We don't "slaughter"!

[Janx]

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.

It's always a good plan to kill a parent and raise the child as your own. That never backfires when the child comes of age and learns what you've done. Even better if you lied about what happened to the parent!

 

[steeldragons]

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

It is not 3e. Besides the fact that I adjust fluff on a regular basis, but I suppose if it were 3e, this monster would be considered "always chaotic evil"...atleast it always was in earlier editions.

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.

Well, in game terms, we are well passed this encounter. I just didn't want to "give away" anything for my Story Hour. But, since it is coming up in the next installment, the "monster" is a Roper.

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.

Well, it doesn't necessarily "hunt sentients." It could just as easily settled somewhere with lots of rats or spiders, kobolds or drow, it just needed/wanted someplace with an ample foodsource for its young and kobolds (portrayed in my world as decidedly stupid creatures) were as good a foodsource as any. The fact that they are "sentient" was also a 'bonus" in the eyes of the parent...wanting, naturally, to give its young the widest possible experience (how to hunt/attack something that could conceivably "fight back" with minimal risk to the young) for their future survival.

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.

If seen this done in many games...for my own gaming world, I am inclined to rule that regardless of the upbringing, other than an/the extremely rare unique exception/situation, they are going to grow up wanting to eat things...whether or not the things "think" or not will be of no consequence to the ropers...if they are hungry.

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.

Excellent point. haha. And one that was argued fervently by the thief and paladin. "We've just been screwed by the kobolds. Why should we think this monstrosity will keep its word?!"

At the same time, survival instincts being what they are, I ruled that even an "evil" creature will want its own offspring to survive...other offspring of its kind, perhaps not, but its own? Yes.

Would the party accepting its terms and letting it live mean the creature was now an ally? Definitely not. Once its young were safe/if they met again, no holds would be barred. But, c'mon, what are the chances the PCs would ever run into the same roper ever again their lifetime?

--SD

 

[Desdichado]

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).

I think my group would kill the monster. And then the kobolds. And if there was disagreement about it, they might even start killing each other.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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

As you have described it there ISN'T a "right" thing to do, no moral certitude because you have left that question open to any resolution the CHARACTERS choose to come up with. Without specific definitions or explanations from you (the DM) as to what the acceptible moral/ethical range of responses would be for any given PC alignment you leave it up to the players to decide for themselves for each of their individual characters. You have created a Kobayashi Maru scenario: there is no correct resolution - it is strictly a test of character.

Does it matter that it is a "monster" as opposed to an "evil humanoid"?

It shouldn't.

Does it matter that the creature(s) actually Detect as "Evil"?

Unequivically, yes it matters.

Should the younglings detect as evil?

THAT is a matter for you, as DM, to decide because it's your campaign. For my own campaign this would not even be a debate. The monster is evil. Its young are therefore evil. It would not matter if it can put on a pitiable face and plead for its life and its young. Alignment in MY campaigns is an absolute and I do not play morality traps against my players even if they're trying to create one where none exists.

It is illogical to me for a character to NOT KNOW what his own alignment suggests or requires he do/not do in matters of morality and ethics. No PC in my games will ever be left grasping for the correct moral resolution as HE is expected to see it - there is only the question of whether the PC chooses to act contrary to that. If they are somehow left without firm knowledge of "the right thing to do" then I will never blame them for a good-faith effort to come to their own conclusions (no matter the consequences) in the absence of proper instruction/explanation from me in the first place.

Certainly anyone good-aligned in my games requires no more moral justification to rid the world of the lot. That doesn't mean they MUST do so, only that they need no greater justification. The paladin should have every motivation to see these beasts killed. It does not matter if the monster is even CAPABLE of changing its alignment. The fact that it is Chaotic Evil NOW is in and of itself proof certain of past vile deeds and/or inevitable vile deeds in the future and the paladin should indeed slaughter them all. Even characters who hold a profound respect for life due to alignment, class, or other reasons would feel badly about doing it - but would ultimately have to admit that the CE creatures DISrespect for life argues convincingly that it ought to be done.

But that's just me; that's MY game.

 

[Croesus]

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.

This made we wonder how many monsters are rated as "xx/Evil" simply because they are wiling to kill sentient beings, usually for the monster's benefit. Which is exactly what the party has been hired to do, first the kobolds, now the monster and its brood...

What we know:
-The monster is not some manifestation of pure evil, such as a demon.
-The monster is intelligent
-The mosnter breeds
-The monster is carnivorous
-The monster is dangerous to other creatures in its territory
-The monster has no moral issue with hunting/killing/eating sentient beings, certainly kobolds but presumably also humans

Options:
-Kill monster
-Kill monster and its young
-Kill kobolds
-Kill everything except the miners
-Kill nothing

We've already acknowledged that the party has been hired to eliminate a threat to the miners, with the option of using deadly force. We've also acknowledged that the original threat involves sentient beings (kobolds). So presumably the party believes that killing threats to the miners, if necessary, is morally acceptable, even if that means killing sentient beings. Therefore, the question comes down to threat assessment.

-If the kobolds survive, will they be a serious threat to others in the area?
-If the monster survives, will it be a serious threat to others in the area?
-If the monster's brood survives, will they be a serious threat to others in the area?

If the potential threat value is low, then allowing one or more of the parties to survive is a reasonable choice, given that the party is dealing with sentient beings. If the potential threat is high, then I'd argue that the party would cause more harm by ignoring the threat. After all, how many innocents will die later because the party doesn't deal with the problem now?

No one said being a hired killer was easy.

 

[Hand of Evil]

It is the party choice. It is what happens as part of the aftermath and how I the DM can use it in my games, for every action there is a reaction.

Examples, a lawful good character may be visited by their god to explain themselves. The party could get the rep of being weak and every monster will have a sad story. Or the monster and it's offspring go on a feeding hunt and the players are blamed.

You let the players do what they will and then follow it up, so they learn from their actions.

 

[hamishspence]

The fact that it is Chaotic Evil NOW is in and of itself proof certain of past vile deeds and/or inevitable vile deeds in the future and the paladin should indeed slaughter them all. Even characters who hold a profound respect for life due to alignment, class, or other reasons would feel badly about doing it - but would ultimately have to admit that the CE creatures DISrespect for life argues convincingly that it ought to be done.

Personally, I prefer Eberron's take on alignment- "Evil" does not mean "has done vile deeds in the past/inevitably will do vile deeds in the future".

It's more an indication of a certain ruthless or callous attitude. Some Evil characters get along just fine with society, and "evil" does not necessarily mean "deserves to be killed on the spot".

"Always X alignment" means that the creature is born with the alignment- but is capable of change. As a result, a newborn Always X Evil creature, is both Evil, and completely Innocent (in the sense that it has, as yet, committed no crimes against others).

Add in the aforementioned possibility of changing alignment- and it can be argued that "respect for life" + "punish those that hurt or kill innocents" gives the Lawful Good character a duty to protect the creatures and steer them away from evil.

Would the characters cut the throats of a litter of baby Natural Lycanthrope werewolves, in human infant form? If not, why treat these monsters any differently, other than "they look different"?

 

[Jhaelen]

It is not 3e. Besides the fact that I adjust fluff on a regular basis, but I suppose if it were 3e, this monster would be considered "always chaotic evil"...atleast it always was in earlier editions.

Apparently it was changed in 3e then: Roper

So, in 3e the pcs should feel free to kill the mother roper and take the brood as pets, since they aren't 'born' evil
Theoretically they could even try to show the mother roper the error of its ways and teach it to only feed on unintelligent critters.

 

[steeldragons]

As you have described it there ISN'T a "right" thing to do, no moral certitude because you have left that question open to any resolution the CHARACTERS choose to come up with.

Quite so. THe Characters are the ones who have to choose an outcome. That is the point of the game, afterall...or at least, it is in My game.

You are correct thought, it is difficult to discuss moral/ethical concerns in terms that are not abosulte...What I mean in the original post was, "What would you feel is the correct thing to do as a PC in that situation?" There realyl is no objective/all encompassing "right" thing.

Without specific definitions or explanations from you (the DM) as to what the acceptible moral/ethical range of responses would be for any given PC alignment you leave it up to the players to decide for themselves for each of their individual characters. You have created a Kobayashi Maru scenario: there is no correct resolution - it is strictly a test of character.

Well, my players are given definitions of alignment before they choose them for their characters. These are not strict "single" definitions, but a "range of absolutes", if you would, that exist iwithin a certain two-letter alignment code.

For example, the two LG characters. The LG paladin lives by a code of duty and honor of guardianship/protection (his god's primary sphere/domain). He follows a code of Law, Order and Good. But he is not "Lawful Stupid." The carrying out of his duty and honor is to protect and defend his assigned charge(s). He conducts himself as best he can within those confines to further "the greater good." Yes, slaying evil is a part of that...but it is not always an absolute/the only answer.

THe LG cleric, is LG more out of "innocence and naivitee." He wants everythign to be rainbows and unicorns. He wants everyone and the world to be "nice" to each other and desperately doesn't want to do anything "bad". His actions are carefully chosen within that context. He is more "Purity" kind of Lawful Good versus a "duty/order/law" kind of LG. Killing "children", effectively, would be bad...even if the lil' buggers are, themselves, evil.

The druid, True Neutral, naturally is concerned with maintaining "the Balance" and while the creature is "evil" it hasn't done anything to the party except try to protect its young. A perfectly, acceptably, NATURAL thing to do. When placed against the actions of the kobolds, who have actively acted in an evil way against him and his companions, however, are acting out of flagrant malice...to the attempted detriment of his self-preservation.

The Neutral thief thinks all of the kobolds shoulda been slain in the first place and sees no reason they would attempt to uphold their end of the bargain when the kobolds, from his perspective, obviously don't intend to. yes, this monster could be killed...but wait?...It wants to give us treasure?!? That's a horse of an entirely different color [of evil].

For my own campaign this would not even be a debate. The monster is evil. Its young are therefore evil. It would not matter if it can put on a pitiable face and plead for its life and its young. Alignment in MY campaigns is an absolute and I do not play morality traps against my players even if they're trying to create one where none exists.

I don't think this was a "morality trap." Noone was in risk of losing any status or changing alignment. It was, as you noted above, an opportunity for the characters to approach a questionable situation and really have to THINK about how they should best go about handling the situation, in light of their circumstances and original purpose/mission.

As you noted, there really was no objectively "right" answer. Just wanted to throw it out to ENworld and see what other people thought about the situation.

It is illogical to me for a character to NOT KNOW what his own alignment suggests or requires he do/not do in matters of morality and ethics. No PC in my games will ever be left grasping for the correct moral resolution as HE is expected to see it - there is only the question of whether the PC chooses to act contrary to that. If they are somehow left without firm knowledge of "the right thing to do" then I will never blame them for a good-faith effort to come to their own conclusions (no matter the consequences) in the absence of proper instruction/explanation from me in the first place.

Just so. That's all I was looking for them to do.

Certainly anyone good-aligned in my games requires no more moral justification to rid the world of the lot. That doesn't mean they MUST do so, only that they need no greater justification. The paladin should have every motivation to see these beasts killed. It does not matter if the monster is even CAPABLE of changing its alignment. The fact that it is Chaotic Evil NOW is in and of itself proof certain of past vile deeds and/or inevitable vile deeds in the future and the paladin should indeed slaughter them all. Even characters who hold a profound respect for life due to alignment, class, or other reasons would feel badly about doing it - but would ultimately have to admit that the CE creatures DISrespect for life argues convincingly that it ought to be done.

But that's just me; that's MY game.

So noted...and well respected, make no mistake. It very well could have gone/been that way...and the paladin, while at odds with slaying young, did want to kill them all. Ultimately, he was "voted" down and accepted the decision in light of their overall mission (for the "greater good"/protection of the mining village...not the kobold's or even the roper's wishes).

--SD

 

[hamishspence]

Theoretically they could even try to show the mother roper the error of its ways and teach it to only feed on unintelligent critters.

BoED does make some mention of "redeemed monsters" where a monster, rather than being killed, is treated firmly but kindly, and gently coaxed toward the side of good, and encouraged to make restitution for its past deeds.

The example given is a mind flayer.