Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Croesus" data-source="post: 5728496" data-attributes="member: 35019">This made we wonder how many monsters are rated as "xx/Evil" simply because they are wiling to kill sentient beings, usually for the monster's benefit. Which is exactly what the party has been hired to do, first the kobolds, now the monster and its brood...What we know:-The monster is not some manifestation of pure evil, such as a demon.-The monster is intelligent-The mosnter breeds-The monster is carnivorous-The monster is dangerous to other creatures in its territory-The monster has no moral issue with hunting/killing/eating sentient beings, certainly kobolds but presumably also humansOptions:-Kill monster-Kill monster and its young-Kill kobolds-Kill everything except the miners-Kill nothingWe've already acknowledged that the party has been hired to eliminate a threat to the miners, with the option of using deadly force. We've also acknowledged that the original threat involves sentient beings (kobolds). So presumably the party believes that killing threats to the miners, if necessary, is morally acceptable, even if that means killing sentient beings. Therefore, the question comes down to threat assessment.-If the kobolds survive, will they be a serious threat to others in the area?-If the monster survives, will it be a serious threat to others in the area?-If the monster's brood survives, will they be a serious threat to others in the area? If the potential threat value is low, then allowing one or more of the parties to survive is a reasonable choice, given that the party is dealing with sentient beings. If the potential threat is high, then I'd argue that the party would cause more harm by ignoring the threat. After all, how many innocents will die later because the party doesn't deal with the problem now?No one said being a hired killer was easy.</blockquote>

Verification