Except again, core tenant of Christianity is redemption and salvation available to all. So an idea of a race that's irredeemably evil is actually more anti - Christian than saying that killing evil is an evil act in itself. I have nothing against an in - world idea that a race is evil, was evil, and will be evil, and nothing I can do will change that fact, but to try and make the discussion wrapped around some idea of atheism fighting Good Christian Gaming is ridiculous.

And yes, Black & White worlds are simplistic. Get over it. Even Christianity's absolute morality makes an assumption that the sphere of profanum is more complicated than the sacrum intended - that's why faith (as in an act of belief in something improvable ) is so important in Christian dogma, because you are expected to take God's teachings at face value, in an uncertain world, as a test of faith. Where is that Christian test of faith in a setting where you are reassured by your very god's existence that your cause is 100% Just? If anything, such absolute settings are more anti - Christian and pro - atheist, as they go against Christian message.

In other words, as usual, separation of (Real Life) Religion & Gaming is in order. Just because your setting assumes goblin kids can grow up to be normal people (as is the case with at least Forgotten Realms, where the existence of Drizzt and couple others proves that no race is beyond redemption) doesn't mean you want to go against Christianity.

As for Paladins vs Absolute Evil Children/Surrendered creatures - my own approach depends on the God. If it's a god of chivalry that obligates me to accept a surrendering foe, I let the henchmen/co - travellers/party members cut the throats.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865Except again, core tenant of Christianity is redemption and salvation available to all. So an idea of a race that'd irredeemably evil is actually more anti - Christian than saying that killing evil is an evil act in itself.

To all Humans.  Give me a quote by Jesus about the Salvation of Legion or of Satan Himself...I'll wait...

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865And yes, Black & White worlds are simplistic. Get over it.

The concept that some things that are Black and White makes for a "Black and White World" is the most simplistic idea so far posited in this thread.

Back on topic.

Is killing goblin kids evil? Answer. Yes, No. Maybee, Who cares? I care! Whatever. Depends on the table.

Just from the posts here we see all sorts of different approaches and outlooks from "No kids in my games ever!" to "Killing kids is kewl cause its a game and they arent real!" and all the myriad between those extremes. And mix in wether goblins are made of distilled evil on legs or they are people too and need lovin. ("Thats how you get hobgoblins you know...")

What are you comfortable with and whats your threshold for getting baulky to flat out saying "no"?

Personally I treat it the same as PCs wanting to kill NPCs that have surrendered. Do they have a valid reason for this or are they just being scum for scums sake? What is the situation and circumstance? No. Im usually not happy families are present. But if they are then we'll try an deal with it reasonably. I draw the line at sadistic choice scenarios where we have to kill civilians to proceed. Sorry. No.

To my current groups credit. When I was DMing the 3rd act of Hoard of the Dragon Queen. When they came across the dragon eggs they were tasked to destroy the James the Paladin asked me "Are dragons inherintly evil?" and I told him that as far as anyone knew. No. This because I'd moved the setting to Karameikos and there anything and everything might be friendly, or out to eat your face off. So they discussed it with themselves and came to a compromise. They could only carry one egg back. They couldnt leave the eggs as the cult would make off with them and certainly raise them to be evil. So they destroyed two and hauled the third back to town where they left it with the local temple of a friendly sect. Destroying the two egs was they reasoned a mercy and sending the last off to a good home was repayment for that deed.

Very well played I thought.

I have nooooo clue how they would handle Keep on the Borderlands.

Why isn´t it possible to discuss things in the range it belongs:

There is an adventure where there are children as a possible problem.
There is an alignement rule in the system the adventure is written for.
And now someone asks how these interact.

Possible answers:
1) We don´t play in a style that wants to put a focus in this kind of problem. ->
Answer: Do what you want, but not at our desk! End of discussion for group 1.

2) We assume that some creatures are irredeemly evil and a danger to everyone else. ->
Answer: Kill them off! End of discussion for group 2.

3) Monsters are people too (and often very nasty people)
Answer: Not that easy and probably what the theme starter wanted to discuss and thus what the long answers should be dealing with. (after clearing up that there are the short answers 1+2, so don´t believe this discussion will end with a fitting answer for everyone.)

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865Except again, core tenant of Christianity is redemption and salvation available to all. So an idea of a race that's irredeemably evil is actually more anti - Christian than saying that killing evil is an evil act in itself.

Legion or Satan himself have the option of redemption and salvation?  Your bible has appendices.  It's a stretch to extend that concept to Orc bred in the Pits of Morgoth, or even to the Orcs bred for fulfilling the wrath of Gruumsh.  Tolkien himself became uncomfortable over time with the notion of his own orcs.  He reasoned that despite the capability of being bred by a Maia or Vala, orcs could also breed themselves, they had to, there were just too many of them for this not to be so.  He struggled with the same concepts we're talking about and ended up deciding even his orcs could conceivably be redeemed.  How that would work exactly and what happens to the Orcish soul I've never read.  It's obvious Tolkien never finished thinking it through.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865I have nothing against an in - world idea that a race is evil, was evil, and will be evil, and nothing I can do will change that fact, but to try and make the discussion wrapped around some idea of atheism fighting Good Christian Gaming is ridiculous.

My actual criticism of course is that people's hangups and problems with our real world "Killing in the Name of God(falsely)" leads to the knee-jerk reaction that there can never be a valid thing as Killing in the Name of God, there is no Black, anywhere, ever, just ever-swirling shades of grey.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865And yes, Black & White worlds are simplistic. Get over it. Even Christianity's absolute morality makes an assumption that the sphere of profanum is more complicated than the sacrum intended - that's why faith (as in an act of belief in something improvable ) is so important in Christian dogma, because you are expected to take God's teachings at face value, in an uncertain world, as a test of faith.

The idea that in an entire world there is something Black and that there be a White choice makes it a "Black and White World" is the absolute simplest idea expressed so far in this entire thread.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865As for Paladins vs Absolute Evil Children/Surrendered creatures - my own approach depends on the God. If it's a god of chivalry that obligates me to accept a surrendering foe, I let the henchmen/co - travellers/party members cut the throats.

This says much, actually.  So the God of Chivalry allows his Paladins to be a part of unchivalrous acts by abstention, getting them off on a technicality? Sounds like the God of Chivalry is an absentee landlord, ie.  kinda not even really existing except in abstract.

What does that sound like?

You're not exactly making a stunning case for your gaming cosmology getting beyond your personal religious baggage.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914871Legion or Satan himself have the option of redemption and salvation?  Your bible has appendices.  It's a stretch to extend that concept to Orc bred in the Pits of Morgoth, or even to the Orcs bred for fulfilling the wrath of Gruumsh.  Tolkien himself became uncomfortable over time with the notion of his own orcs.  He reasoned that despite the capability of being bred by a Maia or Vala, orcs could also breed themselves, they had to, there were just too many of them for this not to be so.  He struggled with the same concepts we're talking about and ended up deciding even his orcs could conceivably be redeemed.  How that would work exactly and what happens to the Orcish soul I've never read.  It's obvious Tolkien never finished thinking it through.

Actually in case of Satan it'd very much depend on the school of theological thought, but this is a special case - if you mean Satan as in Lucifer (because they are not necessarily same beings), then we have two options:

a) Yes, he is redeemable, although given the nature of his transgressions it'd be very unlikely he could do so (but possible)
b) Yes, but it won't happen, as the rebellion itself was part of divine plan, and Angels were given less free will than Man.

Same applies for all other rebelled angels.

QuoteMy actual criticism of course is that people's hangups and problems with our real world "Killing in the Name of God(falsely)" leads to the knee-jerk reaction that there can never be a valid thing as Killing in the Name of God, there is no Black, anywhere, ever, just ever-swirling shades of grey.

People have various hang - ups when it comes to gaming. Some can't discern between their and in - game world views, some can't accept any narrative mechanics. One'll call the other side unenlightened simpletons, others, indie Swine.

QuoteThe idea that in an entire world there is something Black and that there be a White choice makes it a "Black and White World" is the absolute simplest idea expressed so far in this entire thread.

Read your own posts then, they have a lot of Capital Letters. There are of course gradations, but the more Black & White elements = the more simplistic the world becomes. And yes, it is a very simple, even simplistic equation, which sometimes dodges over certain Black & White world's actual complications beneath the shell (but then, they are hardly B&W worlds anymore). But it's a good enough equation, as simple and even simplistic =/= Bad.

QuoteThis says much, actually.  So the God of Chivalry allows his Paladins to be a part of unchivalrous acts by abstention, getting them off on a technicality? Sounds like the God of Chivalry is an absentee landlord, ie.  kinda not even really existing except in abstract.

What does that sound like?

You're not exactly making a stunning case for your gaming cosmology getting beyond your personal religious baggage.

Ask Dungeon Delver, he accepts such an interpretation on my behalf (or at least did so a couple of weeks ago). Heironeous expects me to accept a surrender. He also expects me to suffer no evil. Obviously a lot of Paladins and their orders will have different approach to this dogma, I myself, playing a humble travelling Paladin, accept the necessity of situation and certainty of creature's nonredeemable evil. I may suffer not the evil to live, but if it has surrendered, I needn't dirty my own blade, when there's an option possible to save my own honour and act according to tenants of faith. An ideal option? No. But a workable one for my character. If my character has knowledge that Bugbears will just return to their evil deeds if I let them go, and I have no one else around to do the killing, I'll do it, but not with an easy heart, as they did surrender.

Quote from: Maarzan;914870Why isn´t it possible to discuss things in the range it belongs:

There is an adventure where there are children as a possible problem.
There is an alignement rule in the system the adventure is written for.
And now someone asks how these interact.

Possible answers:
1) We don´t play in a style that wants to put a focus in this kind of problem. ->
Answer: Do what you want, but not at our desk! End of discussion for group 1.

2) We assume that some creatures are irredeemly evil and a danger to everyone else. ->
Answer: Kill them off! End of discussion for group 2.

3) Monsters are people too (and often very nasty people)
Answer: Not that easy and probably what the theme starter wanted to discuss and thus what the long answers should be dealing with. (after clearing up that there are the short answers 1+2, so don´t believe this discussion will end with a fitting answer for everyone.)

Because when it comes to D&D, most Paladins' players want to eat their cookie and have their cookie.

The thing is, there has been almost uniform agreement that if goblins are basically demonic entities of pure evil, than yeah, clearly killing them is good. Although again, if this is the case, why do they have a childhood stage at all? Why aren't they just fully formed out of evil or whatever?

Anyway, this is generally not taken as the case in D&D. And thus we move on to the point that, well, if this is supposed to be a game of escapist fantasy, leave out the baby goblins. Forget the "realism" if the point is escapism.

On the other hand, if it's supposed to be a game about hard men making hard choices? So be it, but then don't get pissed as GM if the party abandons your painstakingly designed dungeon to spend the next 8 years raising up the baby goblins whose parents they slaughtered.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914874The thing is, there has been almost uniform agreement that if goblins are basically demonic entities of pure evil, than yeah, clearly killing them is good. Although again, if this is the case, why do they have a childhood stage at all? Why aren't they just fully formed out of evil or whatever?

Anyway, this is generally not taken as the case in D&D. And thus we move on to the point that, well, if this is supposed to be a game of escapist fantasy, leave out the baby goblins. Forget the "realism" if the point is escapism.

On the other hand, if it's supposed to be a game about hard men making hard choices? So be it, but then don't get pissed as GM if the party abandons your painstakingly designed dungeon to spend the next 8 years raising up the baby goblins whose parents they slaughtered.

OOCly, I'm okay with killing children in fictitious environments, even if they aren't 100% Sure Evil. I may not play characters who'd do so, but I am okay with it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914873There are of course gradations, but the more Black & White elements = the more simplistic the world becomes.

If everything is either clearly Black or White, then yes, but no setting, world, cosmology, etc. even remotely comes close to this view.  If there is no Black and White, then everything in the end is "do what thou wilt" and the only real complexity is in not getting caught.  Sure there will be myriad laws, and philosophies in an attempt to control behavior, but there's a line between obfuscation and complexity.  Personally, I think the choice concerning something Black or White absolutely, can be even more powerful and complex than a choice between right and wrong morally or ethically.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914873Ask Dungeon Delver, he accepts such an interpretation on my behalf (or at least did so a couple of weeks ago). Heironeous expects me to accept a surrender. He also expects me to suffer no evil. Obviously a lot of Paladins and their orders will have different approach to this dogma, I myself, playing a humble travelling Paladin, accept the necessity of situation and certainty of creature's nonredeemable evil. I may suffer not the evil to live, but if it has surrendered, I needn't dirty my own blade, when there's an option possible to save my own honour and act according to tenants of faith. An ideal option? No. But a workable one for my character. If my character has knowledge that Bugbears will just return to their evil deeds if I let them go, and I have no one else around to do the killing, I'll do it, but not with an easy heart, as they did surrender.

Hmmm.  Hieroneous is also a God of Justice.  Once they surrendered, you personally accepting surrender, but allowing your companions to not accept surrender is possibly Problematic I think.  The "Party Offload" of sinful acts is never a good idea for Paladins.   But, it does depend on the slaughtering.  

Yeah, they surrendered, but they can still be executed in the name of Justice, just like human criminals.  Did they just drop their swords and beg for mercy?  Did they parley and agree to cease hostilities if they were allowed to go their own way?  Are Bugbears a race with Hardwired Alignment or at they just the biggest of the gobbos?

Quote from: Rincewind1;914873Because when it comes to D&D, most Paladins' players want to eat their cookie and have their cookie.

Which is why in my campaigns, no one ever starts out a Paladin, they have to earn it through deeds.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914876OOCly, I'm okay with killing children in fictitious environments, even if they aren't 100% Sure Evil. I may not play characters who'd do so, but I am okay with it.

Sure, in a serious game I could see it as a possibility. Played for a chuckle in a less serious game? Not so much.

But the latter part of my point is, plenty of characters I have played, and have seen played by my friends, would indeed take it upon themselves to take care of those goblins for the long haul. And that I think there are many GMs who, while claiming to be open to whatever happens in their "organic" game world, would actually be very displeased by such a decision, as it would represent a significant departure from most GMs gameplay.

No matter what shenanigans the PCs get up to (like global genocide), in the Real World, the highest sin you're ever going to commit from playing a RPG is Being a Dick (unless you actually touch another player).

Quote from: CRKrueger;914878If everything is either clearly Black or White, then yes, but no setting, world, cosmology, etc. even remotely comes close to this view.  If there is no Black and White, then everything in the end is "do what thou wilt" and the only real complexity is in not getting caught.

Do you really think that all atheists are amoral? That the only thing keeping them in line is fear of getting caught?

Quote from: Manzanaro;914879Sure, in a serious game I could see it as a possibility. Played for a chuckle in a less serious game? Not so much.

But the latter part of my point is, plenty of characters I have played, and have seen played by my friends, would indeed take it upon themselves to take care of those goblins for the long haul. And that I think there are many GMs who, while claiming to be open to whatever happens in their "organic" game world, would actually be very displeased by such a decision, as it would represent a significant departure from most GMs gameplay.

You say this alot:  "Many GMs", "Many Players", "Many RPGs".  I don't know what possible relevance that has to anything.  Shit GMs, Shit Players, Shit Tables exist.  So?  That really says nothing about anything but them.  I write a module where the enemy has younguns you're free to deal with it anyway your table wants.  Stringing the children's entrails from the battlements as a warning to others wasn't what I had in mind, and in my campaign, a Paladin who did that might be in for a bit of a shock, but if your table does that, what could I or anybody else possibly care, because it has absolutely nothing to do with me or mine.

Your experiences have Zero to say about the hobby in general, games in general, or anything in general.  It only has anything to say about the specific people you've played with, who aren't the people I've played with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914882You say this alot:  "Many GMs", "Many Players", "Many RPGs".  I don't know what possible relevance that has to anything.  Shit GMs, Shit Players, Shit Tables exist.  So?  That really says nothing about anything but them.  I write a module where the enemy has younguns you're free to deal with it anyway your table wants.  Stringing the children's entrails from the battlements as a warning to others wasn't what I had in mind, and in my campaign, a Paladin who did that might be in for a bit of a shock, but if your table does that, what could I or anybody else possibly care, because it has absolutely nothing to do with me or mine.

Your experiences have Zero to say about the hobby in general, games in general, or anything in general.  It only has anything to say about the specific people you've played with, who aren't the people I've played with.

Phrases like "many GMs" are called "qualifiers". The only reason you don't use them, is you think when you speak about RPGs you are speaking universal truths. You aren't.

I would bet any fucking amount of money, that if your players' PCs decided to take those baby monsters and drop out of adventuring for years to raise them, it would not fly in YOUR game.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914881Do you really think that all atheists are amoral? That the only thing keeping them in line is fear of getting caught?

No, I think that the reasons an atheist comes up with for not doing something that would benefit them and hurt another isn't 100 times more complex because they placed that limitation there themselves.  In fact, the idea that it is a Black choice, that it is a "Thou Shalt Not", that it is going to have repercussions outside human society, can make that choice even more complex - especially after you do it anyway.

I don't see personal morality or ethics any more interesting or deep than religious morality or ethics, because in our world, they're the same thing essentially.

When you get to someplace different, with real gods, real heavens and hells, real cosmology, then that's when religion becomes more interesting to me, not less, because then it's not just philosophy plus a retirement plan.