We don't "slaughter"!

[steeldragons]

In my homebrew setting and game (a mish-mash of 1e, 2e with a few 3e elements thrown in), the party had a recent encounter that elicited a good deal of debate.

The short of it is, they were sent to go kill an evil monster...and yes, it is "Chaotic Evil" alignment wise. To their surprise, they encountered the monster that had recently given birth to a "litter" (I suppose, for lack of a better term) of young.

To the party's surprise, the monster began "dealing" with the party to let it go or, at least, let its young go (they were [barely] old enough to make it on their own. It offered them its modest treasure, agreed to whatever terms the party put forth...anything to get the party to let its progeny live.

The party was at a moral crossroads and much debate occurred, in and out of character, as to what the "right" thing to do was.

Alignment breakdown of the party: 2 Lawful Goods (the paladin and cleric), True Neutral druid, True Neutral dwarf thief, a Neutral Good and a Chaotic Good, (with LG and NG NPC's in tow).

What would you say the "right" thing to do/course of action would be?

I won't present the eventual party decision (just yet) as it would be a spoiler for my Story Hour.

But I thought it was an interesting situation to put forth and see what the great philosophical minds of ENworld would have done (as a PC) in that kind of situation.

Does it matter that it is a "monster" as opposed to an "evil humanoid"? Does it matter that the creature(s) actually Detect as "Evil"? Should the younglings detect as evil?

What do y'all think?

--Steel Dragons

 

[jonesy]

Not enough information to make a decision. Why were they sent to kill it? What did it do? Where did it do it? Did it have a territory and did what it did there, or did it go out of its way to do something somewhere populated? Was there reason to believe it would continue doing whatever it was that it did do that had someone send the party to kill it? Had it in fact not done anything at all and merely being a monster was enough?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I suppose it depends on the setting. IMC, for example, demons have no souls and are viewed as evil in material form. Killing them is fine. Then again, they don't have "litters"

For a creature with a soul, with the capacity to make moral choices, such an execution in the absence of immediate threat is wrong, even if said creature later chooses to do terrible things. Not much more to it than that.

 

[steeldragons]

Not enough information to make a decision. Why were they sent to kill it? What did it do? Where did it do it? Did it have a territory and did what it did there, or did it go out of its way to do something somewhere populated? Was there reason to believe it would continue doing whatever it was that it did do that had someone send the party to kill it? Had it in fact not done anything at all and merely being a monster was enough?

Fair enough. Valid questions.

The monster is, essentially, a secondary branch of the adventure. The party is where they are to protect/rid a human mining village of a kobold infestation in their mine.

In a decided/agreed effort to minimize the bloodshed, they parleyed with the kobolds (after killing several to assert their obvious supremacy). They discovered that the reason the kobolds had come into the mine was because this monster had taken up residence in the cavern near their former lair where the kobolds drew their water and could no longer live there because the monster easily killed any that came its way/to the water.

So, the deal struck with the kobolds was "kill the monster and we'll go back to our old lair" thus leaving the human mine and returning the village to a state of some security.

Of course, the kobolds double-crossed the party and trapped them in the cavern (via a cave-in trap) with the monster. Best case scenario, for the kobolds, the monster would be slain. Slightly less "best case", the party would be defeated and the kobolds wouldn't have to deal with them anymore.

So that was the "why" for the party going for this monster.

The "why" the monster was there in the first place was simply because it was a good environment for it to give birth and raise/train its young...ample water/wet, significant amounts of rock formations which the creatures easily blended/camouflaged with, kobolds to hunt/train their killing instincts, etc. Now that the young were birthed and about a month or so old, the parent reasoned they could leave with reasonable expectations of survival elsewhere...if it could get the party to agree to such a thing.

--SD

 

[jonesy]

Hmm. That's a very good scenario, I do have to say. Not too forced, everyone behaving naturally, all that. I like it.

I think my group would side with the monster against the kobolds. So far it seems like the more honourable side. Regardless of what the alignments in the party were. Might even start to wonder if it was the kobolds who really created the whole situation (former lair, my behind).

 

[avin]

I can't see CG and NG killing a harmless monster pup.... even LG should think twice.

 

[Gilladian]

In my campaign world, I can see my party doing the following:

1) converse with the adult and ask it to leave with its young and not return. Best case option. They wouldn't like letting an evil creature live, but they might do it if they felt it was being honest and truthful.

OR

2) kill the adult because it is actively evil but take the young to raise in a "good" fashion, hoping to change their innate alignment. Possible but a challenge to do.

AND

3) go back and kick some kobold butt. Nobody plays tricks on us like that! Kobolds would be lucky if any of them survived.

 

[Jhaelen]

Does it matter that it is a "monster" as opposed to an "evil humanoid"? Does it matter that the creature(s) actually Detect as "Evil"? Should the younglings detect as evil?

Is this in D&D 3e? If, so the monster's alignment entry will indicate how to treat it:

Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to the species as a whole.

If the monster is 'Always Chaotic Evil', then it's brood will also be CE and there's no question all of them should be slaughtered, since they're Natural Born Killers
This category includes Demons and Undead - beings without any chance of redemption.

If the monster is 'Usually Chaotic Evil', killing the parent will be sufficient, since its offspring could become good-aligned if brought up properly.

 

[Nimloth]

Interesting scenario, but I notice how vague you are being about the monster. It depends on how much of a threat I thought the young would be. The "kobolds to hunt/train their killing instincts" line worries me. It is obviously a monster that sees no problem with hunting people (other sentients) and with it's ability to reason and evil alignment means it is hunting them by choice. If I thought I could take the young and train them to NOT hunt sentients (and not be evil), I would agree to the deal, otherwise they all die.

In a game I'm in we killed a couple of black dragons who had a clutch of eggs. We took the eggs and gave them to people to raise. People we trust and who have enough power to survive raising a dragon. In this case we believe the dragons inherent evil alignment is Nurture, not Nature. But we will be keeping an eye on the babies.

 

[Janx]

If nothing else, there's prior precedent. The monster settled where it could kill kobolds, not humans.

The kobolds negotiated a treaty and broke that treaty.

the monster is trying to negotiate a treaty.

Technically, if the party was willing to treat with one enemy, whats the difference with treating with another?

Except that they just got burned.

I can see whiping both the monster and the kobolds as the PCs had just been taught a lesson that Monsters Lie. And that would totally be acceptable given the direct history. If you'd had a prior case of Monster Keeps Its Word, then they'd be wrong. But now, kill'em all.

If the PCs haven't lost all faith in Monsters Keeping Their Word, then make a deal where the Monster can be validated to leave the area safely, and then whack the kobolds.

But don't jiust leave the monster, because you know it'll screw you, too.