An innocent Terrasque?

[Philip]

Philip: “Their promise of not helping you was their way of saying: 'This means a lot to us, if you are our friend, don't do this'.”

That is assuming that argument is even valid, because it could just as easily be turned around (which is closer to the actuality of the argument) to be : “It means a lot to me and to the world to prevent this creature from continued rampages of great destruction. If you are my friends, help me.”

Sure the argument could be turned around, and if your character felt strongly about preventing the destruction he should have! Did he turn it around, or was his desire for battling the Tarrasque for his own glory greater? (Which is also perfectly fine, you are CN, right?)

This is an extreme case of meta-game thinking. There is not “CR” in game. It is known that this is an extremely powerful beast with the power to destroy nearly anything in its path. My character is both confident and courageous however, which is part of the reason he remained to deal with the creature after being abandoned and betrayed by his long time friends. On top of that, he has a concern for the welfare of human/elven, etc. life. Most humans are Neutral (which is as true in real life as it is clearly stated in the Core books) and would share that same concern. It does not take a good alignment to care about people. Being good is much more than just feeling.

True, but if your character was not confident it would be able to kill the Tarrasque, it might wait to get some other help. While it was sleeping, you still had some time, right?

Besides, was it known that the Tarrasque was not killable by ordinary means? Otherwise your character might be overconfident and pretentious as well, taking it upon himself to kill it.

 

[ecliptic]

Not to throw too big of a monkey wrench into this discussion, but I hold to the opinion that a chaotic character can, indeed, hold to a code of honor.

The point is, though, that it's a personal code as opposed to one from an outside source; i.e., a guild, knightly order, war college, etc.



Most people have their own internal code of morality, after all. A soldier, for example, who adamantly refuses to obey an order from a superior because it violates some personal code of conduct or morality would, in my opinion, be acting in a very chaotic fashion, whereas the soldier who went along with his superior despite any moral or ethical objections would be acting in a lawful manner, in my opinion (presuming the superior's order was in line with what his authority actually granted him to do; not following an 'illegal' order seems lawful).

THAT is as Lawful as someone following someone elses strict guidelines. Thats like saying a Lawful Good character is Chaotic because he goes with his moral codes first and foremost. Your entire line of thinking on 'what chaotic and what lawful is' is flawed. A monk is Lawful because he has that same mentality. Not because he follows someone elses charter.
A Lawful Good fighter as a guard could decide to follow his own moral code. So happens arresting criminals is on that code, hence why he became a guard in the first place. Then when a Lawful Evil captain orders him to do some reprehensible, he would follow his moral code.

The idea of a Chaotic character saying that is 'dishonerable' is just ludicrous. They should be switching to 'Neutral' and if they keep it up to Lawful Neutral.

 

[ecliptic]

Thinking on it some more.

I have to say that is bordering on an evil act aswell. Its not like the the characters are ignorant of the fact that it slaughters innocents by the hundreds. They know it does and still let it stay alive.

If I was DM I would make them go Neutral Evil.

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

Isn't the Tarrasque a magicly created mistake, it won't opset nature to kill it. dishonerable so-so but lives are more importent than honor (least they should be).
PS: shrinking it is good IF ITS GOING TO STAY SMALL!!! pokeball is good idea
but I think you'd need a master ball.
PPS: teach it to read int+5 books

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

it will realize it was evil and change its ways
PPPS: you could though it to the plane of infinite ice cream

 

[Alzrius]

Maybe your 'friends' were selfish/stupid not to help, but now you have created a problem where there was none before.

Except that there was a problem before. It was not a question of ifs; the Tarrasque was definately going to wake up later and was definately going to kill people.

Maybe another analogy would do: While trying to do 'the good thing' by attempting to disable a timebomb, you were inadequately equipped and trained, didn't wait for backup, and now you accidentallly set it of.

The backup here had abdicated their willingness to help...apparently they thought the bomb had a right to remain a bomb. That means the hero did the only thing he could, and if it turned out badly, blame could more rightfully be placed on those unwilling to help defuse the bomb.

 

[Daniel Knight]

So these characters have never swatted a fly or mosquito because it was annoying?

 

[D+1]

Hmn. I still don't quite get why the other PC's suddenly decided that the thing has a right to live. I can see a few potential arguments but not in the circumstances that have been described. I'm actually assuming that there was more said/done than has been related. Some background events that would lead to this rift or something. It really does sound at this point like A) metagame thinking from the other PC's who seem to be applying rules of morality that are not, in fact, actually applicable and B) a petulant response to your disagreement with their statements and assessments.

The one point they might have in their favor is that its alignment is neutral, not evil. It doesn't do what it does out of spite, it's just its nature. It's an eating and destruction machine in the same way that a Great White shark is an eating machine with the same thought and morality. The T. is only slightly more intelligent and thus only by a razor thin margin is less than purely animalistic. Anyone who knows what it is and thus what it WILL do would not just be morally free to kill it but morally obligated to kill it - or at the VERY least assure utterly its captivity or inability to cause further harm. You don't have to kill it - but only if you entomb it forever or lock it up in the worlds first and largest nature preserve where it won't be a problem anymore.

Failure to do so is to say that the creature SHOULD be free to kill and destroy at will, or that you don't CARE if it does. Refusal to assist in dealing with it demonstrates quite starkly either a lack or moral conviction or moral depradation.

 

[Henry]

I have to state that I cannot come close to understanding the position of not taking action against something like the Tarrasque, no matter the situation, no matter the alignment. Everyone, good or evil, Lawful or Chaotic, would work together to squelch a threatening storm that endangered everyone, and the Tarrasque as presented in D&D is nothing less than a force of nature.

I would have more qualms killing a sleeping Red Dragon than I would a sleeping Tarrasque. (Even then, all bets are off regarding me not attacking the dragon.) The thing goes clear past evil and straight to destructive, and should be dealt with if possible. That would be my take on the situation.

 

[Someone]

What I wonder is how those people managed to get to 30th level.