We don't "slaughter"!

[Thotas]

If I was running a cleric, paladin, inquisitor or anyone else that has strong religious principles but wasn't sure (as a player) what those principles are supposed to be in this campaign, I'd simply tell the DM that I want to do a Knowledge: Religion check to see what I'm supposed to do. If the roll succeeds, I've done the right thing. If I blow it, my character tried but obviously needs to study the tenets of his faith more closely.

A wizard or other intellectually based character I would probably take the applicable Knowledge check to see if the critter's evilness was inherent, and then based on the character's alignment and personality do ... whatever they would do.

 

[am181d]

Count me in with those who run games where "monsters" aren't pure evil.

But was I the only one who (after 3 decades of playing D&D) was unaware that Ropers were intelligent creatures? I guess I've never played versus one before. I always assumed they were of plant/animal intelligence until I read the d20 stats just now.

 

[Stalker0]

I think my personal take is....a monster that acts like that really isn't chaotic evil.

To me, a chaotic evil monster would not care a lick about its kids. In fact, it would use them to beat the party or to escape, but it would not sacrifice itself for its children.

Take the turtle for example (not saying turtles are unholy evil or anything). Turtles lay their eggs and then go on their merry way. They don't have any parental connection to their young at all.

If a neutral animal can do that, no reason to expect a chaotic evil monster to care about its young in the slightest.

 

[Desdichado]

Why so?

Because I think that in most campaigns, monsters are monsters and the sole reason they exist is to be fought by PCs.

Why so? If you become the thing you fear/don't understand...are you any better than they?

Yeah, OK, that's bizarre. I'm not becoming a roper. Ropers don't exist. This moralizing about D&D and character actions is removed from reality. Is Mario Puzo an evil person because he wrote about the Godfather? Is George Lucas evil because his main character ended up being Darth Vader?

If you're serious about that comment, I think you need to step back a bit and remind yourself that this is just a game, these characters are just fictional people, and that ropers and goblins don't really exist.

Ah. Well, forgive my misunderstanding. I do no play with "evil" characters or campaigns. There's enough "evil" in the real world. I don't need to endosce/foster it in what is my "play time."

"Why" all the "quotation marks" in that sentence? I'm missing what you're trying to convey, I think.

I think my players would disagree...my monsters are perfectly monstrous. They are outside their character's understanding or experience of such creatures...Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs, sure. Everyone knows about them...when they meet a "monster", they know it.

If so, your comments here seem to point to the opposite situation. Where your monsters are just regular old concerned parents trying to make a living, and with a few minutes of conversation, they can be easily understood because they have perfectly human motivations, hopes and dreams after all.

Um. No. No I didn't. I asked how you, as a PC would have approached it.

Yeah, right. Like I said, you asked; I answered. My group and I are pretty well in synch (with possibly one or two exceptions.)

Well then, respectfully, we come at "the game" from two very different places. My group unerringly goes for the "good" or at least "Neutral" characters attempting to gain fame and fortune as "heroes"...not that it is always "high fantasy" or "all shiny happy good people holding hands"...but they are supposed to be/trying to be "heroes."

Again; are the quotes supposed to mean something in particular? Usually that implies something if you put it in quotes, like you question whether or not that label is really applicable, even though you're using it anyway. Not trying to be Mr. Grammer Nazi, just trying to understand if I'm missing something.

I'd say yes, we probably do come from a very different place. Any game where the expectation is that the PCs are all heroic do-gooders is probably not where I am anymore. I've been seduced by the rising popularity of grim and gritter dark fantasy, I guess.

High fantasy doesn't mean holding hands and being shiny... it means good vs evil in a very tangible way, though, with the main characters definitely being good. It means The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and Narnia instead of Glen Cook, Douglas Hulick, and guys like that.

Fair enough. Sorry if I came off harsh.

Not harsh, but certainly a bit defensive. I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, I'm just having a discussion about a topic that interests me. I'm interested in games and gamers who insist on a heroic paradigm for their game, because it's very different than mine, and it's one that in fact I find I enjoy much less over time. Maybe I'm just tired of it.

Maybe you should sheathe the snark.

I meant that straight. I've been a native English speaker for about forty years now, and monster has been one of my favorite words as long as I can remember. If you're telling me that my conception of what a monster is not correct, or atypical, or something like that, I have to vehemently disagree.

I'm gonna defer to ENworld, here...What would you say, Hobo (from your trusty dictionary) is the true "conception of what it means to be a monster"?

What do you mean by go with ENWorld? From Wiktionary, since it's easy to access by popping open another tab: the first definition is "a terrifying and dangerous wild or fictional creature." That's what I mean by monster. It's not meant to be entreated with. It doesn't need our sympathy, support or anything. They exist for two reasons: 1) to threaten the PCs and other empathetic NPCs, and 2) to be confronted and most likely fought and killed by the PCs.

Thank you. And you are welcome. Truce, then?
--SD

That would imply we've been fighting. I've just been talking about a subject that I think is interesting. :shrug:

 

[prosfilaes]

Take the turtle for example (not saying turtles are unholy evil or anything). Turtles lay their eggs and then go on their merry way. They don't have any parental connection to their young at all.

If a neutral animal can do that, no reason to expect a chaotic evil monster to care about its young in the slightest.

I don't see how that has any connection at all. In particular, animals are neutral because they lack a moral sense at all. Lions are neutral, even though they kill the children of their mates, and bears are likewise neutral no matter how much they protect their children. Chimps and dolphins protect their children a lot, and both of them tend to do behavior we'd consider evil in a human.

Humans, even evil humans, take care of their clan and family. That's just something we do. So do kobolds. That's not something that weights much on the alignment scale, or else the kobolds would be good. What matters is how we act towards outsiders.

And personally I find it hard to really justify the miners as good guys given that their response to people outside their clan, like the kobolds, is to kill them. If you don't start from the assumption that the elves, dwarves and humans are the good guys, it's hard to reach that conclusion in a lot of D&D worlds. (Seriously, xenophobia and killing border crossers on sight is not good behavior, elf-lovers.)

 

[Rogue Agent]

Does it matter that it is a "monster" as opposed to an "evil humanoid"? Does it matter that the creature(s) actually Detect as "Evil"? Should the younglings detect as evil?

I think this is the key philosophical question: Is the world one in which certain types of creatures are innately evil? If so, and these qualify, then kill 'em all.

If not, then the children are innocents. (And the answer should be equally obvious.)

 

[hamishspence]

Savage Species makes it very clear that an Evil creature can be a loving parent, devoted spouse, loyal friend, and so on without affecting its Evilness.

Even within the class of "Always Evil" creatures, a case can be made that their Evilness is something that can be changed- it's a mixture of personality and instinct, but the creature can still change alignment.

The same applies to creatures with the Evil subtype- with the difference that the creature will always Detect as Evil, even if it really has changed- it takes magic to change the subtype. There's a demon with the Evil subtype, on the WoTC 3.5 "Elite Opponents" section, which has gotten all the way to Paladin levels.

Besides fiends, there's other beings that detect as Evil despite not being so. Non-evil clerics of Evil deities. Nonevil undead (like revenants, archliches, etc).

 

[Gulla]

Coming in a bit late here...

I played a Paladin in a scenario much like this a few years ago (in that case it was goblins) and after he (and the warrior priest of a LG god) saw that this situation would come up they took the burden of killing the evil spawn. Both to do the Right Thing (ridding the world of Evil) and to avoid the conflict between the good guys (the PCs, who in this case were all Good of different shades)

It was an unpleasant job, but in my (and the GM's) world view the litter of evil monsters (even if intelligent) is like the litter of rats, mice or other real world vermin: If you want to exterminate the plague/infestation you need to take out the litters and/or eggs as well.

It will likely not be pleasant (killing stuff begging for its life shouldn't be). But it wouldn't be Evil in a world of D&D's rather clear and black/white alignments.

That doesn't stop the PCs (or NPCs) from arguing which flavour of Good should be used in a situation like this, though. Should mercy win over "exterminating evil"? Should stopping future harm (if the litter is like its parent) trump possible future good (if you can rise them to redemption and Good)?

No right answers, and lots of interesting character building to be had

 

[avin]

Humans, even evil humans, take care of their clan and family. That's just something we do.

Humans kill children. Humans kill their own children sometimes. Take care of their clan and family? How many? Brother fight. Fathers who should protect their daughters sometimes abuse them.

Nope, we humans not always take care of our clans and families.

There's no such thing as a race having the same behavior all the time.

 

[hamishspence]

I played a Paladin in a scenario much like this a few years ago (in that case it was goblins) and after he (and the warrior priest of a LG god) saw that this situation would come up they took the burden of killing the evil spawn. Both to do the Right Thing (ridding the world of Evil) and to avoid the conflict between the good guys (the PCs, who in this case were all Good of different shades)

It was an unpleasant job, but in my (and the GM's) world view the litter of evil monsters (even if intelligent) is like the litter of rats, mice or other real world vermin: If you want to exterminate the plague/infestation you need to take out the litters and/or eggs as well.

It will likely not be pleasant (killing stuff begging for its life shouldn't be). But it wouldn't be Evil in a world of D&D's rather clear and black/white alignments.

BoED makes it pretty clear that it is, in fact, Evil to kill "noncombatants" and that, in the case of non-Always Evil creatures, they should be approached with the assumption that they are redeemable- "orcs, goblins, and even the thoroughly evil drow".

The idea that goblins are a "plague" or an "infestation" that needs to be "exterminated completely" doesn't really fit the Good mindset. Especially not in settings like Eberron, Faerun, or even Greyhawk, where they're known to integrate with society- doing the mucky jobs, but still participating in cities.

Now it must be admitted that the book has its flaws. But its take on mercy- that it's a fundemental part of goodness- is IMO a good one.

As to "is an evil alignment enough all on its own to make killing it a nonevil act"- Heroes of Horror makes it clear that most societies don't accept that attitude. Not all Evil people are lawbreakers, and the alignment detecting spells are fallible (they can be fooled by various means). As a result, if your character's only reason for killing somebody is "he was evil" they can, in D&D cities, expected to be arrested for murder.