Talk:Ladies of the Wood/@comment-124.148.125.38-20150617060331

I'm a bit perplexed by the logic that saving a few peasant children now is more desirable than letting a bunch of other people die. In this world the kids would grow up to be just as dumb and superstitious as their parents. They live next to a swamp full of monsters and an alghoul has taken up residence in the buildings next door. No wonder they turn to someone who can help at a high price - if the parents are dead so are any other children they might have. Then the surviving kids get sent off to an orphanage, because they are no dount awesome places in the 13th century, (probably run by priests!).

I'm not asying don't save the kiddies, but in the long term whether they die at the hands of crones, drowners, plague, wolves, werewolves, wild dogs, foglets, wraiths, cross-fire, bandits, some other beastie or farming accidents is neither here nor there.

Whoever lives out of the choices you have will probably end up killing just as many elsewhere.