We don't "slaughter"!

[Desdichado]

Well, presuming that most campaigns treat sentients as sentients...and all gamers are, apologies to any exceptions, human, then we are left with presuming, other than cultural differences, that goblins...on an instinctual level...will think how we think. (I'm talking goblin humanoids here, not "fey" creatures or whatnot) And animals will act the way we understnad animals to act...and "monsters" (being to the human perspective nothing more than deadlier, more unusual "animals") will act as animals and/or humans/sentients do.

I don't think that's a good presumption. I think your campaign is actually fairly atypical. In most that I'm aware of, monsters are monsters, and are treated as such without much question. And I don't understand the implication at all that you presume that monsters all think like humans. Say what?

I'm not sure what is meant here...but if you think because it's a "monster" then it is not worthy of human consideration or basic human standard dignity or respect, then I really don't know what to say.

Actually, not only do I think that, but I think that the idea that monsters should be worthy of human consideration or dignity or respect is faintly amusing.

Thankfully (to my sensibility), my players see things differently...more "shades of grey", if you will...than you. That said, if you had been one of the PCs and just killed everything, then that would have happened...and the story would have continued from there.7

Oh, no! You mistake me. My games are never black and white. I just don't have heroic characters who wring their hands over the implications of killing monsters. My characters are much too pragmatic to worry about things like that. As well as not heroic. Or good. When we use alignment at all. My games are more likely to be a fantasy version of The Godfather with characters who are nasty, brutal and violent--professionally!--and have come to terms with that.

But, I think, imho, that to say there is no ethical standard is incorrect.

OK. Well I think it is correct. Did you have any meat to go with that statement, or is it just out there?

Yes, because it was not a human or demi-human or humanoid or even an "NPC"...it is thus, a "monster." The only name it has/had was "Hargak" which I said translated from the kobold language as "death rock" or "rock of death." Maybe it has a name among its kind...but I don't speak roper.

See, you're humanizing your monsters. That makes them less monstrous. I'm more likely to demonize my humans in my campaign, but there you go. Different strokes for different folks.

You did ask, after all, how it would be handled with my group. My group only occasionally picks the good alignment. Our tastes range a bit more towards sword & sorcery and dark fantasy rather than high fantasy and Medieval romance.

Well, I'm sorry to hear it and offend any sensibilities you possess. I certainly was not attempting to be "contrived, artifical and frankly precious."

Nor, did my players think so. They thoroughly enjoyed the dilemma and the discussion/moral argument that ensued. They also came out of the experience with a greater/deeper/more secure understanding of their characters and their moral stances and ethical concerns...and how they might view a similar situation in the future...kinda the point.

Dude, I'm not offended. I'm just giving more detail on my group, how we'd handle, what our tastes and preferences are. Since it seemed to be a little against the grain here, I thought a little backup would be good to explain where I'm coming from.

No one, no where, in this post said anything about the players not having an understanding of the "kind of game" they were entering, nor have any concept of some kind of DM-driven "disservice".

I didn't say that you did. I'm speaking more generally.

There is no "concept of monster" beyond a "monster" is some creature that does not fit into the easy slots of "human-/goblinoid." The term "mosnter" does not automatically translate as "unnatural", as would be the case for undead or demonic/diabolcic/celestial beings. It is simply that, until explained, defies explanation/characterization.

Maybe you should check a handy dictionary. Your conception of what it means to be a monster is not the standard one.

As always, have fun and (to borrow from JamesonCourage) "play what you like." My players like my game just fine, thank you.

I do already, but thanks for the endorsement. I'm sure your players do enjoy it. Based on the fact that they stopped to debate the question, clearly it's something that they find interesting.

 

[Desdichado]

In a game where alignment is enforced, there are moral and ethical standards that apply - the standards of the alignment system. These standards could well be different from those of the usual modern world, of course.

I've always seen alignment making the most sense when it's limited to being team jerseys, basically. But there you have it.

Because, as we all know, once someone puts a label on another sentient being for a purpose, thinking no further than the label is okay!

This seems a little surreal. I'm a big fan of making orcs and goblinoids more interesting than just walking bags of XP. I don't need to be indoctrinated into this paradigm of roleplaying where we bite our nails and wring our hands about whether or not we might be offending fictional entities in a fictional setting. I'm very familiar with it. I'm just pointing out that it's hardly the only way to play the game. Sometimes a goblin is just a goblin and when you see one, roll initiative.

Why, hello Mr. Godwin. How are you today?

Dude! It's not a Godwin just because I used the word Nazi! It's a valid question to ask. Way to dismiss it though; I think it's an interesting comparison; what would you do if your PCs came across Nazis in the dungeon? Would they sit around worrying about what their names were? Would they worry about if the Nazis are offended that we think of them as monsters? Would they be concilatory and make deals with them?

You don't think that's a valid counterpoint way to look at the issue, so you're going to dismiss it with the Godwin label?

And technically, it's not a Godwin unless I compare someone I'm arguing with on the internet to a Nazi.

I think you're hung up on the monsterdom. How is that label more important than its sentience, and free will (or lack thereof)? It looks more like a run-of-the-mill alignment question to me.

I'm not hung up on monsterdom. It is a run of the mill alignment question, and "dude, they're monsters. I draw my sword and attack" is one of the run of the mill answers to it as well.

 

[Hand of Evil]

This may not be intentional, but all the examples you give seem to be the PCs getting slapped for their actions. Is that just because you didn't happen to think of a positive result while typing, or because you view this as a "Kobyashi Maru"?

"Kobyashi Maru" (need to spread it around before giving more to you.

But you are right and that is because the monster is CE and my soapbox is always define evil in your games, does this mean the creature is going to change it's spots...not likely but it does mean dice are being rolled at the table, as that sad story is told, to see who is falling for it. Almost any bady is cute, that is until you see it popping from someone's chest!

If I am a DM and the quest is to kill the monster; kill the monster. Now, if the monster has babies, that is an alignment issue for the party to work out but if I am the DM, I already have what happens next in my game based on my party.

I just would not put babies in to screw with my players.

Some possitives: the little buggers can go to a druid the party has to meet or we can have a couple of funny sessions as the players carry the little buggers around looking for a home for them.

 

[hamishspence]

I think that the idea that monsters should be worthy of human consideration or dignity or respect is faintly amusing.

Why's that? What does a creature have to have, to qualify for the label "monster" which turns the idea of giving it dignity or respect into an amusing one?

 

[steeldragons]

I don't think that's a good presumption. I think your campaign is actually fairly atypical.

Why so?

In most that I'm aware of, monsters are monsters, and are treated as such without much question. And I don't understand the implication at all that you presume that monsters all think like humans. Say what?

"All monsters" don't. This one, in this situation, had a fairly instinctual urge to protect its young. The fact an encounter may be with a kobold or a rope or a goblin or a dragon does not make them all "monsters". Simply outside the understanding of non-human/demi-human.

Actually, not only do I think that, but I think that the idea that monsters should be worthy of human consideration or dignity or respect is faintly amusing.

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

Oh, no! You mistake me. My games are never black and white. I just don't have heroic characters who wring their hands over the implications of killing monsters. My characters are much too pragmatic to worry about things like that. As well as not heroic. Or good. When we use alignment at all. My games are more likely to be a fantasy version of The Godfather with characters who are nasty, brutal and violent--professionally!--and have come to terms with that.

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."

See, you're humanizing your monsters. That makes them less monstrous. I'm more likely to demonize my humans in my campaign, but there you go. Different strokes for different folks.

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.

As for the "different strokes" comment. Yes, most certainly. And we are all welcome to them.

You did ask, after all, how it would be handled with my group.

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

My group only occasionally picks the good alignment. Our tastes range a bit more towards sword & sorcery and dark fantasy rather than high fantasy and Medieval romance.

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."

Dude, I'm not offended. I'm just giving more detail on my group, how we'd handle, what our tastes and preferences are. Since it seemed to be a little against the grain here, I thought a little backup would be good to explain where I'm coming from.

Fair enough. Sorry if I came off harsh.

Maybe you should check a handy dictionary.

Maybe you should sheathe the snark.

Your conception of what it means to be a monster is not the standard one.

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"?

I do already, but thanks for the endorsement. I'm sure your players do enjoy it. Based on the fact that they stopped to debate the question, clearly it's something that they find interesting.

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

 

[steeldragons]

"Kobyashi Maru" (need to spread it around before giving more to you.

I've met my limit for the day. But will be happy to get him for you tomorrow.

I just would not put babies in to screw with my players.

Woah! Is that what it seems I did?

Some possitives: the little buggers can go to a druid the party has to meet or we can have a couple of funny sessions as the players carry the little buggers around looking for a home for them.

Nice thought. Not what happened. But cute, nonetheless.

--SD

 

[steeldragons]

Sentient - able to perceive Sentient | Define Sentient at Dictionary.com
House cats and cockroaches are sentient - they can perceive their environments. That doesn't make them intelligent, reasoning, or morally weighty.

What you mean is Consciousness. The ability to think, reason, and otherwise be a Person.

Thank you for the clarification. I can't XP til tomorrow. But wanted to thank you, before that.

Maybe it's the Star Trek:NG, I always took "sentient" to mean something away of its surroundings and intelligent.

Now I know.

(And knowing is half the battle. )
--SD

 

[ValhallaGH]

Heh, I had a PC who was based upon a similar situation.

Cleric of Kord cleared out some ogres. Found a baby in the back of the den. Rather than murder the infant, he took the kid home and raised him as his son.
Years later, the kid followed his foster father's example: he became a (ogre) cleric of Kord. Among other things, this let me use a cleric, with a one-handed greatsword, a shield that used to be a door, and eventually plate armor.

But, I always liked that character and dug his backstory. It's fun to remember that not all monsters have to be evil.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Thank you for the clarification. I can't XP til tomorrow. But wanted to thank you, before that.

Maybe it's the Star Trek:NG, I always took "sentient" to mean something away of its surroundings and intelligent.

Now I know.

(And knowing is half the battle. )
--SD

People always confuse Sentient and Sapient. Which is one of the reasons I try not to use either one - it's not communication if people are confused.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

...all gamers are, apologies to any exceptions, human...

Thank you for the apologies to exceptions.

I'm not sure what the "right" choice would be. Most likely if I as a player was there and at least somewhat understood the situation I'd settleon a truce with the monster, but suggest it leave the area to somewhere where the general public would be safe from it. I'd also give it some incentive to leave by pointing out that its kobold food source was about to disappear.

Following that I'd want to go back to wipe out the kobolds. That was the original mission, and the kobolds were given a chance to handle things diplomatically. It's their own fault that they screwed it up. No second chances.