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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5728821" data-attributes="member: 92511">I suppose, at this stage I should detail what actually ended up happening...THANK YOU to ALL for your responses and please, continue to do so if you want to throw in your coppers...The party in question settled on letting the parent and younglings go. They had managed to kill one of the young before the parent "stepped" in.The NG and CG characters argued fervently for "monster" and its young to leave the cavern and never return. The druid, siding with the "monster protecting its young" voted with them.The neutral thief, a typical greedy character, was ok with letting the monsters go as long as they gave the party its treasure trove.The paladin was not so "ok" with it, but lacking the support of his other LG PC, the cleric who refused to slay the "children", conceded to the party rule and justified it as letting the creatures go would help the "greater [human] good" and their original mission which was to rid the mine of kobolds and  return the mining village a semblance of security.The NPCs weren't really "ok" with it, especially the LG dwarf, but they had already pledged their loyalty and submitted their will to the party.But in light of their recently made decision to minimize bloodshed and not "slaughter unnecessarily" the chips fell with letting the creature and its offspring go/leave the cavern...which it DID! This satisfied their agreement with the two-faced kobolds. The kobolds, themselves, did not prove so lucky.Not the slay-fest I was expecting, but it's always nice when the players surprise the DM...in a good way. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />--SD</blockquote>

Verification