As you have described it there ISN'T a "right" thing to do, no moral certitude because you have left that question open to any resolution the CHARACTERS choose to come up with.
Quite so. THe Characters are the ones who have to choose an outcome. That is the point of the game, afterall...or at least, it is in My game.
You are correct thought, it is difficult to discuss moral/ethical concerns in terms that are not abosulte...What I mean in the original post was, "What would you feel is the correct thing to do as a PC in that situation?" There realyl is no objective/all encompassing "right" thing.
Without specific definitions or explanations from you (the DM) as to what the acceptible moral/ethical range of responses would be for any given PC alignment you leave it up to the players to decide for themselves for each of their individual characters. You have created a Kobayashi Maru scenario: there is no correct resolution - it is strictly a test of character.
Well, my players are given definitions of alignment before they choose them for their characters. These are not strict "single" definitions, but a "range of absolutes", if you would, that exist iwithin a certain two-letter alignment code.
For example, the two LG characters. The LG paladin lives by a code of duty and honor of guardianship/protection (his god's primary sphere/domain). He follows a code of Law, Order and Good. But he is not "Lawful Stupid." The carrying out of his duty and honor is to protect and defend his assigned charge(s). He conducts himself as best he can within those confines to further "the greater good." Yes, slaying evil is a part of that...but it is not
always an absolute/the
only answer.
THe LG cleric, is LG more out of "innocence and naivitee." He wants everythign to be rainbows and unicorns. He wants everyone and the world to be "nice" to each other and desperately doesn't want to do anything "bad". His actions are carefully chosen within that context. He is more "Purity" kind of Lawful Good versus a "duty/order/law" kind of LG. Killing "children", effectively, would be bad...even if the lil' buggers are, themselves, evil.
The druid, True Neutral, naturally is concerned with maintaining "the Balance" and while the creature is "evil" it hasn't done anything to the party except try to protect its young. A perfectly, acceptably, NATURAL thing to do. When placed against the actions of the kobolds, who have actively acted in an evil way against him and his companions, however, are acting out of flagrant malice...to the attempted detriment of his self-preservation.
The Neutral thief thinks all of the kobolds shoulda been slain in the first place and sees no reason they would attempt to uphold their end of the bargain when the kobolds, from his perspective, obviously don't intend to. yes, this monster could be killed...but wait?...It wants to give us treasure?!? That's a horse of an entirely different color [of evil].
For my own campaign this would not even be a debate. The monster is evil. Its young are therefore evil. It would not matter if it can put on a pitiable face and plead for its life and its young. Alignment in MY campaigns is an absolute and I do not play morality traps against my players even if they're trying to create one where none exists.
I don't think this was a "morality trap." Noone was in risk of losing any status or changing alignment. It was, as you noted above, an opportunity for the characters to approach a questionable situation and really have to THINK about how they should best go about handling the situation, in light of their circumstances and original purpose/mission.
As you noted, there really was no objectively "right" answer. Just wanted to throw it out to ENworld and see what other people thought about the situation.
It is illogical to me for a character to NOT KNOW what his own alignment suggests or requires he do/not do in matters of morality and ethics. No PC in my games will ever be left grasping for the correct moral resolution as HE is expected to see it - there is only the question of whether the PC chooses to act contrary to that. If they are somehow left without firm knowledge of "the right thing to do" then I will never blame them for a good-faith effort to come to their own conclusions (no matter the consequences) in the absence of proper instruction/explanation from me in the first place.
Just so. That's all I was looking for them to do.
Certainly anyone good-aligned in my games requires no more moral justification to rid the world of the lot. That doesn't mean they MUST do so, only that they need no greater justification. The paladin should have every motivation to see these beasts killed. It does not matter if the monster is even CAPABLE of changing its alignment. The fact that it is Chaotic Evil NOW is in and of itself proof certain of past vile deeds and/or inevitable vile deeds in the future and the paladin should indeed slaughter them all. Even characters who hold a profound respect for life due to alignment, class, or other reasons would feel badly about doing it - but would ultimately have to admit that the CE creatures DISrespect for life argues convincingly that it ought to be done.
But that's just me; that's MY game.
So noted...and well respected, make no mistake. It very well could have gone/been that way...and the paladin, while at odds with slaying young, did want to kill them all. Ultimately, he was "voted" down and accepted the decision in light of their overall mission (for the "greater good"/protection of the mining village...not the kobold's or even the roper's wishes).
--SD