An innocent Terrasque?

[BrooklynKnight]

....snip...

stick it inside a Pokeball and summon it to fight on your behalf (sorry)

Anyway thats my opinion...

LOL!

 

[Crothian]

As a DM I had something similiar happen once. THe party encounterd a Dire Bear, nad they talked themselves out of killing it at the time. THey went back to the local town, people learned of their encounter. Well a few months later the Dire Bear killed a bunch of lumberjacks. The party was blamed for the death since they had a chance to solve the problem and didn't.

 

[aurance]

Take down the tarrasque, and then take down your friends.

 

[Dagda]

I agree with Tonguez. Once the delema appeared and you and your friends disagreed, you should have begun searching for a solution. Friends who had adventured together for long enough to become legend (30th level) would most likely not throw out their friendship so easily. And it sounds like both you and they choose to throw away the friendship.

 

[Umbran]

Was my action wrong? Were they justified to leave me to face such a danger alone?

Hm. Seems to me that neither side actually has the information necessary to have an informed opinion on the morality of killing the beast.

The tarrasque is not an "innocent". By the book, it pops up every year or two, and rampages across the countryside. This is not a sleeping doberman who might bite someone. This is a sleeping doberman who is well known as a vicous brute who attacks and does great damage. The darned thing eats whole villages, for crying out loud!

However, that doesn't mean it is a good idea to kill it. If, for example, the tarrasque makes younger dragons a major part of it's diet, removing it may not be doing anyone any favors.

But as far as you've described, your party doesn't know the consequences of removing it. So it is anyone's guess.

I don't know your players. Maybe they were accidentally applying modern morals on a fictional situation. Maybe they just were making excuses because they were scared of characters being eaten. It is clear, however, that the DM had not made clear what the tarrasque was known to be. So, while I'm not sure anyone (including yourself) was particularly well-justified, I'm not about to go knocking anyone for their decisions.

 

[wizardneedsfood]

My big sticking points is why are CN characters complaining about 'murder' and something being 'dishonorable'? I can understand reasons to not kill the Terrasque, but from CN characters those surely don't fit. The question of honor has a very lawful bent to it, and a disdain for murder is a bent towards good and lawful I would think. So while I accept that they would have reasons not to attack, I believe the ones given were a bit sketchy.

 

[Umbran]

My big sticking points is why are CN characters complaining about 'murder' and something being 'dishonorable'?

Remember the chant - "Alignment does not dictate actions." Alignment is the long-term average of actions and/or motivations. Alignment gives a very vague gauge as to how you've behaved in the past, but says nothing about how you'll behave right now.

 

[ShadowX]

Remember the chant - "Alignment does not dictate actions." Alignment is the long-term average of actions and/or motivations. Alignment gives a very vague gauge as to how you've behaved in the past, but says nothing about how you'll behave right now.

But there is no better predictor of the future than the past.

 

[Alzrius]

The arguement here seems to be that the Tarrasque isn't intentionally causing suffering - that its just happening to do so as a byproduct of its rages, and that it wasn't doing anything at the time, and maybe that it isn't Evil.

Personally, I think you made the right decision. This creature not only did cause the direct deaths of thousands, but there is no denying that it will do so again and again. Given that it cannot be reasoned with, that leaves few options short of slaying it.

In regards to slaying it while it sleeps, thats just prudence. Unless you're a paladin, don't mistake honor for stupidity. You are not honorably bound to take the path of greatest difficulty on some weird notion of fairness.

 

[Sammael]

Uh, how did the encounter end?