We don't "slaughter"!

[olshanski]

Heroes don't kill children. Alignment doesn't matter.

In Kill Bill Volume 1, after the bride kills Vernita in front of Vernita's daughter Nikki, the Bride tells Nikki that Vernita had it coming to her, and if, when Nikki grows up, she can't get past the killing, she should come find the Bride. 'I'll be waiting,' the Bride promises.

So here is an example of a hero knowing full well that the child may grow up to be a problem in the future.

 

[the Jester]

Heroes don't kill children. Alignment doesn't matter.

In Kill Bill Volume 1, after the bride kills Vernita in front of Vernita's daughter Nikki, the Bride tells Nikki that Vernita had it coming to her, and if, when Nikki grows up, she can't get past the killing, she should come find the Bride. 'I'll be waiting,' the Bride promises.

So here is an example of a hero knowing full well that the child may grow up to be a problem in the future.

But the Bride is hardly a hero in any kind of modern sense. She's a reformed villain out for revenge; she's not fighting for any cause or because it's right, but because she is angry and vengeful.

 

[olshanski]

But the Bride is hardly a hero in any kind of modern sense. She's a reformed villain out for revenge; she's not fighting for any cause or because it's right, but because she is angry and vengeful.

Perhaps you have an example of a hero in the modern sense that kills children? It simply isn't done. If a character kills children, they are a villian.

My example of The Bride was showing that in a D&D world, they could know full well that letting the young grow up could cause problems in the future, but that doesn't matter, because until the young start causing problems they are not to be harmed.

 

[avin]

Heroes don't kill children. Alignment doesn't matter.

I would agree. I won't create a character that would kill a children...

BUT players aren't always "heroes".

One player I know would cut off bot of their heads, then slice some kobolds, then march on to a city and expose his "good work"...

 

[malcolypse]

How about "We'll let your young live, but they're coming with us. As long as you refrain from harming sapient creatures, you may rest assured that they will be well taken care of by someone who is competent to do so, and has no compunctions about slitting their throats if word comes around that you've broken your pact."

But I'm not a nice person, generally.

Or "You and your young may live, but you will owe us a boon for each of your lives. Firstly, for your own life, you must retreat from civilized lands and take your children with you. For each of their lives, you must help preserve another sapient's life in the hope that your young will learn not to kill thinking creatures, and thereby not attract our ire or that of other adventurers later in their lives."

Then go slaughter some kobolds.

 

[Desdichado]

Perhaps you have an example of a hero in the modern sense that kills children? It simply isn't done. If a character kills children, they are a villian.

Who said anything about children? As I recall, the original scenario had little monster spawn. There weren't any children.

 

[avin]

Who said anything about children? As I recall, the original scenario had little monster spawn. There weren't any children.

A goblin kid may be a monster for a human, for a goblin it's just a kid.

"Monster" it's just a name humans used to give for creatures uglier than us

 

[hamishspence]

Who said anything about children? As I recall, the original scenario had little monster spawn. There weren't any children.

One being's "monster spawn" is another being's "children".

 

[Umbran]

Who said anything about children? As I recall, the original scenario had little monster spawn. There weren't any children.

Ooh, that's a fine ethical line there, dude.

 

[Desdichado]

A goblin kid may be a monster for a human, for a goblin it's just a kid.

"Monster" it's just a name humans used to give for creatures uglier than us

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

One being's "monster spawn" is another being's "children".

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.

Ooh, that's a fine ethical line there, dude.

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

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

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.