For those who favor the alignment system...

[rubycona]

I have a question, for those who favor the alignment system. Overall, I think it can be a great tool, but there's a problem I'm having a hard time getting around.

In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians? To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds? Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?


It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town. They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.

But the thing is, can genocide ever really be good? Maybe demons/devils, since they're literally incarnations of evil, but guys like goblins and kobolds?

It just seems so black and white. They're evil, thus they should die. That hardly seems "good" to me.

Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?

Oh, and don't bother taking this thread as a means to bash the alignment system. I'm fully aware of those arguments, but rather than revamping the entire game, I'd rather find a middle ground, if possible. Fortunately, my players are very cooperative, so I have plenty of leeway.

Thanks for your help! :D

[Assassin89]

A few words...

Look at Eberron. Alignments are a little more loose in that setting.

[TheStranger]

Before this thread gets out of control, let me chime in with the following advice:

There are many views on the alignment system, and many threads have failed to find a consensus and degenerated into flamewars. There really isn't a clear answer on questions like this. Therefore, if you feel like this is going to be a problem, the best thing to do is sit down with your group and reach an acceptable definition of Good and Evil that you can all live with. Then, you can either ignore the raging internet debate or fan the flames, as you prefer.

Now, allow me to do the latter:

Genocide, even of a mostly evil race, is Evil, IMO.

[arguskos]

Honestly, I tend to default everyone to a base neutral alignment. Perhaps mentally, they're conniving little bastards who would shank you soon as give you the time of day, but if they never do, then I guess they're not really evil.

It's my general belief that the deeds make the man. If they never ACT evil, then they just aren't, and frankly, I think this makes more sense than a blanket "ur evil lol" statement about race X, Y, or Z.

Just run with this idea, and I think it might help out some.

EDIT: Also, TheStranger's advice is good. I'd do that too.

[hamishspence]

depends on your sourcebook.

Apart from possibly newly-born eriynes fiends, and chromatic dragon wyrmlings, there is a very strong correlation between acts and alignment in the D&D system.

And anything short of Always Evil (kobolds are Usually LE) gets a certain amount of benefit of the doubt.

Races of the Dragon tells us there is a lot more to kobold than just being an adversary. For one thing, they trade, through intermediaries, with many peoples- the kobold trade in metals is massive.

For another, the Lawfulness in their LE alignment manifests in being extremely selfless and loyal "to serve the tribe" is the kobold credo. I suspect most common alignment after LE (remember its not likely to be much more than 50% LE) is LN.

Book Of Exalted Deeds is one of the strongest sources for: "No its not ok to just slaughter the village of evil creatures" and "even if its to prevent more raids, its not ok to kill non-combatants, like kobold children"

Not everyone likes BoED- it has its own flaws, but it makes a good source to cite to support the position you want.

[sonofzeal]

In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

Well, let's see.....

Kobold
Kobold, 1st-Level Warrior
Size/Type: Small Humanoid (Reptilian)
Hit Dice: 1d8 (4 hp)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (+1 size, +1 Dex, +1 natural, +2 leather), touch 12, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/-4
Attack: Spear +1 melee (1d6-1/×3) or sling +3 ranged (1d3-1)
Full Attack: Spear +1 melee (1d6-1/×3) or sling +3 ranged (1d3-1)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: —
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., light sensitivity
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +1, Will -1
Abilities: Str 9, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8
Skills: Craft (trapmaking) +2, Hide +6, Listen +2, Move Silently +2, Profession (miner) +2, Search +2, Spot +2
Feats: Alertness
Environment: Temperate forests
Organization: Gang (4-9), band (10-100 plus 100% noncombatants plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults and 1 leader of 4th-6th level), warband (10-24 plus 2-4 dire weasels), tribe (40-400 plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 1 or 2 lieutenants of 4th or 5th level, 1 leader of 6th-8th level, and 5-8 dire weasels)
Challenge Rating: ¼
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Usually lawful evil
Advancement: By character class
Level Adjustment: +0

Nope, a decent number of any kobold tribe are going to be neutral or even good. Killing neutral or good things, especially ones that have never harmed you and pose no serious threat to you, is an EVIL ACT. Hence, genociding an entire tribe is going to involve at least a few evil acts, regardless of philosophical arguments about the greater good.

But yeah, we're firmly in "the ends justify the means" territory, which is definitely non-good. Neutral maybe, but non-good.

[Nightson]

One of the nice things about 4th edition is that alignment feels a lot more like an optional roleplaying resource and not a vague but totally integral part of the laws of the universe.

[hamishspence]

Fiendish Codex 2 lists the most common traits of a LE society. they seemed awfully like a lot of typical medieval societies.

So yes, its quite easy to be LE without being a Complete Monster.

[The Neoclassic]

I have a question, for those who favor the alignment system. Overall, I think it can be a great tool, but there's a problem I'm having a hard time getting around.

Ooooh, pick me! OK, I'm not the biggest fan of the system, but it's decent and I don't want to bother weeding all of its nuances out of 3.5. We are talking about 3.5, right? Also, disclaimer: The alignment system is open to interpretation, and so a lot of what I will present is how I would personally handle the problem. For example, you'll get a lot of debate over what is actually evil (Check out the Stupid Evil thread if you are quite interested), and I'll be working on my assumptions for the most part, though I'll try to state and clarify them where necessary.

In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action.

I don't think this is the case. Even with monsters, it is "Usually [x] alignment." Your actions, along with your intents, motives, and the consequences of your actions, affect your alignment. People can even shift alignment if they undergo serious changes in how they behave, think, or both.

IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

OK, first of all, I'm going to go with what I said above in answering this: That alignment indeed reflects things about a character and is not just a label "regardless of action."

"Monsterous", "evil" races are a very notable challenge in D&D. If kobolds do, like you say, merely work together in their own communities, what makes them evil. There are a few ways to deal with this...

The way which I believe is in older, kick-in-the-door sorts of D&D is: They just are, because their existence is directly unhelpful to their fairer races. Woe is us, for the evil kobolds are mining in /our/ rightful gold mines! Us humans and elves are, of course, good, so anyone who opposes our goals must be evil. As you can tell, I find this explanation rubbish. One good counter would be that good and evil are cosmic forces in D&D, very forces of the universe, so one mortal race disliking another should not determine such founding multiverse forces.

The way I look at it is more as follows: Kobolds are LE. They work together well, they follow their laws and traditions meticulously, and they have a sense of community. However, killing off the weak is acceptable to them, as is assassinating rivals to get important positions. They will use others to their own benefit, treat others with cruelty, and do nothing for the common good that is not prescribed by law or custom. By others here, I refer both to those within and outside of their own community. In other words, alignment is a starting point to extrapolate some trends in culture, when the MM fails to properly elaborate.

And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians? To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds? Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?

In my world, I view this as morally fuzzy. At best, this is neutral; at worst, it is evil. If the kobolds are building a war machine to attack the baron's castle or stealing and eating up all the crops of the human peasants, killing them is probably somewhere between good and neutral. "Hey, let's slaughter the kobold village to take their stuff; they are evil so it is all good!" would be evil. This still works with my assumption that evil has a variety of degrees, from slightly over the line from neutral to abysmally horrific. Since some evil (such as your average kobold miner) isn't all /that/ awful, it does not justify killing the creature merely on the basis of his alignment.

It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town. They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.

If this batch of kobolds looks like it was probably just chillin', not harming the town, and not performing any serious despicable acts (baby killing or such), that was not a good act and I frankly might even pin it on my players as being over the line into evil (though then again, I do not change my players' alignments because of occasional evil [or good] acts).

But the thing is, can genocide ever really be good? Maybe demons/devils, since they're literally incarnations of evil, but guys like goblins and kobolds?

It just seems so black and white. They're evil, thus they should die. That hardly seems "good" to me.

Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?

Yes! As I described above. I can link you to more posts where I outline a fuzzier, more encompassing view of the alignment system: Essentially, evil comes in shades and alignment is not black or white with all the shades of gray being in the middle at neutral.

Oh, and don't bother taking this thread as a means to bash the alignment system. I'm fully aware of those arguments, but rather than revamping the entire game, I'd rather find a middle ground, if possible. Fortunately, my players are very cooperative, so I have plenty of leeway.

Thanks for your help! :D

Just let me know if you need any more help (assuming my approach sounds like what you are looking for)!

I bet I am going to get ninja'd....

[hamishspence]

doesn't look like it

While you're a bit more generous than me (I'd put it, based on BoED, as definitely evil act to slaughter kobold civilians, though one evil act might not change an alignment. Lots of them would though) the general trend of what you're saying fits with what I've read in the sourcebooks.

Your point on how the borders are a little fuzzy, and Evil can be just over border from Neutral, is pretty much how some of the sourcebooks already put it. D&D has moved on. Or rather, in the many expansions to the core 3 books, it has.

Champions of Ruin is another good example of a sourcebook that looks at evil and shows just how varied it can be.

[afroakuma]

In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action.

Flatly wrong.

IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

Here's my question: is the kobold LE? Is he a rules lawyer who complains when things don't benefit him, exploits others for personal gain and takes a bit too much joy in either selfish reward or the suffering of others?

And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians?

Do corrupt politicians, the Enron execs and the jerk colleague who got you stuck with the backshift so that he could make time with your girl deserve to be slaugtered?

To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds?

Their children? Do they deserve to die?

Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?

Yeah, some politicians and power-mad corporate executives go against the grain, but... etc.

It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town.

Bears are known to be violent and problematic, but very few bears make it to downtown New York. Just in case, though...

They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.

Good call.

But the thing is, can genocide ever really be good? Maybe demons/devils, since they're literally incarnations of evil, but guys like goblins and kobolds?

Actually, genociding one of demons or devils would be (in 3.X cosmology) a very very bad thing to do.

Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?

It is non-absolute and subjective.

[arguskos]

Actually, genociding one of demons or devils would be (in 3.X cosmology) a very very bad thing to do.

But, it would be HILARIOUS... for all of ten seconds, before the other side wipes out the universe.

[hamishspence]

Well, sort of subjective in some areas. Given that Murder, and a few other acts, are called out in Fiendish Codex 2 as "Corrupt acts" which are pretty definite evil, some areas are more absolute than others.

Problem is definitions.

[Tequila Sunrise]

In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil? He might do evil in another circumstance, but never had the opportunity.

Nothing is Evil just because the monster's alignment entry in the MM reads "Evil." The assumption is that the monster does Evil things, and that's what makes it Evil. So no, if a bunch of kobolds just hang around their lair and take care of each other they are not Evil, even if they would do Evil if given the opportunity. Good and Evil both require action, in addition to intent.

It's just, as a DM, I had this disagreement with a player. He was arguing that he was thinking long term, and totally annihilating this kobold colony was in the best interest of the nearby town, even though this particular batch of kobolds had never bothered the town. They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that, but the civilians? I tried to argue that this was Not a good thing, and in interest of keeping the game going smoothly, he backed down.

I'd be prone to say that you're right: annihilating a bunch of kobold non-combatants is probably Evil. I use the word "probably" because it depends on how you handle kobolds in your world. If kobolds can be non-Evil under the right circumstances (by being shown a better way of life by a group of adventurers, for example), then a group of Good PCs should probably at the very least leave them be. It's a gray area though. Especially if the PCs don't know if the kobold warriors were Evil because they were taught to be Evil, or if they were born that way. If kobolds are simply born Evil, much like demons/devils, then the PCs would be justified in annihilating them all.

Is there any way to have alignment as a non-absolute, subjective descriptive system as opposed to objective and absolute?

3e assumes that alignment is objective and absolute, but you can make it as subjective and non-absolute as you want. That's one of the few perks of being DM; you run the game how you want it to be.

TS

[hamishspence]

LE societies, according to Fiendish Codex 2, make sure their offspring move toward LE by treating them to horrible initiation ceremonies and upbringing, and arranging it so the older children have to mistreat the younger.

So yes, kobolds could be LE by being cruel to each other, or having cruel punishments for transgressing kobolds, without ever interfering with outside world.

[afroakuma]

But, it would be HILARIOUS... for all of ten seconds, before the other side wipes out the universe.

Well, there would be a very amusing war first.

[arguskos]

Well, there would be a very amusing war first.

Bah, we all know that everyone vs. demons wouldn't even be vaguely fair. I mean, celestials don't have to man up every day and wage an unceasing war on their hated foes, since the demons and devils are doing that FOR them.

Though, a campaign about someone who manages to genocide the devils would be some flavor of awesome: defending plane after plane against the endless demonic hordes, and finally find some way to reverse the genocide and put things right again. Damn, this sounds fun.

[hamishspence]

Going by Fiendish Codex 2, they would team up if one side was in danger of destruction (Asmodeus has a Cunning Plan to broker a short truce with the demons at some point in the future)

In practice though, given how much "bigger" the Abyss is: more layers, wider layers, giving the Demons a real problem is much harder than giving the Devils one.

[arguskos]

Going by Fiendish Codex 2, they would team up if one side was in danger of destruction (Asmodeus has a Cunning Plan to broker a short truce with the demons at some point in the future)

In practice though, given how much "bigger" the Abyss is: more layers, wider layers, giving the Demons a real problem is much harder than giving the Devils one.

And by "much harder" you mean impossible. There are infinite demons. There are a finite number of devils, since their creation takes FAR longer and is much more involved (using my knowledge of the Fiendish Codices here). Designing a genophage for devils would be much easier than making one for demons, since no genophage could spread fast enough and still be 100% lethal to wipe out demonkind.

Also, this is rapidly becoming a threadjack. I should, you know, stop it. Sorry rubycona.

[afroakuma]

Ah, but you see, demons have been put down once before: the obyriths are drastically reduced in number.

The real problem is that a genophage for demons would probably supplant them as worse.

[hamishspence]

On the subject of Kobolds, in my 2nd ed D&D books, the beginner adventure had them as the sort of thing that helps you if you bribe them, more than the sort of thing you absolutely have to kill on sight.

The Book Of Lairs, a collection of adventures, had a stampede of animal-intelligence, predatory monsters, and the kobolds presence, while alarming the village a bit, also meant you had a potential ally to protect the village.

In general, kobolds tended toward being not a serious threat, and quite helpful if heroes handled them correctly.

[arguskos]

Ah, but you see, demons have been put down once before: the obyriths are drastically reduced in number.

The real problem is that a genophage for demons would probably supplant them as worse.

Notably, the obyriths were replaced by other demons. In fact, demonkind as a whole was made better by the obyriths getting curbstomped.

Oh, and yeah, probably. Damn you Chaos!

[hamishspence]

Shall we create a thread- The Blood war and implications of powerful adventurers interfering?

[rubycona]

Hehe, have fun with the demon thing if you want XD I'm glad to be amusing :P

Thanks everyone for your answers and insights.

How I'm hoping to address this is, the alignment yields a genetic predisposition towards that alignment. IE, if you're descended from a black dragon, but you were raised in a good family, you could end up fighting your genetic inclination towards slaughter and mayhem, and may even take up a paladin class in your ongoing battle against instinct. Something like that.

I dunno. I guess I'll take that first suggestion and talk it over with my players. Tell em basically I want the alignment to be subjective, so that gray morality exists, meaning wholesale slaughter is a no-no.

And for that matter, I won't have dragons "always" X alignment either... merely a very powerful genetic predisposition that is very rarely changed.

[Mando Knight]

Here's my question: is the kobold LE? Is he a rules lawyer who complains when things don't benefit him, exploits others for personal gain and takes a bit too much joy in either selfish reward or the suffering of others?

Is he a devout worshiper of She Who Must Have All The Shiny and her minions, the Flying Lizards Of Shiny-Taking And Village Burning?

[PinkysBrain]

In the alignment system, you are X alignment regardless of action. IE, kobolds are lawful evil, and thus, are evil even if all they do is take care of their own, work in the mines, etc. If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony... then, how is he evil?

They will take pleasure in tormenting those below them in the hierarchy. Just because they are all evil doesn't mean they are nice to each other. Evil is as evil does, living in an evil community is not puppy dogs and sunshine.

And if indeed he is still evil, is it really "good" to wholesale slaughter kobold civilians?

No, unprovoked violence is evil.

To destroy kobold eggs before they hatch, because they'll hatch evil kobolds? Yeah, some kobolds go against the grain, but the vast majority are lawful evil, right?

Rationalization has no role in D&D morality, just because you can rationalize it doesn't make it any less evil.

[hamishspence]

Faerun seems to handle "always evil" is "incredibly powerful predisposition, almost never changed. Dragon Magazine cited at least one non-evil chromatic dragon (a green one, lives in Moonshaes, allied with elves)

and thats a pretty fair summary of the way Races of the Dragon handles Half-dragons and Draconic Creatures.

Same could apply to the "always evil" but without Evil subtype half-fiends.

Especially since Cambions (5/8 fiend) in Expedition To The Demonweb Pits are 10% Not Evil, despite having Evil subtype.

is it subjective if rule is "murder is Always evil" + "murder of Evil creatures is still murder" + "murder is defined roughly the way most Western law defines it"?

[Jarawara]

Warning: Overly long post, and sounding kinda rantish. I didn't mean it to sound that way, sorry 'bout that.

*~*~*

There are some important facts that have to be clearly stated here.

#1: Killing non-combatants, women and children, farmers and miners... is evil.

#2: Destroying eggs and hatchlings, so that they may never grow up to be potential threats... is evil.

#3: Rationalizing it all away based on a black-white view of 'racial alignments'... is evil.

#4: And therefore, the players who do these henious acts, and who justify these henious acts, or who sit idly by as they henious acts are being committed....

....are players. Nothing more.


You see, the problem with trying to discuss, clarify, (and codify into rule), a code of action for your players to follow, is that the players came to *play*, not to study the intricate details of foreign cultures. Trying to enforce a set of beliefs on how to behave when dealing with an imaginary tribe of little demonic-looking dog-people is contrary to what the players came to your house to do. They weren't interested in social studies; they aren't looking for an educational examination of the nature of good and evil; they aren't looking to 'behave'. They wanna play, and they chose characters who have the power and the might to lay waste to entire hordes of enemies. So give them those enemies. If you give them women and children and pre-hatched eggs, they will look at their list of skills and powers and see "fireball" and come to the next logical conclusion.

And they won't be evil for it. *Maybe* their characters would be, but perhaps it was your assumption that "Good" is a tangible and fully attainable goal, something they were committed to above all else. Your players probably saw "Good" as being simply a statement of who's side they are on. Humans, or the 'others'. Kobolds sure look like 'other' to them, and so logically the good thing to do is to eliminate the threat, now and forever.

That isn't the definition of 'good'... but it's probably the definition of the alignment they consciously chose at the beginning of the campaign.


Now if you've got a pure representation of "Good" in the party, like say, a Paladin, then perhaps you've got a problem here. This is exactly why I won't let a new player to my group to play a Paladin for his first character. I want him to get some real-life experience in my gameworld, and let me get a better view of him or her as a player too, before trying to tackle moral dilemmas and shady alignment issues with his Paladinhood on the line.

I even have a major religion in my world that helps define the issue clearly to my players. Two gods, father and son - the father is the god of Paladins, and he has taken the belief of good and fairness to its illogical conclusion, to the point that a Paladin in my world would be duty-bound to defend that poor defenseless tribe of Kobolds against the aggressive and evil actions of the players. But the son got tired of following Dad's whacky messed up moral code, and simplified it for his followers. Defend your people against all threats. Defeat your enemies so they may not defeat you. And why wait till the threat is upon your doorstep? Take the fight to the source of the threat and destroy it before it can destroy you.

Both religions are considered "good", but while the Paladin would have to defend the Kobolds against aggressors, the Knights of the Son would have no problem coming to the Kobold tribe and wiping them out, warrior, women, and egg alike. It protects future generations of humans, and protecting humans is good, right?

Now obviously, both religions are characatures, both wrong in their own extremes, but guess which religion is far more popular? Even when I give the players the option of which religion to take, (and even when I don't emphasize the logical extremes that can come up in Paladinism), the players still choose the Son over the Father - because they want to take the fight to the enemy and destroy them, in the name of all that is right and good.

(And after slaying all the Kobolds, taking their stuff is also good! )


I suspect your players chose the Son over the Father too. No need to beat them over the head on what is right and wrong. Let them play their religion, and remember not to give them a Holy Avenger or anything requiring "Purity and Utter Goodness" to use. I hear Wands of Fireball is a fitting gift for less than pure PC's... it makes cooking up a Kobold Egg Ommlette real easy.

*~*~*

By they way, since I already had an overlong post, I might as well add to it...

If you're looking for another example of the problems of following and enforcing the true Paladinic code, I think I see an example of it in your own story. You said "They destroyed the warriors, and I was good with that..."

Ummm... why? I mean, "If that's All this kobold does, is take care of his own and work to the benefit of his colony", then clearly the warriors are doing the same, just defending the Kobold tribe so that its members can continue to exist and benefit each other. In fact, those warriors really do sound like any other human settlement, and they chose their side (in this case, 'Kobold' vs 'other'). In fact, they might even be more like Paladins, in that they are committed to defending their tribe, but do not seem to take aggressive action on neighboring tribes or the human settlements. They weren't attempting to eliminate the 'human threat' before it could materialize, (even though apparently they should have!)

And what did the PC's do? They broke into their homes, killed the defenders, then massacred the unarmed. Just like PC's always do. These Kobolds would have been better to follow the Son instead of the Father, they might have been able to avoid this sad end.

So unless you're going to try to show how the players were wrong to kill Kobold warriors, how against the code it is to go into dungeons and slay things for their stuff... then I suggest you accept them as followers of the more practical Son, and just let them play.

*~*~*

In the novel series DUNE, Emperor Paul Atredies was petitioned by rival factions, both looking for his blessing and assistance, but assisting either would mean destroying the other. He was troubled by that, and turned to his right hand, Stilgar, for advice.

"Which should I chose?", he asked his friend. "If I chose either, I destroy the other. If I chose neither, both suffer from inaction. Which deserves to win, and which deserves to die?"

Stilgar, a practical man born of the harsh sands of Arrakis, answered:

"It is simple: Save your friends, and destroy your enemies."


And that, simply stated, is a good-enough definition of 'good'.

*~*~*

PS: Congrats on your new D&D game. First time DMing?

[Shalizar]

Alright, first of all, I didnt read the entire thread, because i dont feel like it. Now first of all, it is evil if the group is acting evil, such as if they are planning to destroy that village close by. Second of all, it also depends on the character. If there is a Paladin who feels it is his or her duity to destroy any form of evil in the world, then it wouldnt be evil, but if someone does just so then they can destroy the kobold village, then yes it is evil. In the end it is all up to you. I have runned into a simular problem. A character was took a Lizard Folk captive, and they were planning on selling it into slavery, I belive that to be Chaotic Evil, but all the players argued that it was just the character playing their alignment, Chaotic Neutural. In the end they killed the Lizard Folk when they couldnt sell it into slavery, thus i think i should have stood by my dicision. In the end it depends on the character and the DM's view.

[AslanCross]

And for that matter, I won't have dragons "always" X alignment either... merely a very powerful genetic predisposition that is very rarely changed.

Take a look at Eberron. The dragons can be of any alignment, and are just as likely to team up with each other across chromatic/metallic lines. In general, though, they're too busy contemplating the Draconic prophecy to raid pastoral towns for livestock and virgins.

Cleric alignments aren't tied to their deities' alignments either. The Silver Flame (LG), for example, has a LG "pope" and an LE "High Cardinal."

Humanoids only tend to have the alignment of the society they're brought up in, but find it just as easy to break out of the mold. Goblinoids once had a vast LE empire, but when that was crushed in a battle against the Daelkyr invasion, their scattered remnants end up in any alignment. They do have a new LE nation that was founded recently, but they're not even "usually evil."

Also, hippie orcs beat the evil Daelkyr.

I think the only creatures in Eberron that have "always" alignments are outsiders, who are all busy battling each other endlessly on the plane of Shavarath.