One of the great things about playing a Paladin in D&D is that it gives me opportunities to consider difficult moral situations with life-and-death consequences (without getting anyone killed in real life). At the moment, my current D&D character, Kharagan, is on the trail of a party of Kobolds (at least, that's what I assume they are) who captured one of his comrades with plans to eat him.
This is already a fairly complex moral situation. The rule of self-defense doesn't strictly apply, since Kharagan isn't really defending himself; however, he is defending an innocent person, so he's justified in taking some form of action. Still, he should try to resolve this peacefully, especially since the Kobolds are just after some food. There is a slim chance that this might end peacefully enough that Kharagan and the Kobolds could form a lasting partnership, as the Kobolds' lair is directly beneath a tavern that Kharagan and his party are opening. Yet, if negotiations fail, would Kharagan be justified in killing several Kobolds to save one human's life?
The Kobolds where the aggressors, but their actions were as justified as any hunter's. Then again, if a hunter caught a wolf, we wouldn't exactly blame the rest of the pack for attacking the hunter. I don't know how helpful this analogy is, but it would seem to justify killing the Kobolds if they don't release Kharagan's friend willingly when offered other food in exchange.
There is another consideration which muddies the waters a little bit, but I don't have time to go over it now. But just given what we have so far, it seems that Kharagan should try to negotiate with the Kobolds, but if that fails, and if killing them is the only way to save his friend, I think that killing the Kobolds may be justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment