We don't "slaughter"!

[prosfilaes]

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

I don't state it as a universal fact of D&D, but I think IMC it would matter. For evil humanoids, alignment is a choice like for humans and evils. The more alien the body, the more alien the mind, and the less able they are to actively make moral choices. I would likewise have few to no class levels on monsters; unlike humanoids, they don't have the flexibility to take class levels. It does explain nicely how and why it's a humanoid-dominant world.

As for sentient; that's the way the word has been used for a long time now, and it's less likely to confuse people then the more pedantic definition.

 

[Elf Witch]

I can only answer this for my game. First of all if something is always chaotic evil then its offspring will always be chaotic evil they can't help it and it doesn't matter if they are young they need to be killed before they grow up and harm innocents. To let them go because you are squeamish about killing young is imo just putting the responsibility on someone else.

Now in my games anything that is sapient has a choice of alignment so for example a black dragon is usually evil but not always so its young will not be evil at birth there nature tends to drive them that way but with the right nurturing they may grow up to be good. But it takes a person to understand their nature and help them channel it to a more good way.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I've met my limit for the day. But will be happy to get him for you tomorrow.



Woah! Is that what it seems I did?


--SD

Thank you

No, it is not what you did. You had a plot and a plan, I was more responding to [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] comment "...PCs getting slapped for their actions..." and that is where he was right about "Kobyashi Maru".

 

[steeldragons]

I can only answer this for my game.

All any of us can do, Elf Witch. Though I was asking for you, as a PC, what would YOU have done.

Have at it.

First of all if something is always chaotic evil then its offspring will always be chaotic evil they can't help it and it doesn't matter if they are young they need to be killed before they grow up and harm innocents. To let them go because you are squeamish about killing young is imo just putting the responsibility on someone else.

Valid point. But is it really that simple?

Don't get me wrong, I've been in those games. I've been that player. Those games are all well and good...and FUN! Sometimes. But I include religion and morals and ethics, strongly, into my games. Would you be so comfortable simply slaying them if they weren't baby ropers, but baby goblins...or in the "evil campaign", baby elves or humans?

Now in my games anything that is sapient has a choice of alignment so for example a black dragon is usually evil but not always so its young will not be evil at birth there nature tends to drive them that way but with the right nurturing they may grow up to be good. But it takes a person to understand their nature and help them channel it to a more good way.

The black dragon example is a good one. But as I said in this particular situation, the roper is there, specifically to give birth and raise its young.

I am DEFinitely a fan of nurture over nature...but if, as you said, these are "evil creatures" period...then does that apply? How does one "channel evil into a good way"?

Moot point, really, since the PCs did not take this tack...but it is interesting to explore anyway.

--SD

 

[Umbran]

Dude! It's not a Godwin just because I used the word Nazi!

Godwin's original observation was: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

You don't have to compare a person you are arguing with a Nazi to be an example of Godwin's Law. You're comparing the monsters to Nazi's, and that's all that's required.

It's a valid question to ask. Way to dismiss it though;

Well, the point of Godwin's stating the law was to get folks tho think twice before making a glib or hyperbolic comparison to Nazis. The common use of Nazis in a debate about morality is to use them as the most extreme example possible, skipping over the fact that you ought to demonstrate how the thing you're talking about is similar to Nazis before going there.

We ought to go back and check that out. The monster in question would register as CE to alignment detection. The GM hadn't said that it was culpable in genocide. It was busy raising kids in a cave, but not surging for domination of a continent and burning books.

So, maybe in your world detecting as CE is grounds for a death sentence. But otherwise, I'm not sure how the monster is much like Nazis.

I think it's an interesting comparison; what would you do if your PCs came across Nazis in the dungeon?

That is an interesting question. You see, I run Deadlands, a Wild West game. The PCs wouldn't know from Nazis, who won't come along for another 70 years or so. They'd see some guys in uniforms, and would react based upon what those guys were doing, not based on just having a symbol on a band on their arms.

Let's say we're running a modern game, and the PCs run up on some guys in Nazi uniforms. Do they kill them immediately? Maybe they're some neo-Nazis (reprehensible, but having committed no known crime). Maybe they're some actors on lunch break from a student film production. Or, maybe they're time-traveling Nazis doing something nefarious. Only one of those merits a death sentence.

Of course, if your game is set in WWII Europe, the answer is somewhat different. All of which goes to show that context matters, I think.

"Kobyashi Maru" (need to spread it around before giving more to you.

Glad you liked it

I just would not put babies in to screw with my players.

It isn't "screwing with" your players unless they don't like that sort of thing. If they like discussions of morality, it's called a "role playing opportuity".

 

[Elf Witch]

What I would do would depend on several things. The character I was playing, the other party members and the DM. I have played in games that nobody including the DM wants to deal with shades of gray they basically just want to kill things and take their stuff so in that game I would just kill the young ones and move on.

Now in a more gray game it would really depend not just on my alignment but how my character viewed life. In one game I played an elven sorcerer who believed in the sanctity of all life. She also believed in redemption. Faced with this kind of dilemma with two orphan Kobold babies she took them and raised them. So she would vote to spare the babies.

The wizard I am playing right now is lawful good she would use her incredible knowledge skills have the party cleric detect evil on the young ones. Knowing that they are usually chaotic evil she would be practical and suggest that it would be best to destroy the young before they have a chance to grow up and become a danger. She is very practical. It is not that she believes killing is the only answer but she is not afraid to get her hands dirty in the cause of good.

I am also playing an elven sorcerer in another game who is chaotic neutral she is bitter and cynical she wouldn't care one way or another but would do what she thought was best for her and the party. So if it was best to kill them she would kill them if it was best to make a deal she would make a deal.

As for killing young of any species yes I would be comfortable killing children who had an evil alignment.

Now if I was an evil character it would depend on a lot of things on if I would kill children. It would depend on how the character looked at life. I can see being ruthless and killing anyone who got in your way and I can also see being evil but not killing children because that is a line my character would not cross.

In DnD if you use an alignment system evil is a real thing so I would have no hesitation of destroying it even if it wore the face of a child. I can also see trying to redeem the child. I don't think either answer is the wrong one. I think it depends on your outlook on evil are you the smite and send to the abyss or are you more into saving souls and turning them to good.

The problem with absolute alignment is that I don't believe you can channel evil into good. Which is why I don't use it in my games for sapient creatures. It is more interesting to me that things don't have an absolute alignment unless they are not sapient. So like I said in my games sapient lifeforms are neutral at birth neither good nor evil. Nature does play a role but so does nurturing.

 

[KiloGex]

I would say that the paladin and (to a slightly less extent) cleric would attempt to destroy the evil, no matter what it's origin was. The druid I would expect would attempt to discern whether the pups could be saved while the rest debating on whether or not the creatures would be worth saving for their use or worth.

 

[avin]

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

A big mistake thinking all goblins onother campaigns behave like on the games you DM or play.

My first campaign world had civilized goblins, much like some you find in Ultima Underworld II. Even Pathfinder goblins aren't the same as D&D regular ones.

I fail to understand why people think all "monster races" have the same behavior if us, humans, don't.

Also, "goblin" was just an example.

 

[Jack7]

Interesting thread.

As for me I have a simple rule about killing anything or anyone under any circumstance, real or imagined.

If a creature, or a being, like a person, has demonstrated that they are a lethal hazard to others, and that they enjoy killing or harm, or that they definitely intend to harm or kill innocents, I'll kill it.

If it is dangerous enough, and presents an immediate lethal threat, I'll kill it. No matter what it is.

In this case I'd definitely kill all the kobolds and possibly the monster, depending on what it actually did. (Sorry, didn't have time to read the entire thread, just get the gist of it.)

As for the offspring, I wouldn't necessarily kill them, but would try and raise or train them (depending on their level of intelligence and how, or if they could be trained). If in the future they presented a lethal threat to others, I'd kill them.

Not because I'd have anything against them. I wouldn't. One way or another. But if they were a lethal threat to innocents, I'd kill them before they could act, if possible, on their nature.

I don't hold anything against whatever I kill, and I don't kill for sport. I'd prefer to see just about any living thing live and thrive, if at all possible. And I don't like killing. But I ain't afraid of it either. I'm methodical if necessary, and I'd try to kill as quickly, effectively, and painlessly as possible in the given circumstance.

But I wouldn't let something or someone dangerous kill or harm innocents if I could stop or kill the offender or "monster in this case" first.

I don't think of that as slaughter, but as a necessary function of saving innocent life. (And innocents deserve life more than the vicious and the predatorily violent - I'm not speaking metaphysically or spiritually, but morally and pragmatically.)

I think of slaughter as intentionally and willfully seeking to harm and kill others for no reason other than pleasure (and I've known those who have taken great pleasure in murdering or harming others), psychopathy (they just don't care about anyone but themselves), or because they are dangerous creatures who kill because they can.

Such as they I don't mind killing myself. I don't like it, but better them than the innocents they will later slaughter.

Otherwise if they will reform, or if they are trainable (such as in the case of an intelligent animal) I'm willing to let them live. Unless they prove themselves dangerous enough later on I have to kill them.

My simple rule about killing is this: if you're dangerous enough I'll watch you carefully. If you've proven yourself a lethal threat to innocents for no good reason other than you can be, I'll kill you. As quickly and efficiently and as covertly as necessary, or possible. Otherwise I'm more than happy not to kill, if at all possible.

And based on what I've seen and know, it has been my personal experience, there are some few people you can reform (out of those who enjoy murder) and are willing to take up a different nature, and so are worth reforming and retraining, and many others who have no intention or reform and never intend to.

It's an extrapolated speculation of course, but I would suspect the same would hold true of monsters, if they existed. Some would be worth keeping under close scrutiny and retraining, many it would be better for others, and for them, to kill them quickly and efficiently.

 

[Corathon]

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

No.

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

Yes. If the creature didn't radiate evil, then something more is going on and the PCs need to get to the bottom of it.

Should the younglings detect as evil?

Depends. Are creatures of this type intrinsically and irredeemably evil? If so, the young should radiate evil too, and destroying the lot is the moral choice. If not, the good characters should show mercy.