|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a kid is aiming a BB gun at me or someone else, my first thought would be that the gun needs to be taken away from him, not to throw a molotov cocktail at him.Knowing rocks don't harm you feels too meta-gamey. I know a bb gun won't directly hurt me if I have a thick jacket on, but I'm gonna get irritated if you keep pointing the barrel at me.
This depends on where you are Mikaze. If I'm in the wrong district of some big city and somebody of any age aims a gun at me I don't have time to determine what kind of gun it is and why they're pointing it at me. I have a split second to decide what to do. If there happens to be cover within a meter or two, I have the option to dive for cover and think about the situation a little bit more. If there is not, then it's pretty much either shoot or be shot.
First rule of gun handling never draw a firearm unless you're going to shoot it. Second rule- never aim a firearm at someone unless you're going to shoot them. Unfortunately such things aren't always taught when they should be.
But if you did manage to throw the Molotov and set the gun pointer on fire, potentially saving yourself, would you be likely to be dancing around laughing when the police arrived on the seen singing "Oops I did it again..."?!
i had an angelkin paladin whose elder twin sister was a fetchling bard. (daddy was a half celestial shade bound by mommy, who learned conjuration from her big brother, a master conjurer). other than hair and eye color, the two were an otherwise identical pair of planetouched loli twins who represented Yin and Yang working in harmony.
the older fetchling sister, Umbri was an anemic, ashtmatic weakling with tuberculosis, whom was lawful evil, not because of any sadistic desires, but because she sought to, through peaceful political means, solve all the world's, social and economical problems. her goal was to draw all the world's hate and intolerance towards herself, and when people ran out of hate, abolish that hate and start an eternally long peaceful Era of love for all with neither crime, poverty, nor greed. with herself as the empress of this Utopia to regulate this peace and make sure it isn't disrupted.
the younger angelkin sister, Lumi, wasn't dedicated to a god, but to her older twin sister's ideals. she served as her older sister's personal champion, and because she wasn't a traditional orthodox paladin. she couldn't fall as long as she strongly supported her dear sister's beliefs, her desire to make those dreams reality, were the source of her power, not a god of order and good. she had the good subtype, but was otherwise lawful neutral with a good slant. and kind of an ends justify the means character.
on Umbri's command, Lumi would draw her holy hand and a half sabre, the Saint Eclair, and smite those who threatened Umbri's dreams. and Lumi could technically smite anything (had a feat to deal with that and a trait tax to deal with the alignment issues)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is no one else paying attention to the fact that the 'children' in question are morlocks? Evil CHUDs that eat anything they get their hands on, including each other.
The first few weeks of a brood's life must be carefully mothered to prevent attrition—it usually takes that long for the morlock young to overcome their natural inclination to feed on whatever is closest.
These 'innocents' throwing rocks at the party want to eat them! Quite probably without the nicety of killing them first. It isn't evil, or even neutral, to kill an evil creature that wants to eat you, age doesn't change this.
This hasn't been addressed, so I'll go ahead and ask. In the OP's post she says that they were fighting a bunch of Murloks. When I first read it, I thought "Murlocs from Warcraft", then I see everyone else posting about morlocks.
My question is, were the creatures that got fireballed a GM-crafted version of the WoW creature, or a by-the-book morlock?
It might seem silly but it does make a little bit of difference as "murloc's" can most certainly be good creatures, while "morlocks" are generally accepted as evil.
I get what you mean and agree.
What I'm having issue with is the player (not the character) has done this more than once and obviously thinks it's funny. At least the paladin player is not seeming to be sharing in the joke. If the PLAYERS (not characters) agree that these encounters are a good avenue to inter-party roleplaying then more power to them. But if the Paladin's PLAYER (not the character) is becoming frustrated with this behaviour is that fair?
S.
Ah, I get you. I'm not sure the player thinks it's so funny, but I don't necessarily disagree with you.
Also, with all these "teehee"s and "oops I did it again"s, I'm starting to feel like this should be a sitcom.
Paladin: "Sorcerer, you just wiped out an entire village to get rid of a single mosquito!"
Sorcerer: "Tee-hee, oops! I've done it again!"
*Paladin looks at the camera and shrugs*
I don't allow evil characters in my campaigns. Players are warned at the start of each of my campaigns that if their character ever falls to evil, it will be taken under GM control as a new antagonist and they will have to roll up a new character.
After the second incident and the following "Tee-hee, it happened again.
Oh, well.." I would have taken the character sheet away from the player, that is for sure. The first incident already was face-palm worthy, but the aftermath of the second incident just shows that the character is fundamentally evil.
I don't allow evil characters in my campaigns. Players are warned at the start of each of my campaigns that if their character ever falls to evil, it will be taken under GM control as a new antagonist and they will have to roll up a new character.
That seems to be jumping the gun a bit. Until they can no longer operate within the party, why not let them be evil?
That seems to be jumping the gun a bit. Until they can no longer operate within the party, why not let them be evil?I don't allow evil characters in my campaigns. Players are warned at the start of each of my campaigns that if their character ever falls to evil, it will be taken under GM control as a new antagonist and they will have to roll up a new character.
Because I don't like to GM for evil characters and it's my game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I don't like to GM for evil characters and it's my game?That seems to be jumping the gun a bit. Until they can no longer operate within the party, why not let them be evil?I don't allow evil characters in my campaigns. Players are warned at the start of each of my campaigns that if their character ever falls to evil, it will be taken under GM control as a new antagonist and they will have to roll up a new character.
I wasn't disputing your right, just requesting your reasoning.
If it's just personal preference backed by GM fiat, that's perfectly legitimate, we just have different gaming styles.
That could happen incredibly easy. The next night when the party returns to town, one of the other taverns in the town burns down with no survivors. Turns out, the now NPC Sorcerer went there for a game of cards and, when an altercation about some perceived cheating broke out, felt threatened and put a fireball into the middle of the room, killing three dozen innocent people, including women and children. Apprehended by the city guard, the Sorcerer's response to their furious inquiries was "Ooops, teehee, I did it again!".
Things proceed to trial, the Sorcerer escapes and having tasted the ultimate freedom of indiscriminate slaughter becomes a scourge upon the land.
And that is just what I came up with 5 minutes as a first example. More thought on the matter would produce a better and/or different scenario, but I need to get to work ASAP.
For the record, the official game definitions of evil and neutral would seem to disagree with your assessment (bolding mine):
The official game definitions, if adhered to, can actually make adjudicating alignments a lot simpler than usually done via the (I can't find the right word, stereotypical?) conceptions.
Because I don't like to GM for evil characters and it's my game?That seems to be jumping the gun a bit. Until they can no longer operate within the party, why not let them be evil?I don't allow evil characters in my campaigns. Players are warned at the start of each of my campaigns that if their character ever falls to evil, it will be taken under GM control as a new antagonist and they will have to roll up a new character.
I wasn't disputing your right, just requesting your reasoning.
If it's just personal preference backed by GM fiat, that's perfectly legitimate, we just have different gaming styles.
We do. As I said, it is one of the primary tenets I put forward to the players before the start of each campaign and I've been GM'ing with the same core group of people for close to a decade now in 4 full campaigns and being now on the fifth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For sure it also was the GMs fault for not making it clear to the player what really was happening, but the problem is for me the aftermath, reaction and general lack of caring about having killed scores of innocent people of the character.
As for "preverting a player's character", it's not your character anymore at this point. And that was a clear agreement at the campaign't start, which I state normally multiple times when players are making characters. I don't mind morally ambiguous characters too much, but I won't countenance evil characters at my table.
Well, as long as you don't burn down your local tavern or fireball people, I think there are no problems here. ^^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM didn't call for or roll a Perception check for the wriggling caccoons, then by my lights the player is in the clear for fireballing them. The lack of remorse on the character's part afterwards is clearly not Good, but it doesn't immediately scream Evil to me.
As for the morlock children and their nanny, again, were they identified as children before the fireball was thrown? Were the rocks being thrown to do lethal damage? The character seems to have efficiently eliminated a threat (yes, thrown rocks hurt, and if enough hit, can take down anyone). The lack of remorse for killing young sentient beings is the true point of concern, not the act of killing them.
I'm in the camp that puts this character firmly in Chaotic Neutral territory for the moment. I can easily see that sliding into Chaotic Evil if the character continues to use expediency with a lack of consideration for consequences (to me, one of the hallmarks of CE behaviour is the belief that "I can do what I want to whomever I want, simply because I'm able to do it"). The character's actions are impulsive and thoughtless, but don't appear to be completely selfish nor do they disregard others (protecting your allies is actually quite altruistic). There's just little consideration for the perspective of the "enemy" - but let's face it, when lethal weapons are being hurled at you, responding with deadly force is reasonable. The only point of concern is if the character continues to display any emotional disconnection to unnecessary killing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for "preverting a player's character", it's not your character anymore at this point. And that was a clear agreement at the campaign't start, which I state normally multiple times when players are making characters. I don't mind morally ambiguous characters too much, but I won't countenance evil characters at my table.
You do realize that turning evil doesn't suddenly mean you fall to the darkside Star Wars style, right?
Closed minded GM'ing doesn't seem like good GM'ing in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if remorseful in a game with things like polymorph, illusions and the like destroying every town you come across because they may all be doppelgängers seems an extreme approach to take.Now, this does not excuse the no remorse aspect, which a good character should have some of, especially when it comes to children.
Just saying that because you as the player know they are kids, don't assume your characters do, there's a dozen of ways this could be lethal, illusions, an enchantment gm rolled and failed for you (You see a pack of goblins, everyone else sees scared children), they could have been brainwashed, or otherwise controlled, or just bait, with a dire spider...
And it is extreme, but you're taking it out of context. They are inside enemy domain, not shooting fireball in a place they just stepped into. Using your example, if the town they enter into turns out to be 95% hags and evil changelings, and my party just survived a mob attack, I'd fire first then wonder if those people throwing "rocks" at us are innocents or shapeshifters.
I'm totally against the death of innocents, but it's not fair to comparing her outbursts to randomly firing at a new town, when she fired the fireballs right after an encounter in an enemy controlled environment.
As for "preverting a player's character", it's not your character anymore at this point. And that was a clear agreement at the campaign't start, which I state normally multiple times when players are making characters. I don't mind morally ambiguous characters too much, but I won't countenance evil characters at my table.You do realize that turning evil doesn't suddenly mean you fall to the darkside Star Wars style, right?
Closed minded GM'ing doesn't seem like good GM'ing in my opinion.
You certainly have the right to hold that opinion, although I strenuously disagree. I give plenty of warnings to my players when I perceive that their characters are sliding towards evil and I don't have players in my group like the OP, who right out of the gate go completely axe crazy.
@kyrt-ryder: As to what I'd do with the characters once they have been removed from player control (and full disclosure, I never had to do this, because I've been very clear to my players on where I stand in regards to playing evil characters. They comport themselves accordingly.), that's no longer the purview of the player. Her/His choices led the character down that path while knowing the consequences of what would happen if the character goes evil.
Lastly, in regards to the OPs player character, the first time was a moment I'd be willing to let slide, although with admonishments that any further such actions would have dire consequences. The second act... sorry, but as I said a few times already, it's not the act of fireballing those morlocks, but the complete lack of remorse and active dismissal of the significance of said act which prompts me to declare the player character as clearly evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it weird that so many put the sorcer out of context and into situations that make the character look more evil than she actually is.
The sorc didn't /randomly/ fire off a blast into the tavern, the town, against humans or for the giggles, but because they were in enemy environment and right after or during a fight with things that want you dead.
It's more collatoral damage than "tehee fireballs", not unlike a fighter or barbarian tearing down a wall only to accidently cause a rockslide and bury some bystanders.
And you seem to overlook that most people who have a big problem with the characters act are referring to the behaviour after throwing those fireballs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you seem to overlook that most people who have a big problem with the characters act are referring to the behaviour after throwing those fireballs.
No I haven't, I keep saying that feeling no real remorse for killing children, human or monsters is despicable. What I'm against is that keep making up scenario's that make the char seem chaotic stupid blasting fireballs at random in the strangest places, when all she did, even if it was stupid in hindsight, blast locations inside enemy territory.
It's the gm's job to clearly explain things like "the human sized and shaped cocoon are wiggling and twitching with muffled noises coming from inside" or the paladin/scout should spend a free action to yell "Watch out, we got kids here!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that the general interpretation of "chaotic neutral" is "meh, whatever" for just about any circumstance, but that's not realistic for an actual character. An actual character would have goals, ambitions, preferences and would follow them.
When I play a chaotic neutral player I don't do so just as an excuse to do evil things without pinging "evil!" to the nearest paladin. It has been my experience that a lot of players do.
Chaotic Neutral is, I believe, the single most abused alignment in the game. And that's saying something.
I personally play chaotic neutral as essentially a narcissist, but not an evil one. To me it is evil to casually disregard the harm that one's actions might cause. Not neutral. For example: "I want to cross the bridge but there's a crowd in the way, so I'll just fireball them." is evil. Allowing harm to come through inaction is acceptable. "Well, it looks like that rope might break and the crate might crush that kid, meh, whatever." is neutral.
The difference to me is that doing harm deliberately is evil, while allowing harm to occur through inaction is not.
And you seem to overlook that most people who have a big problem with the characters act are referring to the behaviour after throwing those fireballs.
Neutral's aren't required to feel remorse. In fact apathy is a fairly normal neutral response. The character isn't running around saying "Yay! I got to kill a bunch of helpless innocents today! I feel so awesome!" That would be evil. SO FAR this character has not stepped over the line to evil however close they seem to be to that line.
With the above being said I would be justifiably upset if you took over her character for BEING NEUTRAL when you only promised to do it for evil PCs.
I know that the general interpretation of "chaotic neutral" is "meh, whatever" for just about any circumstance, but that's not realistic for an actual character. An actual character would have goals, ambitions, preferences and would follow them.
Chaotic Neutral is, I believe, the single most abused alignment in the game. And that's saying something.
I personally play chaotic neutral as essentially a narcissist, but not an evil one. To me it is evil to casually disregard the harm that one's actions might cause. Not neutral. For example: "I want to cross the bridge but there's a crowd in the way, so I'll just fireball them." is evil. Allowing harm to come through inaction is acceptable. "Well, it looks like that rope might break and the crate might crush that kid, meh, whatever." is neutral.
The difference to me is that doing harm deliberately is evil, while allowing harm to occur through inaction is not.
3.0 stated 2 face was CN, so letting fate decide if you do evil is neutral no matter how many times you commit evil.
I know that the general interpretation of "chaotic neutral" is "meh, whatever" for just about any circumstance, but that's not realistic for an actual character. An actual character would have goals, ambitions, preferences and would follow them.
When I play a chaotic neutral player I don't do so just as an excuse to do evil things without pinging "evil!" to the nearest paladin. It has been my experience that a lot of players do.
Chaotic Neutral is, I believe, the single most abused alignment in the game. And that's saying something.
I personally play chaotic neutral as essentially a narcissist, but not an evil one. To me it is evil to casually disregard the harm that one's actions might cause. Not neutral. For example: "I want to cross the bridge but there's a crowd in the way, so I'll just fireball them." is evil. Allowing harm to come through inaction is acceptable. "Well, it looks like that rope might break and the crate might crush that kid, meh, whatever." is neutral.
The difference to me is that doing harm deliberately is evil, while allowing harm to occur through inaction is not.
SO FAR the character has committed ONE evil act by accident...
Are you now in the camp that alignment should be instantly changed at the slightest hint of a differing aligned behavior? Because that's insane in my opinion you would be constantly changing peoples alignments.Blasting people in cocoons because you thought they were spiders is the only evil done so far and it was done by accident. Killing a bunch of evil monsters (so what if they are young) that are trying to kill or eat you is something I would expect even a paladin to be ok with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aranna, my comments were more general, and not directly applying to this situation.
However, in this case it is my opinion that the sorcerer's actions and lack of any sense of responsibility or remorse would get that player a warning that I felt their character was navigating somewhat to the evil side of the moral divide and they might want to address that in the future.
My comments up until now have been more about what I felt would happen with an actual paladin in the party, which isn't so much an alignment issue as an inter-party dynamics issue.
Starbuck, I don't really care what 3.0 said about alignments. Frankly I find a lot of the older D&D alignment guidance to be dead wrong. Pathfinder is a bit better in that regard. If you were a player in my campaign and were willing to flip a coin to decide whether to do evil or not, I would rule that you were already evil because you were willing to do evil acts that were not necessary. That is not "neutral" in my opinion.
I personally play chaotic neutral as essentially a narcissist, but not an evil one. To me it is evil to casually disregard the harm that one's actions might cause. Not neutral. For example: "I want to cross the bridge but there's a crowd in the way, so I'll just fireball them." is evil. Allowing harm to come through inaction is acceptable. "Well, it looks like that rope might break and the crate might crush that kid, meh, whatever." is neutral.The difference to me is that doing harm deliberately is evil, while allowing harm to occur through inaction is not.
If the rope can be grabbed or the kid can be warned to get out of the way, failing to act is Evil. Neutral characters are unlikely to put themselves at risk, but they aren't going to just ignore bad things altogether.
I'm not sure if that's what you're saying, of course.
I agree with you about Neutrality otherwise, though. A Neutral person cannot do an equal amount of Good and Evil deeds to stay neutral. If he's willing to do evil things, he's Evil.
And you seem to overlook that most people who have a big problem with the characters act are referring to the behaviour after throwing those fireballs.Neutral's aren't required to feel remorse. In fact apathy is a fairly normal neutral response. The character isn't running around saying "Yay! I got to kill a bunch of helpless innocents today! I feel so awesome!" That would be evil. SO FAR this character has not stepped over the line to evil however close they seem to be to that line.
With the above being said I would be justifiably upset if you took over her character for BEING NEUTRAL when you only promised to do it for evil PCs.
As I said above, I make it abundantly clear to my players what I consider evil or neutral character behaviour even during the campaign. My players so far have been okay with my decisions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i don't care how young the Morlocks were. adventurers kill such things without remorse on a regular basis.
Morlocks are a widely accepted race of humanoids that preys on humanoids. not very different from shooting a panther's cub with a common bow.
in fact, i would consider hunting the panther cub for it's fur, more evil than reflexively frying morlocks. no matter how young.
in fact, eliminating future predators, is a good act.
not realizing the cocoons were loaded with innocents?
DM's fault for neither rolling nor requesting a perception or sense motive check.
lack of remorse? the character did briefly experience regret. a chaotic evil character would experience neither.
i'd say chaotic neutral, maybe clueless antihero
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is all really helping me to get a better perspective
not on the OP's actual problem and request
but on how to refine my recipe
Look, let's not derail things by arguing over whether baby morlocks should be killed on sight. Let's just leave it at "active threat, evil humanoid". The sorcerer didn't make a tactical decision, she acted by instinct.
Also, Lamontius, I think you might be being a biiit unfair. This thread is substantially more productive than most--we're all pretty much in agreement that the character's alignment needs to be changed and that the lack of remorse is the real issue. Maybe you should wait for a more controversial thread to pop up to make the recipe joke. ;)
wait did you guys all agree on the first, second or third page
Aranna, my comments were more general, and not directly applying to this situation.
However, in this case it is my opinion that the sorcerer's actions and lack of any sense of responsibility or remorse would get that player a warning that I felt their character was navigating somewhat to the evil side of the moral divide and they might want to address that in the future.
My comments up until now have been more about what I felt would happen with an actual paladin in the party, which isn't so much an alignment issue as an inter-party dynamics issue.
Starbuck, I don't really care what 3.0 said about alignments. Frankly I find a lot of the older D&D alignment guidance to be dead wrong. Pathfinder is a bit better in that regard. If you were a player in my campaign and were willing to flip a coin to decide whether to do evil or not, I would rule that you were already evil because you were willing to do evil acts that were not necessary. That is not "neutral" in my opinion.
I agree with you about 2 face being evil. I have no idea what was going through the mind of the person who wrote that line in 3e but 2 face IS evil... Chaotic Evil.
And doing an evil act even by accident IS worth a warning. It just isn't worth altering her alignment on it's own.
As I said above, I make it abundantly clear to my players what I consider evil or neutral character behaviour even during the campaign. My players so far have been okay with my decisions.And you seem to overlook that most people who have a big problem with the characters act are referring to the behaviour after throwing those fireballs.Neutral's aren't required to feel remorse. In fact apathy is a fairly normal neutral response. The character isn't running around saying "Yay! I got to kill a bunch of helpless innocents today! I feel so awesome!" That would be evil. SO FAR this character has not stepped over the line to evil however close they seem to be to that line.
With the above being said I would be justifiably upset if you took over her character for BEING NEUTRAL when you only promised to do it for evil PCs.
They may be staying clear of borderline alignment roles deliberately to NOT have this come up at your table. I use the exact same house rule about taking the character and turning it into an NPC villain if they become evil. And I noticed an elimination of those borderline roles after I adopted that rule. But in such a case if there is any doubt I would side with the character till it became obvious they had become evil. And keep it mind alignments are about what your character does not what they say. And one accidental act of evil shouldn't be grounds for an alignment change even if there was little to no remorse afterward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait did you guys all agree on the first, second or third page
The original poster claims her alignment was chaotic good. Everyone here agrees that she is not. The argument is over how far to change the alignment.
Atarlost, it's pretty standard in fantasy that giant spiders catch humanoids like small spiders catch flies. Remember Shelob? The Mirkwood spiders?
They may be staying clear of borderline alignment roles deliberately to NOT have this come up at your table. I use the exact same house rule about taking the character and turning it into an NPC villain if they become evil. And I noticed an elimination of those borderline roles after I adopted that rule. But in such a case if there is any doubt I would side with the character till it became obvious they had become evil. And keep it mind alignments are about what your character does not what they say. And one accidental act of evil shouldn't be grounds for an alignment change even if there was little to no remorse afterward.As I said above, I make it abundantly clear to my players what I consider evil or neutral character behaviour even during the campaign. My players so far have been okay with my decisions.And you seem to overlook that most people who have a big problem with the characters act are referring to the behaviour after throwing those fireballs.Neutral's aren't required to feel remorse. In fact apathy is a fairly normal neutral response. The character isn't running around saying "Yay! I got to kill a bunch of helpless innocents today! I feel so awesome!" That would be evil. SO FAR this character has not stepped over the line to evil however close they seem to be to that line.
With the above being said I would be justifiably upset if you took over her character for BEING NEUTRAL when you only promised to do it for evil PCs.
There were two accidental acts of evil, both with the same after-result. I'd let the first slide, but give the player a good indicator that I consider this to be unacceptable character behaviour for a player character in my campaign. The second time, with the same player character attitude would, in this case, be enough for my taste to turn the character to evil and therefore into an NPC. Flambé-ing a room of innocents twice is just too much, IMO.
There were two accidental acts of evil, both with the same after-result. I'd let the first slide, but give the player a good indicator that I consider this to be unacceptable character behaviour for a player character in my campaign. The second time, with the same player character attitude would, in this case, be enough for my taste to turn the character to evil and therefore into an NPC. Flambé-ing a room of innocents twice is just too much, IMO.They may be staying clear of borderline alignment roles deliberately to NOT have this come up at your table. I use the exact same house rule about taking the character and turning it into an NPC villain if they become evil. And I noticed an elimination of those borderline roles after I adopted that rule. But in such a case if there is any doubt I would side with the character till it became obvious they had become evil. And keep it mind alignments are about what your character does not what they say. And one accidental act of evil shouldn't be grounds for an alignment change even if there was little to no remorse afterward.As I said above, I make it abundantly clear to my players what I consider evil or neutral character behaviour even during the campaign. My players so far have been okay with my decisions.And you seem to overlook that most people who have a big problem with the characters act are referring to the behaviour after throwing those fireballs.Neutral's aren't required to feel remorse. In fact apathy is a fairly normal neutral response. The character isn't running around saying "Yay! I got to kill a bunch of helpless innocents today! I feel so awesome!" That would be evil. SO FAR this character has not stepped over the line to evil however close they seem to be to that line.
With the above being said I would be justifiably upset if you took over her character for BEING NEUTRAL when you only promised to do it for evil PCs.
Two? When was this second one? From the chatter here people revealed the children were a horde of evil monsters. Wasting a bigger spell than you need to blast a group of minor monsters is hardly evil. Nor was it accidental, the mini monsters attacked first.
Yeah, okay. If we now need to quibble over the definition of "non-combatants" in regards to children, I think this conversation is over.
And kyrt, it depends on the severity of the action and the intent and what happens after. It's not hard math. ;)