with which he can directly pay for food with.

Which short term for the PCs doesn't matter. They can and should feed him. What, are they going to miss those 2 weeks of trail rations and drinking water?

[Keltest]

Which short term for the PCs doesn't matter. They can and should feed him. What, are they going to miss those 2 weeks of trail rations and drinking water?

I mean, probably. PCs gotta eat too. Having both the kid and the party starve to death is also a situation that should be avoided, for various reasons.

[Boci]

I mean, probably. PCs gotta eat too. Having both the kid and the party starve to death is also a situation that should be avoided, for various reasons.

Right, because that's totally a realistic scenario that happens all the time in games /s

An average party is four, they can handle an 25% increase in consumption. It will either be glossed over with a few coins cut off, or rations are carefully tracked, in which case PCs will make sure some of the party members have the ability to find more food through magic or survival, and will have packed extra rations.

This is getting redicolous.

[Saint-Just]

Because 21k in gold can be used for his upbringing in a way that bracers of defense cant? What the heck does a kid need with bracers of defense anyway? He isn't adventuring and he isn't even fully grown, using those items is the absolute last thing he should be doing. If the PCs are going to let him be doing that, they may as well stab him themselves, because at least then they would be honest about their responsibility for the harm that comes to him.

He needs (at least for a certain value of needs) them as mementos. It's that easy. Unlike certain others I do contend that hypothetical permanent guardian would be justified in selling some items to pay for the costs incurred (given the power level even one item would probably cover food and clothing for a dozen years) but no more.

Even if he didn't need them as mementos conservative or cautious guardian (both qualities usually desirable in a guardian) may still desire to preserve as much of their ward's inheritance in the original form instead of converting it to cash, because if ward needs cash he could later sell them but there is no guarantee he would be able to buy exactly the same items if he has enough cash.

Oh and it's not clear for me why he would need more than 25 gold a year (so 300 GP is a dozen years). Would you please enlighten me?



Some people are continuing to argue that because the child supposedly can’t use the gear, the child has no right to it. This is morally and ethically untenable.

I would like to contend that it can be tenable morally and ethically but then the party should probably already thinking about a regime change, to have no personal property but a party pool of equipment and all that jazz. So, not a default assumption for dungeon crawling

[Segev]

Look, taking property because you want it or think you can do better with it than the rightful owner is wrong. I'm not even contesting that.

I'm not trying to justify the party taking the stuff.

I'm trying to figure out why they're even in this situation.

Frankly, my concern as a (good-aligned, or even non-evil) PC would be more with the kid's well-being, both in the short- and medium-term, and in terms of whether he's going to foolishly try to be the hero his father was when he clearly isn't up to it. (Nevermind that, in D&D terms? He's probably perfectly capable of being a Big Dumb Fighter, of which there's a rich tradition of them becoming powerful and capable adventurers.)

It feels like this is meant more to bait and punish the players with needless jabs than it is to be an interesting scenario. That's my issue with it.

"Would this be an evil act?" is how it's titled, which immediately suggests that the whole purpose is to point fingers of blame and moral outrage. If it had been phrased, "How would you handle this situation as a PC in a party?" you might get different answers.

This is why I ask why the scenario even exists. What's the purpose and point of it? What was the father's actual intention, and what plans did he really have for his son in the event of his untimely demise? Or even his timely demise, if his son is not able to provide for himself; children do typically outlive their parents, after all. (Barring half-elves growing old before their elven parent, or the like.) It feels like there's either a lot more interesting depth to this than has been presented, making this whole "morality question" thing a waste of a much better plot hook, or this is just an ill-thought-out way of trying to "prove" something to the players.

[Boci]

This is why I ask why the scenario even exists. What's the purpose and point of it? What was the father's actual intention, and what plans did he really have for his son in the event of his untimely demise? Or even his timely demise, if his son is not able to provide for himself; children do typically outlive their parents, after all.

Presumably something involving the rest of the village that was slaughtered by the sporebats. Can't really blame the father for not having a contingency in place for the whole village dying with him.

[Saint-Just]

This is why I ask why the scenario even exists. What's the purpose and point of it? What was the father's actual intention, and what plans did he really have for his son in the event of his untimely demise? Or even his timely demise, if his son is not able to provide for himself; children do typically outlive their parents, after all. (Barring half-elves growing old before their elven parent, or the like.) It feels like there's either a lot more interesting depth to this than has been presented, making this whole "morality question" thing a waste of a much better plot hook, or this is just an ill-thought-out way of trying to "prove" something to the players.

I've answered the question, without even presupposing that the father really have had a plan. In fact father may not even ever explicitly stated that he wanted the child to have his things (and the child's words are either reasonable extrapolation that his father's *would* have wanted him to inherit his gear, or a child taking some remark out of context). All that does not change the fact the child is the most probable rightful owner

I have even supposed that in such a situation law may say something different - e.g. in case of intestacy and no living adult relative closer than N degree father's property goes to the king and the king takes responsibility of raising the child (it may even be viewed as just if king also pays the debts of the men who died in debt having no living relative closer then N degree). What law almost surely doesn't say is "finders keepers".

[Galacktic]

A bigger issue is even if you do want to take the kid somewhere to be taken care of, you're adventurers. He's a kid. You get into, on average, 5 fights to the death a day. Do you really want to expose the kid to that kind of danger and trauma -after- he gets to see his entire village massacred? There's no good option here, and without further information from the OP (who has what's been described as a "black box" style of DMing where he's decided in advance what happens regardless of player choice) we can't really have a discussion.

[Boci]

A bigger issue is even if you do want to take the kid somewhere to be taken care of, you're adventurers. He's a kid. You get into, on average, 5 fights to the death a day. Do you really want to expose the kid to that kind of danger and trauma -after- he gets to see his entire village massacred? There's no good option here, and without further information from the OP (who has what's been described as a "black box" style of DMing where he's decided in advance what happens regardless of player choice) we can't really have a discussion.

5 fights to the death per day is only when activly adventuring. Unless the adventurers are on a time sensative mission, its a simple case of "We take a detour to the nearest settlment of moderate size".

[ciopo]

A bigger issue is even if you do want to take the kid somewhere to be taken care of, you're adventurers. He's a kid. You get into, on average, 5 fights to the death a day. Do you really want to expose the kid to that kind of danger and trauma -after- he gets to see his entire village massacred? There's no good option here, and without further information from the OP (who has what's been described as a "black box" style of DMing where he's decided in advance what happens regardless of player choice) we can't really have a discussion.

well if in the course of emulating the father he gets himself killed...

blue is the color of joking, I still have ptsd about trying to keep campaign npc alive, what's with casters dumping CON *le sigh*

to reiterate : I do think stealing from the child is wrong, I do also think that I can totally see how a grizzled adventurer might doubt the claim of the child after the fact.

The chekhov gear is already in the hands of the adventurer, they aren't taking anything from the child :smalltongue:

[Saint-Just]

Regarding "5 fight/day" - this is going too meta. Either roads are really this dangerous (in which case leaving the child alone is surely signing his death warrant) or they aren't. Unless the party is being harried by the agents of some far-reaching antagonist traveling with them cannot be more dangerous than travelling alone



to reiterate : I do think stealing from the child is wrong, I do also think that I can totally see how a grizzled adventurer might doubt the claim of the child after the fact.

The chekhov gear is already in the hands of the adventurer, [COLOR="#0000FF"]they aren't taking anything from the child :smalltongue:

I can totally see and even empathize with the decision to check the boy's claims (and unless the village was entirely cut from the world surely someone around has heard about the village hero) before parting with items. What I do not see as reasonable is dismissing the claims out of hand (and I even said that e.g. dismissing the words of a random street urchin in the next city that party is carrying his father's things may be reasonable, but hiding in the same massacred village lends significant credence to the boy's words).

Which is, accidentally, a fine opportunity to roleplay - convince the boy to tag along (maybe handle some\all of items to him but keep an eye on him), try to find out about the village from the locals etc. etc.

[Boci]

I can totally see and even empathize with the decision to check the boy's claims (and unless the village was entirely cut from the world surely someone around has heard about the village hero) before parting with items.

Worth noting even this one is pushing it, in that it probably works, but is very gamey. Why do 4 strangers feel they are in any way entitled to check the claim of son to his father's possessions? In any civilized society the PCs have no place looting the dead to begin with, or injecting themselves into the inheritance process.

[Segev]

Worth noting even this one is pushing it, in that it probably works, but is very gamey. Why do 4 strangers feel they are in any way entitled to check the claim of son to his father's possessions? In any civilized society the PCs have no place looting the dead to begin with, or injecting themselves into the inheritance process.

How do they know it's the guy's son? Are they to take his word for it just because he's the sole survivor they found in the village? I think that's the claim that is being suggested as reasonable to check. It's really easy for the street rat who regularly stole the hero's son's lunch money on his way to school to claim that he's the hero's son when the hero's son is actually dead in another part of town. As an example.

I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it's hardly clear-cut that it's really this boy's property/inheritance.

[Boci]

How do they know it's the guy's son? Are they to take his word for it just because he's the sole survivor they found in the village? I think that's the claim that is being suggested as reasonable to check. It's really easy for the street rat who regularly stole the hero's son's lunch money on his way to school to claim that he's the hero's son when the hero's son is actually dead in another part of town. As an example.

I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it's hardly clear-cut that it's really this boy's property/inheritance.

The boy was hiding in the guy's secret hideout in the basement, and knows the house. The PC have no stance on which to challenge that claim. If I see someone moving a TV out of an area where 90% of people were killed by a natural disaster and they say its theirs, they're moving it to their new house, that's it. I have to believe them. I'm not law enforcement, I have no right to challenge them. D&D is modern enough that PCs taking a law enforcement role in a land with an existing legal structure is in fact wierd and gamey.

If the PCs hold an official rank, which is arare but does happen in games sometimes, then sure, they can figure it out.

[Segev]

The boy was hiding in the guy's secret hideout in the basement, and knows the house. The PC have no stance on which to challenge that claim. If I see someone moving a TV out of an area where 90% of people were killed by a natural disaster and they say its theirs, they're moving it to their new house, that's it. I have to believe them. I'm not law enforcement, I have no right to challenge them. D&D is modern enough that PCs taking a law enforcement role in a land with an existing legal structure is in fact wierd and gamey.

If the PCs hold an official rank, which is arare but does happen in games sometimes, then sure, they can figure it out.

The "he's in the house in a safe room" is pretty convincing, yeah.



Again, though, I question the motive of this scenario. Not because of the details of it, but the way the OP presents it to us and the title of the thread.

Why are you asking us about this being evil, Jon_Dahl? Are you going to present it in a way that makes it seem like the PCs deserve the loot and the kid is showing up to shame them into giving it up? The very way you frame this makes me worry that you're planning it for reasons that will be detrimental to the game, and thus will strongarm it into "working" in such a way as to browbeat a morality message.

[Saint-Just]

Worth noting even this one is pushing it, in that it probably works, but is very gamey. Why do 4 strangers feel they are in any way entitled to check the claim of son to his father's possessions? In any civilized society the PCs have no place looting the dead to begin with, or injecting themselves into the inheritance process.

They do not check the claims to possession (ok, in MY scenario they are not checking the claims to possession), they are checking the claim of some guy (boy) to be the son. Where there is no community (anymore) it's not that unreasonable. Unless the state is strongly centralized no one is sending any inspectors or bailiffs to distribute the property to the heirs. BEST case scenario would be appropriating them for the needs of the nearest town, but even that is not likely - much more likely that movable property would (de facto) belong to whoever first stumble upon it. I can see rigidly Lawful person abstaining from taking the property, but in general it's much less unusual and suspect than many other things routinely done by adventurers.

About looting the dead - well, you don't do it with people from your community (and don't allow the others to do it to people from your community). Depending on the situation community means anything from the village\city ward to the entire kingdom (but never "an entire world" - property of the foreigners were routinely repossessed by the local authorities when there were none to immediately claim it). But outsiders - even in situations where there is no law stating this explicitly someone ususally came upon things left lying around and took it. Even in cultures with strong taboos about dead , where victorious warriors would never loot the bodies of the fallen enemies battlefield was practically never left to be as is. Someone early or later would come and take things for themselves.


The boy was hiding in the guy's secret hideout in the basement

OP did not say that they know which house belongs to the hero. And as I said I do not think that the modern sensibilities in the most settings go as far as to have publicly funded guys who will take care about some faraway heir's rights.

[ciopo]

The boy was hiding in the guy's secret hideout in the basement, and knows the house. The PC have no stance on which to challenge that claim. If I see someone moving a TV out of an area where 90% of people were killed by a natural disaster and they say its theirs, they're moving it to their new house, that's it. I have to believe them.

Ohh, but they aren't taking anything from the house that child came out from! They took the whatever from that corpse over yonder!

Hell, hypothesis : the party already has a bag of holding, they threw everything that pinged magic detection inside the bag of holding to be identified later at their leisure once they are in a safe place : let's have some contrivance in how a young adult would approach them and describe those items, asking if they've seen them (or something). That's a scenario more to my liking!
Because proof of ownership is kind of important, I have RL experienced people trying to claim the wallet I had found was theirs, but couldn't name the ID that was inside

Or a extrapolation : I find some banknote on the ground, someone sees me picking it up and claims it's theirs.
Well, I am inclined to believe them, because I am naive and generally think the best of people, but if 30 seconds later a yhird party pops up asking if anyone has found a banknote, then clearly someone is lying, and I'd default to keeping the banknote, because I have a competence malus to my sense motive

[Boci]

Or a extrapolation : I find some banknote on the ground, someone sees me picking it up and claims it's theirs.
Well, I am inclined to believe them, because I am naive and generally think the best of people, but if 30 seconds later a yhird party pops up asking if anyone has found a banknote, then clearly someone is lying, and I'd default to keeping the banknote, because I have a competence malus to my sense motive

Better example for this thread: you find a dead person. You don't take their wallet. So we've already departed from the premise of this thread.

[ciopo]

Better example for this thread: you find a dead person. You don't take their wallet. So we've already departed from the premise of this thread.
If I were to find a dead person, I'd call the police. If I find a wallet, I'll bring it to the police.

If my character in fantamedievalesque dnd finds a dead person, well, finders keepers because that is a society where monsters are a fact of life and I'm not stupid enough to leave magical gear with a body out of some untenable sense of ??? , plus do the good thing of burying the body or whatever is culturally appropriate

[Segev]

Better example for this thread: you find a dead person. You don't take their wallet. So we've already departed from the premise of this thread.

To be fair, if you're not in a first-world country with easy access to all you need to survive and a comfortable standard of living, but rather are in a wilderness surrounding a burnt-out town with no supplies other than those you brought with you and your profession is scavanging from monsters and their hoards, you're absolutely going to scavange anything of value from this ruined town, including valuable stuff the dead are wearing. If you're lawful and/or good, or you have other reason to be respectful of the dead, you may also take the time to haul the corpses out and bury or burn them according to proper last rites procedures.

If Covid-19 depopulated the USA and you were wandering the world trying to survive with covid-mutated monsters, and found a ruined town that you cleaned out of covid-bats, you absolutely would take anything of value (particularly of a value that helps you survive) from the dead the covid-bats killed.

[Boci]

If my character in fantamedievalesque dnd finds a dead person, well, finders keepers because that is a society where monsters are a fact of life and I'm not stupid enough to leave magical gear with a body out of some untenable sense of ??? , plus do the good thing of burying the body or whatever is culturally appropriate

I don't think the existence of monsters nullifies property laws. Most fantasy books which don't need a PC culture to work would have looting the dead in such a scenario to be a morally dubious act, monster or no.

[ciopo]

I don't think the existence of monsters nullifies property laws. Most fantasy books which don't need a PC culture to work would have looting the dead in such a scenario to be a morally dubious act, monster or no.
I strongly disagree with this, a world where security is not guarantueed, when you are away from the "safe" areas, once it is a matter of survival looting the dead is not a moral act anymore. It is only with safety that there is the possibility to have a moral choice.

Why, I think it was in this very threat that someone said that stealing is not morally wrong if the alternative is starving?

If adventurer me finds a dead body in a side street in average city A? I call the guards
If adventurer me stumble upon the ruins of a village? Well I'd try to find the cause, but if there was anything valuable that crosses my radar there, it's only good sense taking it

[Boci]

I strongly disagree with this, a world where security is not guarantueed, when you are away from the "safe" areas, once it is a matter of survival looting the dead is not a moral act anymore. It is only with safety that there is the possibility to have a moral choice.

Why, I think it was in this very threat that someone said that stealing is not morally wrong if the alternative is starving?

Yes, but the PCs aren't going to starve. Remember commoners lived in the village. So unless whole villages dying was a weekly occurance, this is a safe area, the sporebats are gone, the PCs didn't need the loot to defeat them. Since the PCs are not going to starve without the loot, so the comparison is irrelivant.


If adventurer me stumble upon the ruins of a village? Well I'd try to find the cause, but if there was anything valuable that crisses my radar there, it's only good sense taking it

And in most books, adventure you would be portrayed as morally dubious. Assuming ofcourse its a freshly killed village, which is was in this example. Its hard to nail down when it stops being graverobbing and can be considered arhceology, but its there somewhere.

[Saint-Just]

And in most books, adventure you would be portrayed as morally dubious. Assuming ofcourse its a freshly killed village, which is was in this example. Its hard to nail down when it stops being graverobbing and can be considered arhceology, but its there somewhere.

In most fantasy books? Probably yes. The problem is most books don't depict settings even close to the "normal" D&D. So what is dubious in one situation is expected in the other.

But even if go by the historical examples, unless the realm is strongly centralized there may be no one whose duty it is to repossess it for the town, or the barony, or the local province, much less to find the previous owners' second cousin to hand things to him. It's literally going to waste. And yes significant number if historical people would rather let it go to waste than to take something to which they do not have 100% claim enshrined in law. But the typical adventurers usualy come from a different pool.

[Boci]

In most fantasy books? Probably yes. The problem is most books don't depict settings even close to the "normal" D&D. So what is dubious in one situation is expected in the other.

That was rather my point. D&D has needed to prop up a rather bizarre PC culture to make the assumptions of its gameplay work that, isn't too realistic. Nothing more to my point, that was all. Just that D&D is not most fantasy books.

[ciopo]

Yes, but the PCs aren't going to starve. Remember commoners lived in the village. So unless whole villages dying was a weekly occurance, this is a safe area, the sporebats are gone, the PCs didn't need the loot to defeat them. Since the PCs are not going to starve without the loot, so the comparison is irrelivant.



And in most books, adventure you would be portrayed as morally dubious.
I said starving, but if it is "a better armor" or what have you, conceptually that's were I am, bettering my chances at survival without lessening the chances of survival of anyone else.
Hell, with undeads being a factor, doubly so because I'm depriving that potential skeleton down the years from having armour :p

I'd posit that clearly it wasn't all that safe since the village got destroyed

You'd call adventurer me morally dubious, but putting aside that I am not desecrating a tomb (nor would I, caveat dungeon megatombs) , but what morals are we talking about here? Ours as 1st world country.
Adventurer me buries any corpse of sentients he finds during his adventuring (adventuring defined as doing whatever is considered dangerous, like removing menaces such as monster for the safety of mankind as a whole) because that's the culturally right thing for that realm. Useful gear is repurposed, why is that morally wrong in universe? Where is the guilty coscience? Why should there be a guilty conscience about that in a world/place where survival is not safely assumed?

[Boci]

I'd posit that clearly it wasn't all that safe since the village got destroyed

But since a village was built there threat are clearly not common, and the PCs had already destroyed it.

[ciopo]

That was rather my point. D&D has needed to prop up a rather bizarre PC culture to make the assumptions of its gameplay work that, isn't too realistic. Nothing more to my point, that was all. Just that D&D is not most fantasy books.

Tbh I find most fantasy book to be the unrealistic ones from this point of view. They are idealized heroes journey, they don't tell the story of the street urchin that got hanged for stealing to survive.

Not to bash on books mind you, I am a avid reader but the stories are, shall we say, sanitized?

I think I've read/seen plenty of example of "taking the better fitting boots from that just died guy" or some variation of that concept.

I also don't find it believable that historically stuff was just left to rot if the owner couldn't be found.

[Boci]

Tbh I find most fantasy book to be the unrealistic ones from this point of view. They are idealized heroes journey, they don't tell the story of the street urchin that got hanged for stealing to survive.

Not to bash on books mind you, I am a avid reader but the stories are, shall we say, sanitized?

I've read a lot of dark fantasy. It is not sanitized, anything but, and yet looting is not nearly as common as you would expect based on a D&D game. In the Book of the Fallen series characters only start looting for non-food items a continent wide plague wipes people out. Before that they would not start looking for a dead village for valuables.

[ciopo]

I've read a lot of dark fantasy. It is not sanitized, anything but, and yet looting is not nearly as common as you would expect based on a D&D game. In the Book of the Fallen series characters only start looting for non-food items a continent wide plague wipes people out. Before that they would not start looking for a dead village for valuables.
Ahhh good old malazans! Putting aside "good" old Karsa, malazan soldiers are disciplined by definition, I don't doubt they don't loot, well mostly, that it is not depicted doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, but in this case I find it more a matter of discipline.

I find it a bit ironic that you name this series however, since it so eminently displays how war is nothing more than state mandate thief :)

[Boci]

Ahhh good old malazans! Putting aside "good" old Karsa, malazan soldiers are disciplined by definition, I don't doubt they don't loot, well mostly, that it is not depicted doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, but in this case I find it more a matter of discipline.

I'm not talking about the soldiers, there were plenty of non-soldier characters.


I find it a bit ironic that you name this series however, since it so eminently displays how war is nothing more than state mandate thief :)

Not sure why you find it ironic. As soon as a state exists, "state mandated X" is going to be very different from "indevidual X".

[Jon_Dahl]

I guess almost everything in my game is contrived. I can't name a single monster-filled dungeon in my campaign whose background and purpose weren't pretty much contrived.

The village hero and his wife were druids deep in the woods. Their first born and only child had Down syndrome, and after the druid's wife died, he decided to relocate to a village and become civilized so that his son might survive. Down syndrome is necessary since the man had to have a genuine motive to start living with other people instead of with wild beasts and mischievous feys. He had a magical club (club +1), a magical armor (hide +1), and a magical amulet (amulet of natural armor +3) which were all passed down to him from his father who had inherited from his father. He had told this story to his son (this and how he met his mother are the only nice stories he knows) and his son assumed that his father would follow the tradition. Not wanting to be hard on his son, the father had said "Yeah, sure" without putting too much thought into it.

Father found his life in the village a little bit uncomfortable, but the help he received from the villagers was worth it despite the awfully crowded and noisy village of 50 people.

As a powerful spell caster, he received bags of gold for his services every now and then. The villagers did all they could to "liberate" the hero from his gold. The carpenter offered to build a comfy secret room for his son if the man wanted to hide his son in case of an emergency. "Yeah, sure" was the druid's answer. Gold exchanged hands.

Life went well, until the sporebats came and the druid was not prepared to fight these kind of opponents. Not at all. It wasn't his best day tactics-wise and he died. The villagers tried to protect their families, but they perished as well, and the druid had encouraged them to fight on, which had not been the best piece of advice. The druid was completely baffled by the size of the bats: they are only medium sized and dire bats are large, so the druid thought that it would be a fairly easy to defeat them despite the rays that these 'mutants' were firing. He underestimated their CR by 5 and everyone paid the ultimate price for it.

***

I give XP for roleplaying. If the players can roleplay this scenario in a meaningful way, no matter how black and white it is and no matter how bad it is in every way, they will receive XP. There is the possibility that they will just unceremoniously take the loot from the crying boy, which is ok. I like giving my players choices that could bring them closer to evil, good, chaos and order so that they can explore their characters. "Okay, is my character a good person like in a normal way or like a paladin or is it all a facade?" I don't see why you have to feel that I am mistreating my players. If they have a choice, even if that choice is yes/no/I don't care, it's okay. If they don't like that, they can tell me. I guess I'm just very much into the "come to the dark side" kind of stuff, okay?

[Boci]

I give XP for roleplaying. If the players can roleplay this scenario in a meaningful way, no matter how black and white it is and no matter how bad it is in every way, they will receive XP. There is the possibility that they will just unceremoniously take the loot from the crying boy, which is ok. I like giving my players choices that could bring them closer to evil, good, chaos and order so that they can explore their characters. "Okay, is my character a good person like in a normal way or like a paladin or is it all a facade?" I don't see why you have to feel that I am mistreating my players. If they have a choice, even if that choice is yes/no/I don't care, it's okay. If they don't like that, they can tell me. I guess I'm just very much into the "come to the dark side" kind of stuff, okay?

I think the big thing people had a problem with, beyond the contrivance of the scenario (which isn't the worst thing in a game), was the reward for players turning down the loot. If they get rewarded for turning down the loot, then they didn't lose anything and their choice wasn't actually a choice. What did they give up by not taking it?

[Jon_Dahl]

I think the big thing people had a problem with, beyond the contrivance of the scenario (which isn't the worst thing in a game), was the reward for players turning down the loot. If they get rewarded for turning down the loot, then they didn't lose anything and their choice wasn't actually a choice. What did they give up by not taking it?

An interesting question. Do you have any suggestions on how to handle that?

[ciopo]

I'm not talking about the soldiers, there were plenty of non-soldier characters. I'm not sure we are in contention? I'm saying that to my memory the soldiers weren't shown as looty-happy, because discipline, sadly my memory is terrible.

I'm relatively sure there has been looting in that saga, Karsa notwithstanding. Not just looting from scavengers I mean.

But that is the point I guess, I don't think scavenging is morally wrong (with caveats), in a medievalish society.

To a point, just recently in the course of tracking down some kidnappers I had to scout out 4 "abandoned hunter lodges" in the woods outside the city -> obviously I did not strip clean these locations. Neither did I tell my gm that I searched for valuables. There was no NEED
Equally obviously if anything pinged magic detection I would investigate whatever that is, and not leave whatever that is wherever I found it, because magic items are a scarcity.

[Boci]

An interesting question. Do you have any suggestions on how to handle that?

Make the choice purely about roleplay. If they take the stuff, they get the stuff. If they don't, they don't. Are they rewarded for not taking the stuff and making sure the boy was looked after? Not beyond getting to feel good about themselves for a good deed. Are they punished for taking the stuff? Not likely. Even if they leave the boy alieeve, its unlikely they could ever be hunted down, even if the authorities did believe his tale about stolen gear and bothered to try.

[Segev]

Honestly, my biggest problem with it is that it seems to be being set up just to be a morality play, rather than just being what it is.

I'd not concern myself with what it is, alignment-wise, if it's not important. Let the players play it out however they will. If they're regularly greedy and selfish, it will show in a pattern of acts, not just in one. I think that's one of the problems you run into most often with these threads, Jon_Dahl: you keep setting up singular points and asking "tough questions" about them.

You don't need to give your players opportunities to "become more [alignment]." The story you spelled out just now is a lot clearer (though I again question why downs syndrome is needed over just the kid being very young; there's nothing special about downs syndrome that makes them less able to live in the wilderness than a small child). You can give the kid this condition; it just stands out because it was introduced in your initiap pitch of the scenario as a "pity point," which is annoying to most players.

"Kick this puppy for a reward" seems to be what you're setting up. In fact, given the question you ask to open this thread, it seems to be what you're HOPING you set up.

I don't have a problem with the scenario as presented most recently, but the impetus behind it bothers me on a structural level.


In analogy, you can write an interesting story about a mutant who feeds on dangerous sorts of radiation who hunts down nuclear plants and is dangerous because he causes meltdowns while feeding, and have it be an interesting superhero story about stopping him. But if the superhero is Captain Planet, the story is probably going to take on a tone that is very different than if the superhero is Superman or Spider-Man. The motive behind the story is so radically different when you find out it's a Captain Planet eco-villain that it raises warning bells.

And that's where the "Is this an evil act?" opener puts my expectations of the tone of the way this is intended to be run, and the apparent expectations you have as a DM for it. It makes me worried your motives to include morality play will cloud the more interesting possibilities of a nuanced situation.


Make the choice purely about roleplay. If they take the stuff, they get the stuff. If they don't, they don't. Are they rewarded for not taking the stuff and making sure the boy was looked after? Not beyond getting to feel good about themselves for a good deed. Are they punished for taking the stuff? Not likely. Even if they leave the boy alieeve, its unlikely they could ever be hunted down, even if the authorities did believe his tale about stolen gear and bothered to try.
Well, to be fair, if they take an interest in the boy and his care, they may well have rewards in the form of future plot relevance of said boy and the place they left him, as well as the gear being used in some fashion that comes up again. Positive outcomes in the world are a reward in and of themselves for a certain kind of role-player.

[Saint-Just]

He had told this story to his son (this and how he met his mother are the only nice stories he knows) and his son assumed that his father would follow the tradition. Not wanting to be hard on his son, the father had said "Yeah, sure" without putting too much thought into it.


Yes! I've called it! (Not that's something wrong with the premise, no!)

Regarding XP for roleplay: I do not have a big problem with it. Assuming you adhere to the guidelines in DMG XP rewards for roleplaying are likely to be worth much less than magic items, so it's not going to cause problems.

I still question why you need any particular modern classification for the child, but that's unlikely to cause big issues. You still may want to avoid name-dropping it (If you've read it Bujold's Paladin of Souls have a description that is both intended to evoke the Down's and phrases it in terms which do not break immersion).

[dude123nice]

You still haven't addressed the idea of limited resources. Maybe Good temple with more income than expenditures would take that child in ads ask for nothing (or maybe they are building up a reserve fund to be used in case of disasters and wouldn't want to sabotage that effort - because it could mean the difference between the life and death for many people if disaster strikes). But it is unreasonable to assume that the temple has a plenty of money as a default.

To answer that you first have to answer how Good societies, organisations and churches can function in DnD. The game assumes that the economics work out. If you assert that they don't, you're basically stating that the whole setting doesn't. In which case, i don't even understand why you're even here discussing this.

[Saint-Just]

To answer that you first have to answer how Good societies, organisations and churches can function in DnD. The game assumes that the economics work out. If you assert that they don't, you're basically stating that the whole setting doesn't. In which case, i don't even understand why you're even here discussing this.

A) Overwhelmingly Good church may function in not overwhelmingly Goood (and probably Neutral) society.
B) You have posited "if the temple demands money than it's not a good temple". I do not think it is supported by the sources, so maybe economics work out because they do not function entirely on donations.

[Zanos]

First of all, making the have a mental disability is...kind of weird. As others have mentioned kinda seems like you just want to make the kicked puppy extra puppy.


Theft from the needy is specifically called out as evil in FC2. I could see it qualifying as theft, and the boy as qualifying as "needy".
It depends.

The boy is probably needy for food, water, and shelter. Not arms and armor. Arming him is actually pretty irresponsible.

Moreover it's a question of ownership. If you kill a dragon and claim it's hoard, are you required to return everything in the hoard to the original owners or their next of kin or be labeled a thief? Unlikely.

I'd label keeping the gear as neutral.

[Boci]

Moreover it's a question of ownership. If you kill a dragon and claim it's hoard, are you required to return everything in the hoard to the original owners or their next of kin or be labeled a thief? Unlikely.

I'd label keeping the gear as neutral.

There's a difference between "there might be a living relative of whoever once owned this, and we could find that out" and "the kid is literally there, and the body is practically still warm".

[tyckspoon]

A) Overwhelmingly Good church may function in not overwhelmingly Goood (and probably Neutral) society.
B) You have posited "if the temple demands money than it's not a good temple". I do not think it is supported by the sources, so maybe economics work out because they do not function entirely on donations.

You make up your operating budget by selling goods and services to adventurers, clearly. Casting one Heal on somebody can provide the food budget for an orphanage for a year! (I have no idea if this actually works out with listed food prices, as listed food prices in D&D are invariably silly. But charging crazy amounts of money to the kinds of people who actually need, want, and can afford treatments for things like Mummy Rot, specialized holy/evil outsider bane/anti-undead weapons, and the like is a perfectly RAW compliant way for Good organizations to make money, and most mundane things use far, far less gold than adventurers will pay for their magical stuff.)

[hamishspence]

. If you kill a dragon and claim it's hoard, are you required to return everything in the hoard to the original owners or their next of kin or be labeled a thief? Unlikely.


The difference is that the treasure was not in the possession of a malevolent dragon, that the party killed, but of a hero, that died in battle against monsters.

Reverse the position for a moment - imagine that the party members have families, their home has been attacked by monsters - resulting in a mutual kill of monsters and party, all the party's families are dead except for one kid -

and a bunch of "adventurers" walk into the party's home, and when the one survivor lays claim to their father's gear, which is on their father's corpse - the adventurers say:

"No, we're better able to use that treasure than you are", and loot the father's corpse.

They've done nothing whatsoever to earn that treasure, and the one survivor is the rightful heir.



I think it's safe to say that such adventurers would be seen as bandits - and scavenging bandits at that, who follow predatory monsters to loot the victims of monsters.

[Boci]

I think it's safe to say that such adventurers would be seen as bandits - and scavenging bandits at that, who follow predatory monsters to loot the victims of monsters.

You raise a good point, but this last part is unfair, and not neccissary for the comparison. The PCs weren't following the sporebats looking for loot. But yes, you are right. If a PC dies, and some NPCs find the corpse first by an hour or so, the party is not going to consider it a neutral act that the NPCs who took the gear refused to give it back. And in this case, they'd be right.

[Zanos]

There's a difference between "there might be a living relative of whoever once owned this, and we could find that out" and "the kid is literally there, and the body is practically still warm".
Okay, if someone approaches you in the street for the amulet you're wearing that you pulled out of a Grue you killed in a cave and say it belonged to their dead mother, are you required to give it back to them? Everything an adventurer loots has belonged to someone at some point. I don't think it's Evil or even unreasonable for them to keep such things as part of the rewards of, well, adventuring.


The difference is that the treasure was not in the possession of a malevolent dragon, that the party killed, but of a hero, that died in battle against monsters.
Reverse the position for a moment - imagine that the party members have families, their home has been attacked by monsters - resulting in a mutual kill of monsters and party, all the party's families are dead except for one kid -

and a bunch of "adventurers" walk into the party's home, and when the one survivor lays claim to their father's gear, which is on their father's corpse - the adventurers say:

"No, we're better able to use that treasure than you are", and loot the father's corpse.

They've done nothing whatsoever to earn that treasure, and the one survivor is the rightful heir.



I think it's safe to say that such adventurers would be seen as bandits - and scavenging bandits at that, who follow predatory monsters to loot the victims of monsters.
Graverobbing things that aren't necessities is perhaps Chaotic, because you're disrespecting societal norms and inheritance laws. I would agree that it was Evil if the kid needed the equipment to survive, but that's pretty unlikely. Actual Evil bandits would just pop a crossbow bolt in the kids skull when he complained and keep moving.

A lot of what adventurers do is pretty much scavenging, just in dangerous areas.

Also in this case the village was actively being ravaged by living monsters that the party defeated. So I don't see how the scenario you posited is comparable.



You raise a good point, but this last part is unfair, and not neccissary for the comparison. The PCs weren't following the sporebats looking for loot. But yes, you are right. If a PC dies, and some NPCs find the corpse first by an hour or so, the party is not going to consider it a neutral act that the NPCs who took the gear refused to give it back. And in this case, they'd be right.
PCs are allowed to take issue with unaligned actions. Something doesn't have to be Evil or Chaotic or Good or Lawful for someone to have a problem with you doing it.

[hamishspence]

The PCs weren't following the sporebats looking for loot. But yes, you are right. If a PC dies, and some NPCs find the corpse first by an hour or so, the party is not going to consider it a neutral act that the NPCs who took the gear refused to give it back. And in this case, they'd be right.

Even if "loot the dead victims of monsters" wasn't their original intent what matters is if they do it or not.


A good rule of thumb is "how would you react if this was done to you, your family, etc."


I would agree that it was Evil if the kid needed the equipment to survive, but that's pretty unlikely.

The kid's only chance of survival (since he's the only survivor of the village) is to A. relocate, and B. sell his stuff, a little at a time, to survive.

[Boci]

Okay, if someone approaches you in the street for the amulet you're wearing that you pulled out of a Grue you killed in a cave and say it belonged to their dead mother, are you required to give it back to them? Everything an adventurer loots has belonged to someone at some point. I don't think it's Evil or even unreasonable for them to keep such things as part of the rewards of, well, adventuring.

It was a grue the party killed in a cave though, they took it off a body in the middle of a village, where the victim's son was still alive. The further you remove the death and loss of the item from any rightful heirs, the more justified keeping the item becomes. The example presented in the OP was not far removed at all.


PCs are allowed to take issue with unaligned actions. Something doesn't have to be Evil or Chaotic or Good or Lawful for someone to have a problem with you doing it.

Yes, but in this case the PCs are taking issue with the NPC's actions, because the NPCs aren't doing themoral thing of returning the corpse's possessions to his companions.

[Zanos]

Even if "loot the dead victims of monsters" wasn't their original intent what matters is if they do it or not.


A good rule of thumb is "how would you react if this was done to you, your family, etc."
As I mentioned in my edit above, you can not like someone doing something that has no alignment implications. Perfectly Neutral people have conflict with other perfectly Neutral people.

The kid's only chance of survival (since he's the only survivor of the village) is to A. relocate, and B. sell his stuff, a little at a time, to survive.[/QUOTE]
That assumes the PCs abandon a mentally disabled child to his fate, which isn't something I would call 'bueno.' Kids chances of making it even with his fathers gear are minimal, considering he's probably dead if anything finds him at all. So regardless of what the players decide to do with the gear, abandoning the kid is Evil.


It was a grue the party killed in a cave though, they took it off a body in the middle of a village, where the victim's son was still alive. The further you remove the death and loss of the item from any rightful heirs, the more justified keeping the item becomes. The example presented in the OP was not far removed at all.
It's still not Evil, even if it's rude.



Yes, but in this case the PCs are taking issue with the NPC's actions, because the NPCs aren't doing themoral thing of returning the corpse's possessions to his companions.
Okay...? Just because the PCs don't like it doesn't make it Evil.

[hamishspence]

Maybe apply the logic to some other disaster.

Imagine that a tornado is wrecking a village. You arrive, cast Weather Control. Unfortunately, everyone is dead - except one survivor who comes up out of a storm cellar.

You then say "Because we stopped that tornado, we're entitled to everything on the bodies of the people killed by the tornado".


How do you think the populace of the neighbouring towns are going to regard that?

[Segev]

Another way to look at it is this: Let's say a new PC joins the party with a story of vengeance, seeking the robbers who stole his father's high-level gear that he was to inherit. Aside from the fact that you probably expect the DM will wait until you're appropriate level for the gear and have it be a quest reward for the PC to recover it, how much do you feel that the PC is in the right and the people he's sworn vengeance against are in the wrong in this scenario?

[Zanos]

Maybe apply the logic to some other disaster.

Imagine that a tornado is wrecking a village. You arrive, cast Weather Control. Unfortunately, everyone is dead - except one survivor who comes up out of a storm cellar.

You then say "Because we stopped that tornado, we're entitled to everything on the bodies of the people killed by the tornado".


How do you think the populace of the neighbouring towns are going to regard that?
The next town in the path of that tornado probably wouldn't care very much.

Again, you're conflating 'stuff people don't like' with 'Evil'. Those aren't the same.

[hamishspence]

Taking stuff you're not entitled to, that the (few) survivors in the town are entitled to, is theft. The tornado's damage also makes the survivors needy.

So that's theft from the needy - Evil by FC2 standards.

Even if you restrict yourself to the PHB - it can quality as Hurting And Oppressing Others.

[Boci]

It's still not Evil, even if it's rude.

Even in D&D 3.5, where alighment had mechanics, "I'm not evil, I'm just rude" was not a distinction that mattered as much as you seem to think it did. If you were told "No evil character", the above excuse probably wouldn't accepted.

[Zanos]

Taking stuff you're not entitled to, that the (few) survivors in the town are entitled to, is theft. The tornado's damage also makes the survivors needy.

So that's theft from the needy - Evil by FC2 standards.

Even if you restrict yourself to the PHB - it can quality as Hurting And Oppressing Others.
Are we including actual necessities now? That's a completely different question. I said in my first post that stealing necessities from the needy is Evil, so I don't understand the purpose of posing that scenario if this the path you were going to take with it.


Even in D&D 3.5, where alighment had mechanics, "I'm not evil, I'm just rude" was not a distinction that mattered as much as you seem to think it did. If you were told "No evil character", the above excuse probably wouldn't accepted.
I have never been in a D&D campaign that specified 'no Evil characters' where the DM would have a problem with looting a guy a monster had killed.

[hamishspence]

When you've just been impoverished and orphaned, with all that's left being stuff that will only feed you if you sell it, yeah, I'd call that stuff "necessities".




I have never been in a D&D campaign that specified 'no Evil characters' where the DM would have a problem with looting a guy a monster had killed.

Then you've had very "adventurer-friendly" DMs.



Have your characters looted people, slain in towns by monsters, with their families knowing you've looted them - and they've shown no hostile reaction to it?

[Keltest]

Taking stuff you're not entitled to, that the (few) survivors in the town are entitled to, is theft. The tornado's damage also makes the survivors needy.

So that's theft from the needy - Evil by FC2 standards.

Even if you restrict yourself to the PHB - it can quality as Hurting And Oppressing Others.

You cant be needy for sentimental objects pretty much by definition. That's why theyre sentimental and not practical. It would be one thing if they were taking coin or food or something else that could be used to enable the kid to survive, but the gear is, at best, neutral for meeting any of his needs at that point, and at worst actively endangering him simply through possession, either because he might use it and get killed or somebody will attack him for it.

[Zanos]

When you've just been impoverished and orphaned, with all that's left being stuff that will only feed you if you sell it, yeah, I'd call that stuff "necessities".
Who is he going to trade it to for food? The corpses? He is no way to sustain himself, and the PCs should take him somewhere safe where he will be looked after.


Have your characters looted people, slain in towns by monsters, with their families knowing you've looted them - and they've shown no hostile reaction to it?
No, because usually people are relatively grateful to not be savagely ripped apart by vicious monsters, and don't mind parting with their grandfathers heirloom +1 sword that they aren't really going to use because they're just a farmer.

[hamishspence]

the PCs should take him somewhere safe where he will be looked after.

No-one's going to look after him for nothing, except a workhouse - "taking him somewhere safe", and charging him everything he owns for the trip, and dumping him in a workhouse, and walking off with all his father's stuff, is going to do him enormous emotional damage.

[Segev]

Honestly, there's no agreement in broad strokes because this whole thing is being come at from different angles. The question of who owes what to whom and who has a right to what is very fuzzy when you have "sole survivor" scenarios that needed an outsider to ensure there was a survivor.

Do the PCs owe it to the possibility of there being a survivor to even go into the town where they see sporebats? Or if they write it off as probably abandoned, and the stuff they could potentially get from killing the sporebats not being worth the effort, considering they don't know there's anything worth getting, are they committing an evil act because there might be people left to rescue? Do they owe it to the possible survivors to save them?

A Good person would certainly want to save any survivors, but even a Good person who had seen one too many ruined towns with no survivors might not want to waste the time and take the risks to kill the sporebats if he isn't sure there are survivors in need of help.

If a Neutral person's only motive for going in to kill the sporebats was the potential for loot, is he evil for insisting that he get some loot for his efforts? For being disappointed (not, perhaps, to the point of murder, but to the point of the question of whether there might be survivors being a negative in future considerations over clearing a town of monsters) if there is a survivor who claims all the best loot for himself?

But by the same token, if your inheritance is taken by somebody who claims it by right of having saved your life, you may or may not be grateful. Maybe you'd have survived anyway, and gotten your inheritance, too. Nobody knows for sure. But is it their right to dictate to you?

Of course, if you're a little kid, are you really in a position to say what's best for yourself?

But back to the party, are they motivated by what's best for the kid, or just trying to justify profit for themselves by claiming to know what's best for him? In the end, if their choice is better than the "good" choice of leaving him the stuff and to his own devices, does it matter if their motives were selfish or not? At what point does selfish motivation make a good deed invalid? If it's 50% selfish? 70%? 40%?

[hamishspence]

Red Fel's our resident expert on Evil - I wonder what he'd say?

[Saint-Just]

You cant be needy for sentimental objects pretty much by definition. That's why theyre sentimental and not practical. It would be one thing if they were taking coin or food or something else that could be used to enable the kid to survive, but the gear is, at best, neutral for meeting any of his needs at that point, and at worst actively endangering him simply through possession, either because he might use it and get killed or somebody will attack him for it.

Firstly, taking everything from him would leave him needy for food (and as I have mentioned it is extremely unlikely that the party would be able to compensate him for the full value of his items). Secondly, party does not need the objects either - they would find them useful, but to say that they would die without them would be false.

Finally - do you see party doing that to a local bigwig, who wouldn't be able to physically resist but would be able to create enough problems with the local authorities down the line?



But back to the party, are they motivated by what's best for the kid, or just trying to justify profit for themselves by claiming to know what's best for him? In the end, if their choice is better than the "good" choice of leaving him the stuff and to his own devices, does it matter if their motives were selfish or not? At what point does selfish motivation make a good deed invalid? If it's 50% selfish? 70%? 40%?

I want to say that leaving him to his own devices doesn't seem like a Good choice for me. So taking care of his physical well-being while appropriating his stuff can also be Ungood without internal contradictions.

[Zanos]

Red Fel's our resident expert on Evil - I wonder what he'd say?
We've already screwed up by not crafting the kids soul into an intelligent Evil magic item and leaving it lying around to possess a hapless adventure.

[Segev]

Finally - do you see party doing that to a local bigwig, who wouldn't be able to physically resist but would be able to create enough problems with the local authorities down the line?

Any who'd take it rather than let the kid have it? Yes. And if they didn't, it wouldn't be because they thought it morally wrong; they'd feel bullied by the "local bigwig" who exerted enough pressure to claim what they felt was rightfully theres.

But you're presupposing they're taking the stuff and feeling justified in doing so when you ask the question as if the target changes the answer. Either they feel justified in doing so (in which case the target won't matter) or they don't care about justifying it (in which case they'll just be mad if they couldn't take it).

[hamishspence]

"If what wrecked a town was then destroyed by us, we are entitled to strip the town of all valuables lying around, including valuables on corpses"


Neutral, or Evil?


IMO, Evil.

[Keltest]

"If what wrecked a town was then destroyed by us, we are entitled to strip the town of all valuables lying around, including valuables on corpses"


Neutral, or Evil?


IMO, Evil.


Why are you drawing a distinction based on whether or not the monsters have had a chance to build a nest out of the loot first?

[hamishspence]

Why are you drawing a distinction based on whether or not the monsters have had a chance to build a nest out of the loot first?

Because loot that's been taken off corpses, is much harder to trace, and thus, not trying to trace it is more forgivable.


Looting the corpses of enemies is reasonable for non-evil adventurers. Even looting the corpses of fellow soldiers in your own army might qualify as non-evil.


Looting the corpses of innocent citizens, not so much.

[Keltest]

Because loot that's been taken off corpses, is much harder to trace, and thus, not trying to trace it is more forgivable.


Looting the corpses of enemies is reasonable for non-evil adventurers. Even looting the corpses of fellow soldiers in your own army might qualify as non-evil.


Looting the corpses of innocent citizens, not so much.

Even if I were to allow that occupational difference affects the morality of your actions, this guy definitely is a lot closer to "fellow soldier" than "rando innocent civilian."

[Saint-Just]

Why are you drawing a distinction based on whether or not the monsters have had a chance to build a nest out of the loot first?

Because property rights do not disappear when the item is stolen.

There are two reasons why taking things from the monsters hoard is ok (and both would in fact apply in many of the historical societies to the loot found in the bandits' hideout).

a) Tracing rightful owners is hard to impossible. Ideally heroes should makes at least some effort to find out (in absence of the newspapers and the like Roman law recommended openly using found items in public), but even if they do not it still would count as a mitigating factor.
b) Squatter's rights. In many societies property rights did terminate if owner did not recover their property within a certain amount of time (which could be as large as "within original owners' lifetime" or as small as a year and a day).

Even if nether consideration was enshrined in law they still tended to be a part of a custom. But they do not apply in that case.


Even if I were to allow that occupational difference affects the morality of your actions, this guy definitely is a lot closer to "fellow soldier" than "rando innocent civilian."

He may count as a soldier but he wasn't their fellow, comrade, peer, or even acquaintance. In fact there should be at least a couple of legal systems where the boy from the same village who is not his son would still have some claim to the items if there is no blood relatives living.

[hamishspence]

Even if I were to allow that occupational difference affects the morality of your actions, this guy definitely is a lot closer to "fellow soldier" than "rando innocent civilian."

He's not a fellow member of their party - he's a retired adventurer who has never met them in life.

And he's not down a dungeon, where a case could be made that anyone who enters should expect their corpse to be looted - he's in the middle of a town.

[Keltest]

He's not a fellow member of their party - he's a retired adventurer who has never met them in life.

And he's not down a dungeon, where a case could be made that anyone who enters should expect their corpse to be looted - he's in the middle of a town.

A town which has been attacked by monsters and destroyed.

Again, why are these distinctions meaningful?

[hamishspence]

All the buildings are still standing, and there's one living survivor.

A case could be made that a long abandoned town is a "surface dungeon" but this town doesn't qualify.

[Keltest]

All the buildings are still standing, and there's one living survivor.

A case could be made that a long abandoned town is a "surface dungeon" but this town doesn't qualify.

Why not? Why is the age relevant? What changes?

[Zanos]

Looting the corpses of innocent citizens, not so much.
It seems like you have an issue with taking stuff off dead civilians more than anything to do with inheritance.

[hamishspence]

Why not? Why is the age relevant? What changes?




b) Squatter's rights. In many societies property rights did terminate if owner did not recover their property within a certain amount of time (which could be as large as "within original owners' lifetime" or as small as a year and a day).
using this analogy, a town that's been abandoned for at least a year and a day (maybe more?) could reasonably be called a dungeon, one that hasn't, isn't.

Neighbouring towns, the local ruler, etc. will all want their say.


It seems like you have an issue with taking stuff off dead civilians more than anything to do with inheritance.

By doing so, you may be robbing their living relatives, their ruler, and so forth.


You can get writs of outlawry that legalise adventurers looting their slain enemies, sure. But this wasn't one of their slain enemies.

[Saint-Just]

Again, why are these distinctions meaningful?

Recency and presence of a claimant.

Imagine finding an item in the middle of nowhere. Even if your world has newspapers and ads in them there is no town within 20 miles, and within 40 miles there are six of them. I suspect many would say that you are justified in keeping the item (especially if traveling to six towns and placing ads in newspapers or on notece boards would cost you more than the value of an item).

Now imagine you find the item in the middle of nowhere, but it is obvious that someone passed there very recently (e,g, a few small branches has been vroken but are still green and moist). As you pick up the item someone who is moving from the right direction appears and say "Hey, it's mine!". Even if you are not 100% sure it belongs to him, now you are much less justified in keeping the item for yourself - you may either try to determine whether the stranger is truthful yourself or trey to resolve it by contacting some adjudicator (depending on where and when you are adjudicator may be formal or not, follow written code of law or not). I do not think many people would say you would be justified in saying "lolno" and pocketing the item in this situation.


using this analogy, a town that's been abandoned for at least a year and a day (maybe more?) could reasonably be called a dungeon, one that hasn't, isn't.

Neighbouring towns, the local ruler, etc. will all want their say.

Note that today squatter's rights exist only for real and intellectual property, but many historical codes did have them for everything. Though usually it was harder to claim them for movable property (e.g. in the most ancient Roman codes known to us squatter's rights for land apllied after one year (they have really cared about keeping all the land productive) but for everything else it was two years).

[Zanos]

By doing so, you may be robbing their living relatives, their ruler, and so forth.


You can get writs of outlawry that legalise adventurers looting their slain enemies, sure. But this wasn't one of their slain enemies.
How does having your actions legalized make them less Evil? You're still 'robbing' the relatives and rulers of your slain enemies, assuming they're sentient.

[Saint-Just]

How does having your actions legalized make them less Evil? You're still 'robbing' the relatives and rulers of your slain enemies, assuming they're sentient.

First of all writs of outlawry are using against people who are your subjects (or at least you claim them to be your subjects), so someone who is taking advantage of the writ is not robbing the rulers of anything. Maybe you were thinking about letters of marque?

More importantly we're getting into the territory where those who asks questions such as these first should ask whether any killing could be justified. Because in the most circumstances getting a person killed would inflict a greater damage on their relatives and their community than robbing them\taking things from their dead body (and I do not mean psychological damage but a very real economic and organizational damage). In most cases what you have in D&D would be not self-defence or even summary execution of a criminal but something closer to a private warfare. If you decided doing that would be justified, then taking things belonging to your targets would be even more justified.

[Magelyte]

I would say that the kid does have a rightful claim to his father’s gear, and the players taking it for their own use would be morally dubious at best. However, the kid has no means to take care of himself, and will almost certainly die if the players don’t do something.
I think the best thing the players could do in this situation is to sell the gear and use the money from that to raise the kid’s father, as the father will be able to take care of his son and the kid will probably prefer having his father alive to having his father’s gear.

[SirNibbles]

I'm a better driver than your kids are so when you die I should get your car. It doesn't matter that it's theirs; I deserve it more.

[Saint-Just]

I think the best thing the players could do in this situation is to sell the gear and use the money from that to raise the kid’s father, as the father will be able to take care of his son and the kid will probably prefer having his father alive to having his father’s gear.

Now I feel practically ashamed.Given the situation it seems unlikely (short of DM's fiat) that the father would be unable or unwilling to respond to resurrection request.

Sometimes it's hard to parse all the consequences of this or that magic but I feel like raise dead should have on the forefront of everyone's minds.

It also has a neat side effect of making null and void other morality disputes here (I am reasonably sure that even people who have argued that taking items from the child is right would not argue that taking rest of the items from the father is right).

[Xervous]

I suspect a lot of posters may have discounted raise dead because of the frequency with which more plot & consequence minded GMs ban or otherwise limit it.

[tyckspoon]

Now I feel practically ashamed.Given the situation it seems unlikely (short of DM's fiat) that the father would be unable or unwilling to respond to resurrection request.

Sometimes it's hard to parse all the consequences of this or that magic but I feel like raise dead should have on the forefront of everyone's minds.

It also has a neat side effect of making null and void other morality disputes here (I am reasonably sure that even people who have argued that taking items from the child is right would not argue that taking rest of the items from the father is right).

..yeah this probably is the best approach. Especially considering what the magic items actually are (seriously, a +1 club of all things? Yeah, sell it, get the guy like.. literally anything to replace it would be a better weapon. The hide armor is only slightly excusable because he was a Druid and core materials at least don't offer any good choices for druid armor.)

[D+1]

Now I feel practically ashamed.Given the situation it seems unlikely (short of DM's fiat) that the father would be unable or unwilling to respond to resurrection request.

Sometimes it's hard to parse all the consequences of this or that magic but I feel like raise dead should have on the forefront of everyone's minds.

It also has a neat side effect of making null and void other morality disputes here (I am reasonably sure that even people who have argued that taking items from the child is right would not argue that taking rest of the items from the father is right).
For ALL my D&D campaigns Raising dead NPC's rarely would work. I'm the DM, therefore I control all the NPC choices - ALL. When an NPC dies they go to an afterlife just like a PC would. Assuming deities would even PERMIT frequent NPC resurrection those NPC's wouldn't choose it because their afterlife is almost always going to be preferable to what they had in mortality. If they're good aligned NPC's they generally go to a happy, pleasant afterlife free of wants and needs and get to see long lost relatives and friends and maybe even continue to watch over their loved ones still living a mortal life. 99% of the time they're not going to give that up. If they're EVIL NPC's then they're likely to have one of two afterlife scenarios. Either in their lives they proved themselves worthy or deserving of a preferable afterlife (usually in some position of power that they would prefer over what they had in life), or else they were [SURPRISE!] lied to or failed to be worthy and end up as some kind of extra-planar slaves or cannon-fodder if not cursed-soul paving stones on a road somewhere in the abyss or 9 hells and the deities they worshipped in life would UTTERLY REFUSE to let them go back.

Either way, that's my choice as DM. Those are just the justifications I give myself - not that I even need them. But the end result is that no NPC comes back from the dead unless I as DM have a specific reason for them to return. And it doesn't matter what THAT reason is either. As DM the same restrictions on resurrection magic that apply to PLAYER characters in no way applies to ME and my NPC's. Player characters have no obligation to remain in the afterlife - it's the players choice, not mine as DM, so long as the usual qualifications for resurrection are met. For PC's resurrection magic continues to work as it otherwise would.

All problems and questions about NPC's being raised are thus rendered UTTERLY MOOT. They are relevant and problematic only if I, as DM, want to burden myself with it. Give it a try.

[Saint-Just]

For ALL my D&D campaigns Raising dead NPC's rarely would work. I'm the DM, therefore I control all the NPC choices - ALL. When an NPC dies they go to an afterlife just like a PC would. Assuming deities would even PERMIT frequent NPC resurrection those NPC's wouldn't choose it because their afterlife is almost always going to be preferable to what they had in mortality. If they're good aligned NPC's they generally go to a happy, pleasant afterlife free of wants and needs and get to see long lost relatives and friends and maybe even continue to watch over their loved ones still living a mortal life. 99% of the time they're not going to give that up. If they're EVIL NPC's then they're likely to have one of two afterlife scenarios. Either in their lives they proved themselves worthy or deserving of a preferable afterlife (usually in some position of power that they would prefer over what they had in life), or else they were [SURPRISE!] lied to or failed to be worthy and end up as some kind of extra-planar slaves or cannon-fodder if not cursed-soul paving stones on a road somewhere in the abyss or 9 hells and the deities they worshipped in life would UTTERLY REFUSE to let them go back.

Either way, that's my choice as DM. Those are just the justifications I give myself - not that I even need them. But the end result is that no NPC comes back from the dead unless I as DM have a specific reason for them to return. And it doesn't matter what THAT reason is either. As DM the same restrictions on resurrection magic that apply to PLAYER characters in no way applies to ME and my NPC's. Player characters have no obligation to remain in the afterlife - it's the players choice, not mine as DM, so long as the usual qualifications for resurrection are met. For PC's resurrection magic continues to work as it otherwise would.

All problems and questions about NPC's being raised are thus rendered UTTERLY MOOT. They are relevant and problematic only if I, as DM, want to burden myself with it. Give it a try.

~Seems like we have a new topic to argue about!~

In this example we have a father who have deeply cared about his son, has uprooted his whole life to give his son better living conditions and who died while defending him (and the village. Is it improbable that he wouldn't want to return to life to care for his son? It's not improbable. But is it likely? It's not likely.

I know that every group is different and the like, but if in your games NPCs do not answer to resurrection requests 99% of the time while for PCs there is no barriers not mentioned in PHB it is a bit of knowledge I would need to hear during session 0, not to discover while playing. On the other hand if sometimes NPCs answer requests and sometimes they don't and it's not tied to their personality, unfinished deeds etc. but to the plot convenience... let's say I have low opinion of such tactics.

[Warmjenkins]

It is not evil to expect payment for services rendered. Killing the various monsters from a village clearly not equipped to handle it is a quite valuable service, although the exact value of it is up for discussion. I think the best neutral option would be to offer to accept a portion of the loot you feel is appropriate as payment for your efforts from the kid. Now since you did not agree upon a price for saving him he is free to refuse your services, just let him know you will revive, summon, or lure in more spoorbats, give him a refund on your services essentially. If he would rather die with his father's mementos then what right do you have to deprivebhim of that choice. Then you just have to wait for a more undesirable race to take the gear then you can kill it, take the gear, and lose no imaginary karma for it.

On the subject of returning monster loot to its rightful owners; d&d has many relatively accessible ways to find the history of items and to divine the location of their rightful owners. Aside from that I don't feel the amount of effort required is ever the deciding factor for whether something is evil. Is it ok to leave the kid to die if it takes a week of your time to bring him back to safety, a year, a decade? Where would the line be drawn in that scenario?

[Segev]

Is it ok to leave the kid to die if it takes a week of your time to bring him back to safety, a year, a decade? Where would the line be drawn in that scenario?

It is neutral to leave the kid to die. Not evil, not good. It's dark, unpleasant, but it's in the "not my responsibility" realm.

It is good to take the kid with you and try to find him a safe place. A good group, if it took decades, would keep the kid with them until they could leave him somewhere safe. ("Decades" is a really long time, though, and not likely to come up.) A good group that could not get a good safe place to leave him would probably wind up de facto adopting him.

Frankly, he's a prime candidate for a Big Dumb Fighter type, as he could easily gain levels in a class that doesn't require high stats in areas his stats aren't high. And he even has the gear for it.

[Warmjenkins]

It is neutral to leave the kid to die. Not evil, not good. It's dark, unpleasant, but it's in the "not my responsibility" realm.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was, unfortunately poorly, being facetious to prove a point since it seems that some were arguing that the party had a responsibility to care for the child. Even a good aligned party would not be obligated to care for the child, and while they would not become "more good" for that decision they certainly wouldn't become "less good" either. Being good aligned does not make you responsible for all the worlds problems.

If letting the kid die and taking the now ownerless loot from his body is not evil then neither is taking it in exchange for saving his life. The loot shouldn't need to be picked up by a goblin or other undesirable to remove the karmic consequences of taking it.

[Jon_Dahl]

I am inclined to agree that choosing not to do something that is good is not evil. It is very much neutral. Neutral people can pass by a starving beggar and not even play the world's smallest violin to that person. You can choose not to care, and you can choose not to care about anything at all, and still not be evil one bit.

[hamishspence]

It is not evil to expect payment for services rendered. Killing the various monsters from a village clearly not equipped to handle it is a quite valuable service, although the exact value of it is up for discussion.

Considering everyone in the village is dead except the kid - who's being "served" by the deaths of the monsters? Only neighbouring villages, not this one.

Not to mention that the right to claim a reward, only applies if you agreed to do the fighting for a reward in advance.

As was pointed out:


On the other hand fee for the service presumes agreement beforehand. Good Samaritans may receive reward from people they save but cannot demand a fee (and the law is unlikely to support such claims).


Walking up to the kid and saying "we saved you from those sporebats, and have a right to a reward, and our reward is - all your dead father's stuff" - that's basically just an excuse for theft.

[Segev]

Yeah, you don't get to do a service, then dictate the payment for that service to people. In a much less dire case, there were apparently people in New York a couple decades ago who would run up to stopped cars, throw water on the windshields, and then squeegee them dry. They'd then demand payment for washing the windshields. (If I'm wrong about any specifics or even the whole story, my apologies, it still illustrates the point I'm making if you accept it at face value.) This was wrong, because the people whose windshields they washed had not asked for the service nor agreed to any sort of pay.

There's nothing wrong with saying, "So, um, I just did you this favor, but I could use a favor, myself...could you give me some money?" but that's leaving the choice in the hands of the party you want something from.

Now, on the neutral side of things again, there's nothing wrong with saying, "We'll take you with us, and trade you food and such, but you have to trade something to us, too." It gets usurus if you know you're cheating him out of value (say, by making him pay a +5 sword for a bowl of gruel), but you don't owe him anything, and negotiating for it is fair. ...ish...given the kid's mental capacities. But still, "You're going to run up a tab with us for all you cost us, and you're going to have to sell something to pay for it when we get to town. We'll help you sell it if you want, or even buy it, ourselves, but we're not doing this for free," is not evil. It's downright kind neutrality, in fact.

[hamishspence]

"You're going to run up a tab with us for all you cost us, and you're going to have to sell something to pay for it when we get to town. We'll help you sell it if you want, or even buy it, ourselves, but we're not doing this for free," is not evil. It's downright kind neutrality, in fact.

I can go with that.

[Warmjenkins]

Walking up to the kid and saying "we saved you from those sporebats, and have a right to a reward, and our reward is - all your dead father's stuff" - that's basically just an excuse for theft.

That's actually what I already said. If he says he has no needed your services you simply revive the monsters or some equivalent and take nothing from him. It's his choice, you're taking nothing without permission. If he thinks he's better off without your help then you wasted effort but that's just the cost of doing business.

Btw plenty of businesses use this tactic. Advertising for example will frequently already have an entire plan set up, products already made with a company's logo, signs, ect... they present these to a prospective customer and if the customer declines they simply lost out on the invested work and go on their way.

If you wanted to be nicer you could tell him there may be more bats outside, assuming you didnt thoroughouly check the village that may well be true. For a few you could guarantee his safety and exterminate the rest, otherwise he can take his chances on his own and potentially end up like his father.

[Saint-Just]

That's actually what I already said. If he says he has no needed your services you simply revive the monsters or some equivalent and take nothing from him. It's his choice, you're taking nothing without permission. If he thinks he's better off without your help then you wasted effort but that's just the cost of doing business.

Btw plenty of businesses use this tactic. Advertising for example will frequently already have an entire plan set up, products already made with a company's logo, signs, ect... they present these to a prospective customer and if the customer declines they simply lost out on the invested work and go on their way.

If you wanted to be nicer you could tell him there may be more bats outside, assuming you didnt thoroughouly check the village that may well be true. For a few you could guarantee his safety and exterminate the rest, otherwise he can take his chances on his own and potentially end up like his father.


Even ignoring for the moment the fact that the boy is non compos mentis (which complicates things to such a degree that people already have argued for a six pages) - are you serious? You really would consider that a neutral thing?

Private fire brigades which arrived to the places which they didn't (provably) set on fire and offered to buy a property for a small percentage of its' true value was widely vilified as abusive even in Republican Rome. Do you find that model of business a-ok?

P.S. Most parties would be unable to raise the bats.

P.P.S. I am not aware of any legal system in history or in fantasy where removing some bad thing X had justified inflicting the same bad thing X.

[SirNibbles]

That's actually what I already said. If he says he has no needed your services you simply revive the monsters or some equivalent and take nothing from him. It's his choice, you're taking nothing without permission. If he thinks he's better off without your help then you wasted effort but that's just the cost of doing business.

Btw plenty of businesses use this tactic. Advertising for example will frequently already have an entire plan set up, products already made with a company's logo, signs, ect... they present these to a prospective customer and if the customer declines they simply lost out on the invested work and go on their way.

If you wanted to be nicer you could tell him there may be more bats outside, assuming you didnt thoroughouly check the village that may well be true. For a few you could guarantee his safety and exterminate the rest, otherwise he can take his chances on his own and potentially end up like his father.

How is having a coffee mug with a company logo printed on it in the hopes that a customer will buy it right away (and they can still simply choose not to) in any way close to reviving dead monsters to make them attack the village again? That's literally a protection racket you're trying to run, and you're saying it's not evil?

[hamishspence]

That's actually what I already said. If he says he has no needed your services you simply revive the monsters or some equivalent and take nothing from him.

That would qualify as attempted murder if he escaped, and murder if he didn't. The consequences are reasonably predictable.

[Warmjenkins]

Even ignoring for the moment the fact that the boy is non compos mentis (which complicates things to such a degree that people already have argued for a six pages) - are you serious? You really would consider that a neutral thing?

Private fire brigades which arrived to the places which they didn't (provably) set on fire and offered to buy a property for a small percentage of its' true value was widely vilified as abusive even in Republican Rome. Do you find that model of business a-ok?

P.S. Most parties would be unable to raise the bats.

P.P.S. I am not aware of any legal system in history or in fantasy where removing some bad thing X had justified inflicting the same bad thing X.

I've actually heard of private fire departments doing that in recent times as well. It kinda makes sense really, why should the people who don't help contribute to the upkeep of the fire department reap the benefits. Why should they put their lives on the line to save the property of someone who decided they didn't want to contribute. You are not entitled to have me risk my life to save yours or your belongings, you may however purchase that right if I am willing to sell it. I'm not saying its nice and definitely not good. All I'm saying is that it doesn't qualify as evil.

I'm also not saying to charge more than you think is appropriate, however every person will have a different amount in mind I'm sure for what risking their life is worth. If saving him was a good act (which most would agree it was) putting him in the same amount of danger as before would be an evil act, but they would cancel out on the grand cosmic scale of karma. Stealing medicine is evil, stealing medicine to save orphans is neutral. Saving someone for free is a good act, saving someone for pay a neutral one, putting them in danger an evil one.

Also plenty of cultures had life debts where if someone saved your life you were indebted to them until you either saved their life in turn or in some other manner repaid said debt. Say the party has a barbarian who's tribe holds such a belief, might be why he is with the party even, he could force the boy to either hand over the loot or serve as his servant until the debt is paid. When the child inevitably dies while adventuring it's now his right to take his servants gear to pay the remaining debt.


How is having a coffee mug with a company logo printed on it in the hopes that a customer will buy it right away (and they can still simply choose not to) in any way close to reviving dead monsters to make them attack the village again? That's literally a protection racket you're trying to run, and you're saying it's not evil?

Every government in the world is a protection racket. Pay us money to keep you safe from invading monsters/armies. I don't imagine most people born into the kingdom have the option of moving somewhere else. That's even assuming there is any unclaimed land to live on as opposed to just choosing which protection racket to live under. The only difference here is the timing. If you lured the monsters in originally and charged to handle the problem you originally created, that would be evil. Since you are solving a problem that already existed it's not.

Say a village was out of water, close to dying from it. You show up and dig a well, then ask for money for it. They refuse to pay so you fill the well back in. You'd consider that evil simply because you didn't ask first? Replace the well with a magic item of infinite water you create, they don't want to pay for it so you take it with you and leave. Also evil?

[hamishspence]

. If saving him was a good act (which most would agree it was) putting him in the same amount of danger as before would be an evil act, but they would cancel out on the grand cosmic scale of karma.

That's not how D&D morality works. Saving someone is not nearly the equal of murdering someone.

A character , who has in their life saved 10 people's lives, and murdered 10 people, is very, very, Evil, not Neutral.



Also plenty of cultures had life debts where if someone saved your life you were indebted to them until you either saved their life in turn or in some other manner repaid said debt. Say the party has a barbarian who's tribe holds such a belief, might be why he is with the party even, he could force the boy to either hand over the loot or serve as his servant until the debt is paid. When the child inevitably dies while adventuring it's now his right to take his servants gear to pay the remaining debt.


That only works if the boy holds that belief, not if the party members do.

Evil barbarian characters might believe it's their right to enslave anyone whose life they've saved, but probably not Neutral ones, and definitely not Good ones.

[Warmjenkins]

That's not how D&D morality works. Saving someone is not nearly the equal of murdering someone.

A character , who has in their life saved 10 people's lives, and murdered 10 people, is very, very, Evil, not Neutral.

Well given the body count of nearly every d&d adventurer I suppose every party pings as evil then. Besides I never once said to kill the boy, if anything you greatly increased his chances of survival by letting him retrieve his father's gear. I hardly think increasing a child's odds of survival compared to the situation if you never interfered counts as evil. It seems that everyone agrees that simply doing nothing would be a neutral act so making things as if you've done nothing doesn't appear to be less neutral. Say you have unique access to time magic and can simply undo all the events before entering the village, so exactly the same as just reviving the bats, and just decide it's not worth it to explore the village and rewind time and be on your way?


That only works if the boy holds that belief, not if the party members do.

Evil barbarian characters might believe it's their right to enslave anyone whose life they've saved, but probably not Neutral ones, and definitely not Good ones.

So laws only apply to those that hold the belief in them? If I'm a halfling who doesn't belive in the concept of ownership then forcing me to pay for items is evil? Good to know.

These tenets are laws for the barbarian. Laws everyone he has ever know always lived by as long as his tribe remembers. He knows nothing of the laws of the civilizations around him. He is simply abiding by the only thing he's ever know. And it's not exactly a farfetched belief system and is exceedingly common on fantasy material.

[hamishspence]

Well given the body count of nearly every d&d adventurer I suppose every party pings as evil then.
Murder, not killing. D&D recognises the distinction.


Besides I never once said to kill the boy

You suggested raising the sporebats from the dead if he didn't pay up, and leaving.


If he says he has no needed your services you simply revive the monsters or some equivalent and take nothing from him.

That will kill him.




So laws only apply to those that hold the belief in them?
Customs like "You owe the person who's saved your life, a debt" apply to those who believe in them. Enforcing such a custom on someone who doesn't believe in it, is a kind of tyranny.

And it's not exactly a farfetched belief system and is exceedingly common on fantasy material.

It's always the person whose life has been saved, feeling the desire to "pay the debt" though. Never the person who's done the saving, demanding that they pay the debt. Not if they're a sympathetic character, at least.

[Warmjenkins]

Murder, not killing. D&D recognises the distinction.



You suggested raising the sporebats from the dead if he didn't pay up, and leaving.



That will kill him.

If that's the case then doing nothing will also likely kill him, still not evil. You are not introducing any more danger to his life than already existed.

[hamishspence]

You are not introducing any more danger to his life than already existed.

Raising the sporebats introduces danger, that was not present as of the moment the boy claimed his father's stuff.



A parallel might be a shipwreck. You come upon a ship that's been wrecked, you whisk the survivors and the corpses of the dead aboard - and then demand the stuff of the dead family members as a reward for "saving their lives" When they refuse, you fling the survivors to the sharks.

That's murder. People refusing to pay when you make these kinds of demands, is not sufficient justification for killing them. "They would have died anyway if I hadn't rescued them" is not sufficient justification for "un-rescuing" them.

[Warmjenkins]

Raising the sporebats introduces danger, that was not present as of the moment the boy claimed his father's stuff.

Ah, so it's the method you belive is evil. Turning back time and simply never saving him would be ok then? Not really sure that's a significant distinction in my book.

[SirNibbles]

Every government in the world is a protection racket. Pay us money to keep you safe from invading monsters/armies.

1. Taxation is theft, but that's a different story.

2. That's different from a protection racket. A protection racket is where a group offers to protect someone in exchange for money. If they don't want to pay, the person running the racket is the one from whom protection is needed.

[hamishspence]

Turning back time and simply never saving him would be ok then?
No. Once you've rescued someone, "unrescuing" them is murder.

[Warmjenkins]

No. Once you've rescued someone, "unrescuing" them is murder.

But you're not introducing new danger. Say one of your companions died in the rescue. For whatever reason resurrection is impossible for them and the only way to save them is turning back time. Say 100 people died due to the rescue, or you sustained mortal wounds that you cannot heal and will succumb to? At what point is the personal cost high enough that it's no longer evil?

Say you instead used divination to predict the future and decided not to save him. The divination forced you to live out the events and when it ends you are outside the village deciding whether to rescue him. This is functionally identical to turning back time yet you never rescued him and therefore are not "unrescuing" so it's not evil purely because of the method? Or is every person required to rescue every person they know of in danger or they turn evil?

[hamishspence]

The way I see it, making any kind of demand of someone you've rescued (making it clear you'll return them to the dangerous situation if they don't) is fundamentally immoral.

Rescue someone from the sea, and then demand that they sleep with you, or you'll throw them back in the sea - that would be rape if they agreed, and murder if they didn't agree.


Think about it for a bit. The same logic applies to rescues in general, and "demanding reward of your rescuees" in general.

[Warmjenkins]

The way I see it, making any kind of demand of someone you've rescued (making it clear you'll return them to the dangerous situation if they don't) is fundamentally immoral.

Rescue someone from the sea, and then demand that they sleep with you, or you'll throw them back in the sea - that would be rape if they agreed, and murder if they didn't agree.


Think about it for a bit. The same logic applies to rescues in general, and "demanding reward of your rescuees" in general.

Hospitals will treat injured patients without payment beforehand and then deliver the bill afterwards. This is in fact the way medical treatment usually worked whenever the patient couldn't agree to the services beforehand. They do this commonly to this day, I don't believe this makes doctors evil.

The only thing that makes your demands sound so evil is the price that is being demanded in return for the rescue. Specifically asking for sex in exchange for any good or service is usually considered evil. If I ask for sex to let you live in my house its evil but if I ask for money its rent. The consequences of you not paying are being thrown out onto the streets, where you will potentially die, are landlords all evil now too? Farmers charge for food while people in the world starve, how evil of them. At this rate everyone who charges for anything is gonna be evil.

[hamishspence]

"Being rescued" is not something you can charge for after the event. It is fundamentally different.

That's why lifeguards aren't paid by the people they rescue - they're paid by the government.


Hospitals will treat injured patients without payment beforehand and then deliver the bill afterwards. This is in fact the way medical treatment usually worked whenever the patient couldn't agree to the services beforehand. They do this commonly to this day, I don't believe this makes doctors evil.

A doctor who cured a person of a disease, then, when they wouldn't or couldn't pay up, infected them again, would be considered very evil.

[Warmjenkins]

"Being rescued" is not something you can charge for after the event. It is fundamentally different.

That's why lifeguards aren't paid by the people they rescue - they're paid by the government.

Yet hospitals are paid by the people they rescue... fire departments are paid in advanced by the people they rescue. If you don't pay then they don't risk your life putting out the fire. This happened to a neighbor when I was younger and they just watched their house burn. These same firefighters are heroes and risked their lives during my house fire that happened when I was growing up to save property and not lives no less.

Not even to get into the fact that the government doesn't pay all life guards. If you have a private pool then no government funded life guard is rescuing you. Even then the people still pay public life guards, just with a government as a go between.

[hamishspence]

Hospitals will treat injured patients without payment beforehand and then deliver the bill afterwards. This is in fact the way medical treatment usually worked whenever the patient couldn't agree to the services beforehand. They do this commonly to this day, I don't believe this makes doctors evil.

A doctor who cured a person of a disease, then, when they wouldn't or couldn't pay up, infected them again, would be considered very evil.

Yet hospitals are paid by the people they rescue... fire departments are paid in advanced by the people they rescue. If you don't pay then they don't risk your life putting out the fire.


A fireman who set the house of a person on fire because they "wouldn't pay up" would also be considered evil.

[Warmjenkins]

A doctor who cured a person of a disease, then, when they wouldn't or couldn't pay up, infected them again, would be considered very evil.



A fireman who set the house of a person on fire because they "wouldn't pay up" would also be considered evil.

Ok, so you're of the mind that taking the loot for services rendered isn't evil. In that case we don't disagree, sorry for the confusion. The examples given were more to prove the point than serious obviously. Although I still contend it's not evil. Your examples are disingenuous, far more applicable comparisons would be if the firefighters stop while there is still a fire and let it spread back or if the doctor stops treating the ongoing disease before it is cured completely letting it come back. I'm never saying to murder the kid or put him in any worse of a scenario than he already was, just let the problem run its course.

[hamishspence]

Ok, so you're of the mind that taking the loot for services rendered isn't evil.

No, I never said that.

IMO "the party rendered services to the boy by killing the sporebats" is completely the wrong way of looking at it in the first place.

If they want loot for rescuing the boy, they should claim it from the boy's ruler, not from the boy himself.



I'm never saying to murder the kid or put him in any worse of a scenario than he already was, just let the problem run its course.
Resurrecting the sporebats is not "letting the problem run its course".

You basically said resurrecting the sporebats would be an appropriate response to him "not handing over the loot". I'm contesting that.


Your examples are disingenuous, far more applicable comparisons would be if the firefighters stop while there is still a fire and let it spread back or if the doctor stops treating the ongoing disease before it is cured completely letting it come back.
That would only be true if not all the sporebats were dead, and they, seeing surviving sporebats nearby, chose to walk away.


Which is not what's described.

[Warmjenkins]

No, I never said that.

IMO "the party rendered services to the boy by killing the sporebats" is completely the wrong way of looking at it in the first place.




Resurrecting the sporebats is not "letting the problem run its course".

You basically said resurrecting the sporebats would be an appropriate response to him "not handing over the loot". I'm contesting that.

I see how that could be argued as evil, I don't see how the time travel and divination solutions could be reasonably assumed to be evil though. And I do see a good argument for reviving them still barely counting as neutral, mean but neutral. Mostly on the ground that it is functionally identical to a few clearly non-evil solutions.

I do however see how 3.5 might disagree but I think it said that using poison or disease is evil yet ravages and afflictions are not and mind control is evil but a redeemery is good so I'm unsure exactly where that line would be. More accurately I think everyone puts their line at a different place. Some would argue ignoring any cry for help is evil, others that the time travel solution isn't but reviving is. Say you captured the bats instead and would release them if not compensated. Just one more gradient of the same exact scenario. If its grey area I usually consider it neutral and there's tons of grey all over this situation.

I described many different scenarios, all functionality identical except one or two small details each but with the exact same results for the kid. Would you mind clarifying exactly which details make one evil yet the others neutral?

[Segev]

Turning back time and simply never saving him would be ok then? Not really sure that's a significant distinction in my book.


No. Once you've rescued someone, "unrescuing" them is murder.

Kind-of puts an interesting twist on saved games. If you did a quest that rescued somebody, didn't like the outcome, and then loaded and did a different quest, did you murder the person you changed your mind about rescuing?

Obviously, this being a video game and the save thing being a real life thing, this has limited moral weight.

But let's say you have a "save game" superpower. (There's a way to do this in D&D 3.5, even.) If you save the kid, decide he's ungrateful, and load the game and decide not to deal with the town full of sporebats, leaving him to his fate, is that more evil than if you heard there was a kid to be rescued, heard there'd be no reward you considered "worth it," and chose not to rescue him?

I can name at least one way it's different: in the "save, try it out, and reload if you don't like the reward" version, you knew you'd saved him and what it cost you to do so, and presumably the cost was nothing too egregious. In the "hear about it, learn the reward isn't worth it, and leave him to his fate" version, you don't know the risks you're taking, and can justifiably say they're too high for what you expect to get.

On the other hand, if the opportunity costs for performing the rescue were sufficiently high (let's say you could instead of won the heart of the girl of your dreams through taking different actions in a different town you could have been to, but she's going to die if you're not there to rescue her and win her heart), is it evil to choose to go with the life-saving that rewards you more?

[hamishspence]

If its grey area I usually consider it neutral and there's tons of grey all over this situation.

I don't think it's particularly grey at all.

Wants A Prize For Basic Decency (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WantsAPrizeForBasicDecency) is in play here IMO. Even Neutral adventurers should see that attacking village-threatening monsters is standard operating procedure, and they shouldn't expect the village survivors to be giving them big rewards afterwards.

The lord who the villagers work for, yes - but not the villagers themselves.

[Segev]

I don't think it's particularly grey at all.

Wants A Prize For Basic Decency (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WantsAPrizeForBasicDecency) is in play here IMO. Even Neutral adventurers should see that attacking village-threatening monsters is standard operating procedure, and they shouldn't expect the village survivors to be giving them big rewards afterwards.

The lord who the villagers work for, yes - but not the villagers themselves.

"Basic Decency" is a debatable quality, though.

You have two kidneys and don't need both of them. Do you owe it to someone else to give them one if they need it? On the other hand, it is a jerk move to give something and THEN demand reward.

If you're the mercenary sort, part of your risk/reward evaluation in performing unasked-for rescues is guessing how grateful the rescuee will be.

By the same token you say, "How dare you want any reward for saving this kid!?" you could say the same thing to the starving man who stumbles into the road to pull a very wealthy man out of the way of a runaway carriage, at great risk to his life and limb. I think, however, that we'd all find the starving man forgivable for trying to play on the supposed gratitude of the wealthy man for some food, and even consider the wealthy man an ungrateful lout if he didn't give lavishly to this starving man to ensure he ceased to be starving.

Which isn't to actually say anybody owes anybody anything, but rather just to point out how complicated these scenarios are in terms of relative risk/reward, gratitude/ingratitude, and magnitude of remunerations compared to what the rescuee(s) actually have.

[hamishspence]

On the other hand, it is a jerk move to give something and THEN demand reward.

Especially if the "giving" is something that you'd have done even if there was nobody present to benefit, purely for the XP.

If the party would normally have attacked that many sporebats anyway with no village around - how does the presence of the village really change things?

[Warmjenkins]

snip of saved game post

Exactly! I've been playing some video games going exactly this lately. I even mentioned a divination version that means you never even rescued him. This is clearly not an encounter without cost for the party so at what point does self interest and personal cost become enough to make a decision not evil. I'm of the mind that personal cost isn't even part of the equation, it is or isn't evil regardless, therefore if there is ever a cost that makes it non-evil then any cost makes it non-evil.


I don't think it's particularly grey at all.

Wants A Prize For Basic Decency (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WantsAPrizeForBasicDecency) is in play here IMO. Even Neutral adventurers should see that attacking village-threatening monsters is standard operating procedure, and they shouldn't expect the village survivors to be giving them big rewards afterwards.

The lord who the villagers work for, yes - but not the villagers themselves.

Risking your life is considere basic decency now? Should I expect every non-evil person to risk life and limb for me for no other reason than they ar non-evil?

Adventuring is their livelihood, it's not evil to expect fair compensation for your livelihood. Typically this compensation does not come from a lord or king but from the spoils of your adventure. That is the social contract and standard operating procedure regarding adventurers in most d&d and video game worlds.

[hamishspence]

I'm of the mind that personal cost isn't even part of the equation, it is or isn't evil regardless, therefore if there is ever a cost that makes it non-evil then any cost makes it non-evil.


You might be. Many other ethicists might disagree though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

One sort of justification is general and applies regardless of role-related relationships (doctor to patient; firefighter to citizen, etc.). Under this general justification, persons have a duty to rescue other persons in distress by virtue of their common humanity, regardless of the specific skills of the rescuer or the nature of the victim's distress.

These would justify cases of rescue and in fact make such rescue a duty even between strangers. They explain why philosopher Peter Singer suggests that if one saw a child drowning and could intervene to save him, they should do so, if the cost is moderate to themselves. Damage to their clothing or shoes or how late it might make them for a meeting would be insufficient excuse to avoid assistance.




Adventuring is their livelihood, it's not evil to expect fair compensation for your livelihood.

It is evil to murder people who "won't give you fair compensation" though.



Typically this compensation does not come from a lord or king but from the spoils of your adventure. That is the social contract and standard operating procedure regarding adventurers in most d&d and video game worlds.


Stuff on a monster's dead body or in a monster's lair is "spoils".

Stuff on the corpse of a guy a monster has literally just killed, when the monster invaded that guy's village, is not exactly "spoils".

[Kantaki]

Stuff on a monster's dead body or in a monster's lair is "spoils".

Stuff on the corpse of a guy a monster has literally just killed, when the monster invaded that guy's village, is not exactly "spoils".

Exactly. You don't loot the victims of a monster attack.
You wait until they raise as undead, destroy the foul abominations and then take your rightful spoils.

[hamishspence]

Exactly. You don't loot the victims of a monster attack.
You wait until they raise as undead, destroy the foul abominations and then take your rightful spoils.

True dat. :smallamused:


Seriously though - non-evil adventurers might be corpse robbers, but it's supposed to be the corpses of enemies.

[Warmjenkins]

You might be. Many other ethicists might disagree though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

One sort of justification is general and applies regardless of role-related relationships (doctor to patient; firefighter to citizen, etc.). Under this general justification, persons have a duty to rescue other persons in distress by virtue of their common humanity, regardless of the specific skills of the rescuer or the nature of the victim's distress.

These would justify cases of rescue and in fact make such rescue a duty even between strangers. They explain why philosopher Peter Singer suggests that if one saw a child drowning and could intervene to save him, they should do so, if the cost is moderate to themselves. Damage to their clothing or shoes or how late it might make them for a meeting would be insufficient excuse to avoid assistance.




It is evil to murder people who "won't give you fair compensation" though.





Stuff on a monster's dead body or in a monster's lair is "spoils".

Stuff on the corpse of a guy a monster has literally just killed, when the monster invaded that guy's village, is not exactly "spoils".

And many others would argue even more from people. "From each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" and such. Some would say losing a limb is not too high a price, others your life. None of those lines that every individual draw at a different place make them evil in my eyes. Once you say saving someone at personal cost and damage to yourself is required you are simply haggling over the price.

Reminds me of a joke. A guy asks a girl if she would have sex with him for a million dollars. She says yes, unsurprisingly. He then asks if she would have sex with him for twenty dollars. She says "what do you think I am a prostitute?!" He replies "we've already established what you are, now we are just haggling over price."

[hamishspence]

That's not how morality works.

"Reasonable standard" is a thing. You shoot someone when you have a reasonable standard to be in fear of your life - you killed them in self-defence and you face no punishment at all.

You do so when there isn't a reasonable standard - you're a murderer.

Similar principles apply regarding when it's reasonable for there to be a "duty to rescue" and when it's unreasonable for there to be a "duty to rescue".


Plus, thanks to the existence of XP, it could be said that adventurers always stand to profit from rescuing even the most impoverished from monsters.

[Warmjenkins]

That's not how morality works.

"Reasonable standard" is a thing. You shoot someone when you have a reasonable standard to be in fear of your life - you killed them in self-defence and you face no punishment at all.

You do so when there isn't a reasonable standard - you're a murderer.

Similar principles apply regarding when it's reasonable for there to be a "duty to rescue" and when it's unreasonable for there to be a "duty to rescue".

Yes, and everybody has their own definition of what a "reasonable standard" is. That line has moved many times throughout history and still does to this day.

I think something you're forgetting is that most societies tend to set the baseline standard for behavior at being "good" not neutral. You should save the child if there is no more than reasonable cost. Should not must because you should try to be good. But we aren't arguing over good, we are debating the much greyer (small pun intended) definition of neutral.

I like playing a paladin because being the stereotypical good guy is remarkably easy. Being the stereotypical evil guy is also pretty easy. Its straddling that line, playing something in the middle, that is rather difficult.

[Segev]

Exactly. You don't loot the victims of a monster attack.
You wait until they raise as undead, destroy the foul abominations and then take your rightful spoils.

Nonsense. You animate them yourself, and then let them carry the loot for you. This is necromancy 101, people! :smallamused:

[GrayDeath]

That's not how D&D morality works. Saving someone is not nearly the equal of murdering someone.

A character , who has in their life saved 10 people's lives, and murdered 10 people, is very, very, Evil, not Neutral.



If those things are the only things he ever did, and he did not atone for them in any way AND they actually were MURDERS, yes.

But blanket Statements like that make discussing Moral/ethics in such circumstances even harder.

As for first saving people and then "demanding" (more or less directly) a reward is a **** Move, sure, but not E-evil. At worst its chaotic and very much nongood (you ignore laws saying otherwise and do the stuff to profit yourself).

As I wrote before, the specific situation is obviously geared towards putting the PCs on the spot" in more than one way and leaving only one "correct" way out.

[Segev]

As I wrote before, the specific situation is obviously geared towards putting the PCs on the spot" in more than one way and leaving only one "correct" way out.

This puts much better than I managed the question I was trying to get across before. Why is this scenario being run? What is the purpose?

[hamishspence]

As for first saving people and then "demanding" (more or less directly) a reward is a **** Move, sure, but not E-evil. At worst its chaotic and very much nongood (you ignore laws saying otherwise and do the stuff to profit yourself).


When the demand incorporates a threat to kill them if they don't reward you - I'd say it crosses the line all the way.

[dancrilis]

If the PCs just take some or all of the gear without letting the boy have his inheritance, would that count as a neutral, mildly evil or strongly evil act? There will be no witnesses and it will be easy.


Is it evil? Depends largely how it is done.
Kill the kid, take the stuff: Evil.
Steal the stuff, leave the kid alone and defenceless: Probably Evil (maybe neutral).
Steal the stuff, trick the kid into thinking that some other less useful stuff is his stuff, give him the less useful stuff to defend himself with: Not Evil.
Steal the stuff, trick the kid into thinking that some other less useful stuff is his stuff, give him the less useful stuff to defend himself with and some gold to survive, take the kid to a different village: Not Evil (maybe Good).

The ease of it doesn't make it more or less Evil - although taking the easiest method may often be Evil.

[hamishspence]

IMO stealing the stuff in this context will always be evil. This is not somebody with ill-gotten gains here. IMO stealing is only non-Evil when the "victim" didn't really have a right to that stuff in the first place.


Stealing from a bandit, or a lord who imposes arbitrary and unjust taxes - Not Evil.

Stealing from an orphan, whose stuff was just inherited from their parent - sounds pretty Evil to me.

[dancrilis]

IMO stealing is only non-Evil when the "victim" didn't really have a right to that stuff in the first place.

I think that might be too inflexible a standard, for example from the OOTS: would these children and Haley both have engaged in evil (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html).



Stealing from a bandit, or a lord who imposes arbitrary and unjust taxes - Not Evil.
Who decides if the taxes are unjust?



Stealing from an orphan, whose stuff was just inherited from their parent - sounds pretty Evil to me.
You could consider it an inheritance tax based on the majority of the people in the village at the time - and the deliveryof lesser equipment/gold could be merely making up the difference as the taxation is not 100%.

[Saint-Just]

You could consider it an inheritance tax based on the majority of the people in the village at the time - and the deliveryof lesser equipment/gold could be merely making up the difference as the taxation is not 100%.

Unless you have some legitimate authority over a person (and yes, in general we can talk about what is a "legitimate authority" till we are blue around the gills, but it's clear that in this situation adventurers ain't it) you cannot impose taxes on them. That's simply racket (or robbery, depending).



Who decides if the taxes are unjust?

Well, of course everyone decides for himself, but traditionally what has been viewed as unjust tax has one of the following qualities.

a) Illegal (yes, it happened, like local barons taking greater share of the grain than King's law allows)
b) Unprecedented in tradition (tradition had a great importance, so if King would unilaterally decide to increase the taxes without seeking consent or providing justification, like the ongoing war, it was usually seen as unjust)
c) Does not leave enough to survive (e.g. if landlord always demands 400 bushels of grain, but this year a great drought has happened so only 450 bushels of grain has been produced then taking 400 bushels is unjust even if it is both lawful and traditional)

[Warmjenkins]

When the demand incorporates a threat to kill them if they don't reward you - I'd say it crosses the line all the way.

Definitely not true, threats of death are not evil. The intimidate skill is not tagged evil. In fact it's one of batman's favorite tactics to get info from people. Dangle them off a building and threaten to drop them.


IMO stealing the stuff in this context will always be evil. This is not somebody with ill-gotten gains here. IMO stealing is only non-Evil when the "victim" didn't really have a right to that stuff in the first place.


Stealing from a bandit, or a lord who imposes arbitrary and unjust taxes - Not Evil.

Stealing from an orphan, whose stuff was just inherited from their parent - sounds pretty Evil to me.

So stealing bread to survive evil? Stealing bread because you haven't eaten in two days but are in no real danger of dying for weeks evil? Stealing the mcguffin from the selfish but good aligned lord who refuses to give it up because it's his families treasure but it is needed to save the world, still evil? Letting the world end instead good?

Unless you have some legitimate authority over a person (and yes, in general we can talk about what is a "legitimate authority" till we are blue around the gills, but it's clear that in this situation adventurers ain't it) you cannot impose taxes on them. That's simply racket (or robbery, depending).

Just taxes lol, that's a good one. (Unjust /= evil)

[hamishspence]

So stealing bread to survive evil? Stealing bread because you haven't eaten in two days but are in no real danger of dying for weeks evil?

Not if you're stealing from a crook, whose wealth was illegitimately obtained.


Definitely not true, threats of death are not evil.

Threats in general turn demands of money into extortion, robbery, etc.


ealing bread to survive evil? Stealing bread because you haven't eaten in two days but are in no real danger of dying for weeks evil? Stealing the mcguffin from the selfish but good aligned lord who refuses to give it up because it's his families treasure but it is needed to save the world, still evil?

If he's unwilling to save the world with his family treasure, he can't be Good, can he?
Perhaps a "MacGuffin that will save the world" is morally, common property, so to speak.


The general point is that stealing needs very good reasons, major mitigating factors, to qualify as Not Evil.


The intimidate skill is not tagged evil. In fact it's one of batman's favorite tactics to get info from people. Dangle them off a building and threaten to drop them.

He doesn't do that to innocent citizens though, does he?

[Warmjenkins]

Not if you're stealing from a crook, whose wealth was illegitimately obtained.



Threats in general turn demands of money into extortion, robbery, etc.

So because you needed your diplomacy check now he's no longer good? He's arrogant and stupid, not evil.

Better to let the orphan starve unless there happen to be evil bakers in the town.

And as given in the example, the threat itself is not evil. Just like how killing isn't evil. Acts themselves are seldom ever evil, it takes far more than that to cross the line. There are even non-evil demon summoning classes when summoning a demon is typically classed as evil.

Remember when the ghost busters threatened to put the ghost back when their first real customer refused to pay? I'd hardly call them evil for it. You will find hundreds of examples of heroes doing similar stuff to non-evil people throughout fiction. Usually to dumb, arrogant, government types or authority figures.

[hamishspence]

Context is what makes killing evil or not evil.

Unjustified killing is Murder. Justified killing, is typically defence of self, or others, against an aggressor.

Similar principles apply to any other form of harm.


Acts themselves are seldom ever evil, it takes far more than that to cross the line. There are even non-evil demon summoning classes when summoning a demon is typically classed as evil.

The act itself always qualifies as evil - it's the motives, plus lots of good acts, that might prevent the character from becoming evil - being the "mixture of Good and Evil" kind of Neutral character.

A paladin, who takes a level in something that allows them to summon a fiend, and does so for any reason, will Fall. That's just the way D&D works.

[Kantaki]

Nonsense. You animate them yourself, and then let them carry the loot for you. This is necromancy 101, people! :smallamused:

We're pretending to be non-Evil here.:smalltongue:

[Saint-Just]

So because you needed your diplomacy check now he's no longer good? He's arrogant and stupid, not evil.

Better to let the orphan starve unless there happen to be evil bakers in the town.

And as given in the example, the threat itself is not evil. Just like how killing isn't evil. Acts themselves are seldom ever evil, it takes far more than that to cross the line. There are even non-evil demon summoning classes when summoning a demon is typically classed as evil.

Many people would agree that stealing to survive is justified. Traditionally it is indeed had been applied to bread etc. In some fantastic situations it may extend to high-value macguffins (which is also stealing to ensure survival - usually not only of the adventuring party but of many other people).

That justification does not apply in this case as the party does not provably need those things to survive.

[hamishspence]

Remember when the ghost busters threatened to put the ghost back when their first real customer refused to pay? I'd hardly call them evil for it.

If the ghost was dangerous, I'd call the act evil. Characters don't have to be evil for their acts to be - if they're a well-balanced mixture of Good and Evil, and, consistently, have Good, unselfish motives.

Revenge does not have to be evil - but excessive revenge, is.

Plus, as mentioned, the kid is not "the customer of the adventurers". He did not "hire them to kill sporebats and then refuse to pay".

[Warmjenkins]

Context is what makes killing evil or not evil.

Unjustified killing is Murder. Justified killing, is typically defence of self, or others, against an aggressor.

Similar principles apply to any other form of harm.



The act itself always qualifies as evil - it's the motives, plus lots of good acts, that might prevent the character from becoming evil - being the "mixture of Good and Evil" kind of Neutral character.

A paladin, who takes a level in something that allows them to summon a fiend, and does so for any reason, will Fall. That's just the way D&D works.

The ACT of killing is not evil. The act of theft is not evil. A paladin is a bad example because many non-evil act can make them fall. They are held to a higher standard than regular good and much higher standard than neutral. Nongood /= evil

[hamishspence]

The ACT of killing is not evil.

The act of murder, always, is. Fiendish Codex 2 - it can be a 5, 6 or 7 point Corrupt act.

Same with "casting a spell with the [Evil] tag" - 1 pt Corrupt act.

PHB "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" - theft is, under most circumstances, a form of hurt and oppression.

[Warmjenkins]

The act of murder, always, is. Fiendish Codex 2 - it can be a 5, 6 or 7 point Corrupt act.

Same with "casting a spell with the [Evil] tag" - 1 pt Corrupt act.

Yet other books contradict that when circumstances apply. Fiendbinders and similar classes get a pass on evil spells. Torture is considered evil yet pulling a clockwork orange on someone to turn them good is ok. Inflicting diseases intentionally is evil but ravages are good. Clearly it's not so cut and dried as the act being evil. Killing is the act involve in the crime of murder but killing isn't evil by definition.

[hamishspence]

Yet other books contradict that when circumstances apply. Fiendbinders and similar classes get a pass on evil spells.

One fiendbinding class, in Complete Scoundrel, gets "a pass" being immune to alignment change from casting evil summoning spells (and only evil summoning spells - evil non-summoning spells are quite capable of changing the character's alignment).

All others are stuck with the alignment rules as written. And they almost always have "Any non-good" as a class requirement.

[Segev]

There's a reason we have a law/chaos axis. It tends to deal with how much you respect things like property rights, traditions, and the rules of how things are done.

Chaotic Good would argue that taking something for the common good is just fine, on a case by case basis, but in different cases, it would argue that taking something for the "common good" is very much NOT fine, again on a case-by-case basis. It sounds inconsistent, because there's not a hard-and-fast, codified rule they're following. I mean, it's CHAOTIC good. But it might actually have a great deal of consistency in general principles as to how they justify whether something really is for the "common good" or not.

Lawful Good will tend to either always agree or always disagree with the notion that it's okay to take things for the "common good." It depends on the laws and traditions they follow. In particular, Lawful Anything will tend to have a view on property rights that is highly codified, and may or may not mesh with what a Chaotic Good person thinks is sensible and ethical in any given situation.

Really, on a moral axis, this comes down to a matter of empathy and willingness to hurt others versus help others. Fair or not, lawful or not, just or not, this kid considers the stuff his.

Let's pretend for a moment that it's actually a little kid who just really, really wants the cleric's holy symbol. It's a valuable holy symbol, one gifted to him by his high priest for services rendered in a prior adventure. For whatever reason, this little kid has decided it's the coolest thing in the world, and that he just HAS to have it. It will crush him to be told "no."

Obviously, by just about any ethical or moral standard, the kid has no claim on the thing. But a Good-aligned cleric may well be moved out of sympathy for the kid's feelings to give it to him anyway. (He might not, of course; you don't have to give away things just to keep selfish people from being upset to be Good.)

As the value of the item goes down, or the legitimacy of the claim of the one asking/demanding it goes up, things shift around, but in the end, this is not a question so much about whether taking the stuff for themselves is evil on the basis of property rights. It's a question of how they deal with this obviously needy child (or youth? How old is this kid?) who cannot take care of himself.

The items are almost superfluous to this whole consideration. Taking them and leaving the kid alone in the world leans towards evil because of the callousness of the act, more than out of anything else. It's not an evil act, just a darker act of neutrality, I think, because taking the items or leaving them is minimally impactful compared to the act of leaving the kid alone.



But really, even an evil character I was playing would probably adopt the kid and make him his squire. Eventually, the kid'll be a good meat shield, especially with the gear he can learn to use.

A good character would probably try to get him a home, but I'd still, as a player, think having the NPC along would be fun, so I'd probably angle that way.

[Warmjenkins]

One fiendbinding class, in Complete Scoundrel, gets "a pass" being immune to alignment change from casting evil summoning spells (and only evil summoning spells - evil non-summoning spells are quite capable of changing the character's alignment).

All others are stuck with the alignment rules as written. And they almost always have "Any non-good" as a class requirement.

Exactly, typically evil act becomes non-evil. I'm not well versed enough to say for certain but I'd be surprised if more loopholes like that didn't exist in the forms of feats and other class features or even spells. Same as ravages redeemeries. It's all because the act isn't the evil thing here, its all the thoughts and feelings and circumstances around the act that make it good or evil.

Killing babies, evil. Killing baby barghests good. Stealing, evil. Stealing from demon lords, good.

I really feel like most people are thinking non-good and evil are the same because the real world typically sets the standard for behavior at good and not neutral.

(Edit. Since this has veered into rules territory let me point out that there are numerous examples of neutral bandits, pirates, and thieves in various published adventures and rulebooks. I sincerely doubt that these bandits are performing enough charity to bounce their alignment back if stealing is inherently evil except when justified under very particular and extreme circumstances. I'm playing a paladin in the savage tides adventure atm and there is a non-evil cleric of mother@#$@ing dagon early in the book so clearly evil in 3.5 is a bit harder to qualify for under the rules than many seem to think.)

[hamishspence]

Exactly, typically evil act becomes non-evil.

No - typically evil act stays evil, but character avoids slipping over into Evil alignment, because of their motives (and the presence of of a pattern of Good acts).

Torture - Evil
Torture of a fiend - Still Evil

Murder - Evil
Murder of a fiend - Still Evil (fiends murder one another all the time, and they don't get in trouble for "committing Good acts")



I'm playing a paladin in the savage tides adventure atm and there is a non-evil cleric of mother@#$@ing dagon early in the book so clearly evil in 3.5 is a bit harder to qualify for under the rules than many seem to think.)

Chaotic Neutral clerics of Chaotic Evil gods exist, but are rare. They would need to keep their Evil acts to a minimum and do a lot of Good acts, to stay Chaotic Neutral - because worshipping an Evil god, or a fiend, is evil in itself.

[Warmjenkins]

No - typically evil act stays evil, but character avoids slipping over into Evil alignment, because of their motives (and the presence of of a pattern of Good acts).

Torture - Evil
Torture of a fiend - Still Evil

Murder - Evil
Murder of a fiend - Still Evil (fiends murder one another all the time, and they don't get in trouble for "committing Good acts")

Spreading disease, evil. Spreading good disease to evil creatures, good, exalted even. Mind wiping a creature by force, clearly super evil. Redeemery, good. I can not imagine that going through a redeemery is anything but torture for an evil creature. The most extreme of tortures. Literally ripping their will and sense of self from them by force, yet considered very good.

Equipping a nipple ring of exquisite agony onto someone, torturing them to inflict pleasure and producing ambrosia I believe actually still counts as good as well.

So you think this dagon cleric was running an orphanage before and after he broke into the mansion of the main npc, killed multiple guards and servants, and was attempting to kill or kidnap (didn't exactly take him alive for questioning) the lady of the manor? I find that harder to believe than the alternative. (Besides dagon is basically an elder evil, far worse than just an evil god. I'm a bit salty because I saved a smite the whole day and couldn't us it :)

[hamishspence]

(Besides dagon is basically an elder evil, far worse than just an evil god. I'm a bit salty because I saved a smite the whole day and couldn't us it :)

Demon lord, evil god - they're both Outsiders with the Evil subtype. Worshipping either is Evil - but it's possible to maintain a Neutral alignment and still be a worshipper.

The Thrall of Demogorgon PRC, however, represents the inner circle of his cult, and is Evil only, and requires Vile feats to take.

Similarly, you could be a cleric of Kiaransalee and be CN - but a Yathrinshee (special PRC) has to be CE.

[Warmjenkins]

Demon lord, evil god - they're both Outsiders with the Evil subtype. Worshipping either is Evil - but it's possible to maintain a Neutral alignment and still be a worshipper.

The Thrall of Demogorgon PRC, however, represents the inner circle of his cult, and is Evil only, and requires Vile feats to take.

Similarly, you could be a cleric of Kiaransalee and be CN - but a Yathrinshee (special PRC) has to be CE.

The actual lore on dagon puts him more in line with pandorym and other far realm entities. He isnt like the other demon lords (except maybe the pale lady) and they all just kinda give him a wide berth because he's to strong to challenge.

So you think that every group of neutral bandits, pirates, killers, and thugs just frantically does charity work in their spare time in a desperate attempt to not turn evil? Even though they are consistently portrayed as uncaring and cruel? That is somehow more likely than that the acts themselves are simply not quite as evil as you think they are or that more things can justify them than the very narrow circumstances that you laid out?

(I'll also point out that you can be made of literal evil energy, eg evil outsiders, and still wind up non-evil potentially.)

[hamishspence]

The actual lore on dagon puts him more in line with pandorym and other far realm entities. He isnt like the other demon lords (except maybe the pale lady) and they all just kinda give him a wide berth because he's to strong to challenge.


Sure - but to his minions, he's just a "regular demon lord". They don't know the intricacies of the whole "obyrith" thing.





(I'll also point out that you can be made of literal evil energy, eg evil outsiders, and still wind up non-evil potentially.)

Yup - because your actual alignment isn't determined by what energy you're made of, but how you behave.



So you think that every group of neutral bandits, pirates, killers, and thugs just frantically does charity work in their spare time in a desperate attempt to not turn evil? Even though they are consistently portrayed as uncaring and cruel?


Using the previously mentioned 30% of people being Evil - there may be an element of overlap. There's Evil people who don't deserve to die at the hands of adventurers, because they routinely do lots of very minor Evil deeds, and never any Good deeds - and that's what keeps them Evil.

And conversely, there may be Neutral people who do deserve to die at the hands of adventurers, because they occasionally do major Evil deeds, and often Good ones - but the Evil deeds are worse, to the average adventurer or society member, than the petty evil deeds of the "only just Evil" character.


You can have Neutral bandits who deserve killing, and Evil citizens who don't deserve killing. D&D is complex like that.

[Warmjenkins]

Yup - because your actual alignment isn't determined by what energy you're made of, but how you behave.


Using the previously mentioned 30% of people being Evil - there may be an element of overlap. There's Evil people who don't deserve to die at the hands of adventurers, because they routinely do lots of very minor Evil deeds, and never any Good deeds - and that's what keeps them Evil.

And conversely, there may be Neutral people who do deserve to die at the hands of adventurers, because they occasionally do major Evil deeds, and often Good ones - but the Evil deeds are worse, to the average adventurer or society member, than the petty evil deeds of the "only just Evil" character.

In the real world maybe, but in d&d good an evil are concrete things. Evil outsiders are quite literally made of evil. Evil has and is energy, it has form and substance. You can shape it and use it.

You missed the entire point on the bandits. Either theft isnt so evil or the bandits would be evil given its literally the main thing they do. Either killing isn't quite so evil, or more easily justified than you think or the thugs would be evil ect...

Heck, mask is the chaotic neutral god of theft in forgotten realms so stealing can't really be evil except under specific circumstances. Its neutral except under specific circumstances. It can be good, it can be evil. But its usually neither.

[hamishspence]

Heck, mask is the chaotic neutral god of theft in forgotten realms.

Mask is NE in every edition except 5e.




You missed the entire point on the bandits. Either theft isnt so evil or the bandits would be evil given its literally the main thing they do. Either killing isn't quite so evil, or more easily justified than you think or the thugs would be evil ect...

Or some of the authors are bad at following PHB definitions.

"Robin Hood-type" bandits are Neutral to Good.

Regular bandits are usually Evil.

[Warmjenkins]

Mask is NE in every edition except 5e.



Or some of the authors are bad at following PHB definitions.

"Robin Hood-type" bandits are Neutral to Good.

Regular bandits are usually Evil.

Oh, my mistake then. I'll have to wait till I'm back with my books for a better example then but still. And their is literally their occupation. They aren't heroes who steal, they are thieves. Bandits are thieves who use violence as well as or in place of stealth but their job is still stealing.

As for authors being bad at following definitions, the exact same can be said (and often is) about the book of vile darkness, exalted deeds, fiendish codex 1 and 2, or any book really.

[hamishspence]

Going back to the subject, If the character is of a class or PRC that gets penalised for any Evil act (Paladin, Paladin of Freedom, Hospitaller, character with any one Exalted feat) I would be applying aforesaid penalties, if they took the boy's father's stuff for their own - and outright refused his claim.

And if the character was a Neutral character that somehow gets penalties for any Evil or Good act - they'd suffer them, too. An evil act doesn't suddenly become non-evil merely because it's a Neutral character doing it.

[Warmjenkins]

Going back to the subject, If the character is of a class or PRC that gets penalised for any Evil act (Paladin, Paladin of Freedom, Hospitaller, character with any one Exalted feat) I would be applying aforesaid penalties, if they took the boy's father's stuff for their own - and outright refused his claim.

And if the character was a Neutral character that somehow gets penalties for any Evil or Good act - they'd suffer them, too. An evil act doesn't suddenly become non-evil merely because it's a Neutral character doing it.

Paladins and exalted characters are held to a higher standard than simply don't commit evil acts though. It even flat out says as much in the book of exalted deeds. You cant judge what's evil by the metric of a paladin or exalted character.

(Remembered a pretty good one, not exactly a god but obligatum VII is a kolyarut, lawful neutral, a robot programmed by the will of cosmos. He is on a quest to free pandorym which will kill all the gods and likely destroy all creation, yet that doesn't make him evil since his sole motivation is to uphold the law. So destroying all gods and all existence apparently can be justified as non-evil)

[hamishspence]

Paladins and exalted characters are held to a higher standard than simply don't commit evil acts though.

But the only acts that a DM is required to take away a Hospitaller, or Paladin of Freedom, or Exalted character's powers for by RAW, across the board, are Evil acts.

As such, a DM needs to know, ahead of time, what acts are normally Evil, and what aren't.

[Warmjenkins]

But the only acts that a DM is required to take away a Hospitaller, or Paladin of Freedom, or Exalted character's powers for by RAW, across the board, are Evil acts.

As such, a DM needs to know, ahead of time, what acts are normally Evil, and what aren't.

Not true, not sure on hospitallers but paladins definitely are explicitly stated as having a "code of conduct" not associating with evil characters, respecting "legitimate" authority ect... once again away from book but I remember similar preamble for exalted characters, higher standard yadda yadda...

Also you just said "normally evil" my whole point was that acts aren't ever always evil. Heck if destroying the gods and all existence can be non-evil then what can't.

[hamishspence]

"Must lose their powers for evil acts" is the thing that these CE, LG, and "Any Good" characters have in common.


And it's entirely possible that Obligatum will end up in one of the Evil afterlives after being destroyed. A "being of pure LN' is quite capable of committing both LG and LE acts.

[Warmjenkins]

"Must lose their powers for evil acts" is the thing that these CE, LG, and "Any Good" characters have in common.


And it's entirely possible that Obligatum will end up in one of the Evil afterlives after being destroyed. A "being of pure LN' is quite capable of committing both LG and LE acts.

Obligatum doesn't get an afterlife. Inevitables are the things made of the afterlife like most other outsiders. His actions are purely lawful, not good, not evil as judged by the universe itself.

Each one of those characters has intricate and complex codes. It's entirely possible a lawful evil character would lose abilities for taking the items as well for breaking the law. Or a chaotic evil character for leaving the kid alive. Does that make them good acts because they cause evil characters to lose their abilities?

A paladin of freedom might fall for not being charitable while a paladin might for not upholding the law, both from a neutral act.

[hamishspence]

Inevitables aren't outsiders in the first place - they're constructs.

[Warmjenkins]

Inevitables aren't outsiders in the first place - they're constructs.

That's just their bodies. The actual process by which they are created is a little obscured but they are automatically churned out by the force of law across the multiverse to right transgressions. When one dies another is automatically created to replace it. If anything being constructs would especially mean no afterlife but their essence is clearly the force of law imbued in them. Just like how most regular golems are said to be powered by elemental or pieces of them.

[AntiAuthority]

Regarding OP... Yes, I'd say stealing from someone you saved counts as an Evil Act. Might suck for the heroes, but... If someone saved my life and took (by force) the last keepsakes of my family member... I think those people are only somewhat better than the monsters that were trying to kill me before.

It'd feel like my saviors saying, "Well I saved your life, so I get to do whatever I want in regards to it now." And all I would think at that point is, "Are you sure you're the heroes or just opportunists who feel like you're owed for doing "good deeds"?"

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Warmjenkins
The actual process by which they are created is a little obscured but they are automatically churned out by the force of law across the multiverse….

Do you have a source for this?

My copy of the Monster Manual lists them as constructs, as hamishspence pointed out, and I don’t see anything about their being “automatically churned out by the force of law” or the like.

[Warmjenkins]

Do you have a source for this?

My copy of the Monster Manual lists them as constructs, as hamishspence pointed out, and I don’t see anything about their being “automatically churned out by the force of law” or the like.

I'll look for it again when I get the chance, I can't remember what i read it in. I think it might have been part of some adventure path where the party ended up on a chreche forge on mechanus trying to stop the next model from being made or something but that might have been what just led me down the path to begin with. Could have even been second edition or something though in which case I apologize, although it appears some other edition lore remains cannon through changes. Like the temple of elemental evil and such so I'm not certain it matters.

(It all gets a little muddy after the 100th or so sourcebook lol)

(Edit, looks like someone with a better memory beat me to it, thanks!)

[Kayblis]

Manual of the Planes describes the plane of Mechanus as having gigantic factories churning out constructs like the Inevitables to serve as lawbearers across the multiverse. A couple adventures use the setup too, and the Elder Evils book(great book btw) has one of its Elder Evils being opposed by the 4th or so iteration of a super Inevitable, which specifically calls out as being churned out from Mechanus just like the three iterations before it. If destroyed, will result in a new Inevitable(the 5th iteration) being sent out after a couple decades to fullfill its eternal duty.