We don't "slaughter"!

[hamishspence]

It occurred to me recently, though--if the PCs had come across a group of Nazis there in the dungeon, would we be having this discussion, or would they have charged into battle without hesitation? And the Nazis actually were people.

If I was DMing a D20 Past game- with a Nazi Scientist running a lab, intended to create Evil Supersoldiers- and the PCs not only killed the scientist, but then went on to slaughter all his small children that were on site- you can bet there would be a discussion, if the characters were in possession of powers that go away if they commit an evil act.

 

[steeldragons]

That assumes that goblins think like people. They're not people they're monsters. Also, these aren't goblins.

Well, presuming that most campaigns treat sentients as sentients...and all gamers are, apologies to any exceptions, human, then we are left with presuming, other than cultural differences, that goblins...on an instinctual level...will think how we think. (I'm talking goblin humanoids here, not "fey" creatures or whatnot) And animals will act the way we understnad animals to act...and "monsters" (being to the human perspective nothing more than deadlier, more unusual "animals") will act as animals and/or humans/sentients do.

You're deliberately trying to conflate two opposing terms that I just made a point of separating. So clearly, my answer there is, "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!" And, I disagree with it.

I'm not sure what is meant here...but if you think because it's a "monster" then it is not worthy of human consideration or basic human standard dignity or respect, then I really don't know what to say. Thankfully (to my sensibility), my players see things differently...more "shades of grey", if you will...than you. That said, if you had been one of the PCs and just killed everything, then that would have happened...and the story would have continued from there.7

Maybe. Or maybe there isn't really any applicable ethical standard on how fictional characters deal with fictional creatures.

Point taken. But all the human players have to go on, in the fictional world, is what they know as the definitions/parameters of the alignment and the application thereof. Of course, in a fictional game, all of the decisions and actions are filtered through the real human player's eyes/minds.

But, I think, imho, that to say there is no ethical standard is incorrect.

And maybe it's not fine at all. The creature was, after all, a monster. It was given that label on purpose.

Yes, because it was not a human or demi-human or humanoid or even an "NPC"...it is thus, a "monster." The only name it has/had was "Hargak" which I said translated from the kobold language as "death rock" or "rock of death." Maybe it has a name among its kind...but I don't speak roper.

EDIT: I know everyone was just trying to be clever and all that, and here I am raining on the parade. It occurred to me recently, though--if the PCs had come across a group of Nazis there in the dungeon, would we be having this discussion, or would they have charged into battle without hesitation? And the Nazis actually were people. This whole ethical dilemma thing in gaming; it always struck me as very contrived, artificial and frankly kind of "precious." It all comes down to the concept of monster. Are monsters actually monsters, or are they just ugly and misunderstood? If the GM hasn't specified what kind of game he's running up front, making this particular question kind of a moot point because it's clear to all the players, then he's done a bit of a disservice to them, IMO.

Well, I'm sorry to hear it and offend any sensibilities you possess. I certainly was not attempting to be "contrived, artifical and frankly precious."

Nor, did my players think so. They thoroughly enjoyed the dilemma and the discussion/moral argument that ensued. They also came out of the experience with a greater/deeper/more secure understanding of their characters and their moral stances and ethical concerns...and how they might view a similar situation in the future...kinda the point.

No one, no where, in this post said anything about the players not having an understanding of the "kind of game" they were entering, nor have any concept of some kind of DM-driven "disservice".

There is no "concept of monster" beyond a "monster" is some creature that does not fit into the easy slots of "human-/goblinoid." The term "mosnter" does not automatically translate as "unnatural", as would be the case for undead or demonic/diabolcic/celestial beings. It is simply that, until explained, defies explanation/characterization.

As always, have fun and (to borrow from JamesonCourage) "play what you like." My players like my game just fine, thank you.
--SD

 

[Croesus]

It all comes down to the concept of monster. Are monsters actually monsters, or are they just ugly and misunderstood?

The critical issue for me is if the creature (aka "monster") is sentient.

If a mountain lion is hunting in a rural area where people live, they will likely take action. Perhaps they tranq and relocate it. More likely the hunt it down and kill it. They do so because it's a threat that has to be dealt with, and negotiation is not an option.

But grant that mountain lion intelligence and the situation changes significantly. Hunting and eating meat is in its nature, and it's perfectly willing to eat humans, if necessary. But because it's intelligent, one can negotiate and make a deal. One has new options for dealing with the threat, besides simply killing it. And because such options exist, one can argue that there are moral implications if one chooses to ignore the options and simply kill anything with a particular label, e.g., "monster".

If the GM hasn't specified what kind of game he's running up front, making this particular question kind of a moot point because it's clear to all the players, then he's done a bit of a disservice to them, IMO.

Agreed. I've played in campaigns that were completely black and white, good vs. evil, and ones with lots of gray. Both are fun, but the players and the GM need to be on the same page concerning what type it is. The alternative usually leads to a lot of frustration on both sides of the screen.

edit: As SD just explained, there doesn't appear to be any confusion on what type of campaign he was running. He presented an interesting situation to his players and they handled it in a thoughtful manner. Someone used to playing a very different type of game may not see what all the fuss is about, but it clearly worked for his group.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Sentient - able to perceive Sentient | Define Sentient at Dictionary.com
House cats and cockroaches are sentient - they can perceive their environments. That doesn't make them intelligent, reasoning, or morally weighty.

What you mean is Consciousness. The ability to think, reason, and otherwise be a Person.

 

[hamishspence]

"Sapient" is the term I like to use-

mostly from reading H Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy books- where the sapience of the creatures is a major factor in a trial- is the person being tried guilty of "murder" or "cruelty to animals"?

However, a great many sci-fi novels, films and TV serieses tend to use "sentient" in the same fashion.

 

[steeldragons]

I suppose, at this stage I should detail what actually ended up happening...

THANK YOU to ALL for your responses and please, continue to do so if you want to throw in your coppers...

The party in question settled on letting the parent and younglings go. They had managed to kill one of the young before the parent "stepped" in.

The NG and CG characters argued fervently for "monster" and its young to leave the cavern and never return. The druid, siding with the "monster protecting its young" voted with them.

The neutral thief, a typical greedy character, was ok with letting the monsters go as long as they gave the party its treasure trove.

The paladin was not so "ok" with it, but lacking the support of his other LG PC, the cleric who refused to slay the "children", conceded to the party rule and justified it as letting the creatures go would help the "greater [human] good" and their original mission which was to rid the mine of kobolds and return the mining village a semblance of security.

The NPCs weren't really "ok" with it, especially the LG dwarf, but they had already pledged their loyalty and submitted their will to the party.

But in light of their recently made decision to minimize bloodshed and not "slaughter unnecessarily" the chips fell with letting the creature and its offspring go/leave the cavern...which it DID! This satisfied their agreement with the two-faced kobolds.

The kobolds, themselves, did not prove so lucky.

Not the slay-fest I was expecting, but it's always nice when the players surprise the DM...in a good way.
--SD

 

[Umbran]

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.

This may not be intentional, but all the examples you give seem to be the PCs getting slapped for their actions. Is that just because you didn't happen to think of a positive result while typing, or because you view this as a "Kobyashi Maru"?

Maybe. Or maybe there isn't really any applicable ethical standard on how fictional characters deal with fictional creatures.

In a game where alignment is enforced, there are moral and ethical standards that apply - the standards of the alignment system. These standards could well be different from those of the usual modern world, of course.

And maybe it's not fine at all. The creature was, after all, a monster. It was given that label on purpose.

Because, as we all know, once someone puts a label on another sentient being for a purpose, thinking no further than the label is okay!

It occurred to me recently, though--if the PCs had come across a group of Nazis there in the dungeon, would we be having this discussion, or would they have charged into battle without hesitation? And the Nazis actually were people.

Why, hello Mr. Godwin. How are you today?

Apples to apples - they came across a female Nazi, who had been killing and stealing from murderous bandits to feed her children, who are present, and wearing brown shirts. While a Nazi, she's not been seen (or even accused) of moving against the local populace, or supporting nefarious plots to take over the world.

Or, to remove the Nazis - consider it a low-power supers game. Your "villain" is a vigilante who's been killing drug smugglers, and uses the money to support his kids, who are being brought up to think this is an okay way to live.

This whole ethical dilemma thing in gaming; it always struck me as very contrived, artificial and frankly kind of "precious." It all comes down to the concept of monster.

I think you're hung up on the monsterdom. How is that label more important than its sentience, and free will (or lack thereof)? It looks more like a run-of-the-mill alignment question to me.

 

[hamishspence]

One example of "sentient" being used where "sapient" would be closer: the campaign models in the D&D 3.0/3.5 (it uses some prototype 3.5 rules, for skills) splatbook Savage Species:

With Malice Toward None
(Chaotic/Accepting)

In this campaign model, the prevailing opinion holds that monsters, no matter how foul and evil they may look, are free sentient beings with all the inalienable rights that humans, elves, and every other humanoid species are heir to. The denizens of this campaign are not foolish- they know that many monsters are evil and nefarious. Just the same, they are loath to reject monsters simply because of their origins. The philosophical leaders of this land realize that no medusa or troll really had a choice in how it came into this world, and indeed as oppressed as its upbringing may have been, it is deserving of more sympathy and consideration, not less.

In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of a fear of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

I've generally thought it's one of the better Good attitudes for characters to take.

 

[Desdichado]

edit: As SD just explained, there doesn't appear to be any confusion on what type of campaign he was running. He presented an interesting situation to his players and they handled it in a thoughtful manner. Someone used to playing a very different type of game may not see what all the fuss is about, but it clearly worked for his group.

Indeed. And I don't not see what the fuss was about. The point of the thread was to ask what would happen in our groups, right? I answered it.

And it's not that our group is a black n white type of group. Actually, the more I think of it, the more I think an equally likely scenario is that the PCs would make an alliance with the monster further down in the dungeon--they'd spare it and its monster spawn if in return it helped them to genocidally slaughter all of the kobolds in vengeance, salt their underground mushroom fields and spike their wells and curse the very ground that they raised their village on. I'm not sure if they'd slaughter their women and children, or sell them into slavery. Depends on whether or not they were sufficiently pissed off by the double-cross to overcome their greed.

 

[jonesy]

Monster (from Merriam-Webster)
1a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure
1b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2 : a threatening force
3 a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape
3 b : one unusually large for its kind
4 : something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty
5 : one that is highly successful

Hmm. A roper might fit all of those criteria.

But in D&D monster is a label for combat encounters. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is an actual monster.

So, what about the kobold children then?