Would this be an evil act?

[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.