Monsters

>another Goblin Slayer thread
Call me when a new chapter is released.

File: 1413248096947.jpg (496KB, 2197x1463px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 2197x1463px

Certain monsters are heavily predisposed to harming innocents.

Waiting for an innocent to be harmed before taking action is inherently unethical, as it places the lives of monsters above the lives of innocents.

It is therefore ethical to kill the children of certain monsters predisposed to harming innocents.

>>48374626
Dots

>>48375540
It really comes down to this. In D&D demons have no souls, and can't ever be moral. For other creatures they can be raised good, but typically aren't/

>>48375574

I've always liked that in Warhammer Fantasy, while Greenskins and Beastmen and Skaven are all pretty much irredeemable and will be murderous evildoers even when raised by humans, ogres that are raised by humans can explicitly be upstanding, if dim-witted, members of Imperial society with effectively human worldviews.

>>48374626
Monster is a pretty broad term. But certain monsters are by nature predisposed to act destructively, so it's at least practical to kill them before they become dangerous.

I do think some are irredeemable, just because you can't force someone to be good and they have no reason to want to change their ways, nor is it likely for them to ever find one.

>>48375663
Even Ogres outside of the Empire can at least be reasoned with.

>>48374626

Exterminators are a cool concpet in magic settings in general.

Demon hunters, Orc Slayer. It gives a somewhat practical job to an otherwise cutthroat setting. Set prices for some types of monsters, discount for each new job, maybe a special fee to teach your local militia about the best ways to prevent said monsters to attack or how to repel smaller ones.

I can dig it.

>>48374626
It is ethical to kill anything that poses a threat to you and yours. Doing anything else is pure folly and will bite you later.

It depends greatly on what the monster in question is. I see nothing wrong with drowning baby rats, dire or otherwise.

>>48375929
So... kill all humans that don't qualify as "you and yours?" Humans can be pretty dangerous.

Just because something is young does not automatically make it precious and worth protecting. Take baby dragons for example. Someone, somewhere is going to die because you spare its life.

>>48376017
Not quite what I said.
For example: say you were the ruler of a minor kingdom.
The current threats to your family dynasty are a group of nobles planning to rebel and a large group of savage raiders coming to pillage your lands.
They would pose a threat to you and yours and thus the right course of action would be to uproot the rebelling nobles and destroy their family down to the last member, permanently ending their threat and intimidating any other nobles with delusions of grandeur. A minor victory against the horde would be repelling the host, while a major victory would be following them back to their homelands and permanently ending that threat.

Basically the course of action that any successful individual or group has taken since the dawn of time. This of course applies to everything, just with less death the further you go down from that scale. The bigger more ruthless individual wins.

>Are monsters really iredeemable? It is ethical to kill the children of monsters, even if they haven't done anything?

Depends on the setting. If monsters are literally always going to be evil - and not in a way that can be functionally rehabilitated, and also will be directly antagonistic to other people rather than just sticking to themselves thinking petty thoughts - then you don't have much choice except to kill. If you don't, you'll end up just having to do it later on but with more chance of other people dying too.

I say this as someone who likes when even the absolute worst creatures can have a change of heart and redeem themselves to some degree.

File: Goblin vs Joblin small.png (765KB, 960x480px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 960x480px

If they're of a high enough mental level to realize what they're doing, their mind can probably be changed to stop. If they don't, they chose their fate and should be killed with no guilt
If they're not of a high enough mental level to understand what they're doing is wrong, then you should kill them with no guilt
It's easy, you see?

File: tiny volcano monster.jpg (22KB, 436x455px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 436x455px

>>48374626
>Are monsters really iredeemable?
Depends on what your local monsters are like. This can vary wildly between areas, settings, etc.

File: my fangs have become like this please take responsibility.png (64KB, 328x281px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 328x281px

Are vampires really irredeemable? Is it ethical to kill newly turned vampires, even if they haven't done anything?

>>48374626
>Are monsters really iredeemable?
Any creature can be "redeemed", i.e. brainwashed to behave in accordance with whatever standards of "good" you might have.

The question is - is it viable effort- and time-wise? Or will you achieve more objective-wise by slaughtering them and spending your time and efforts elsewhere?
If the answer is "yes, it's viable", then, yes, the monsters "can be redeemed".
If the answer is "no, it's not viable", then, no, "the monsters can't be redeemed".

Your decision is based on how optimal either of courses of action are, so depending on the person who makes the decision and his opinions on what constitutes "resource-wise viable" (i.e. what he is ready to sacrifice or aims to gain), said person will make a different decision.

In the end, it all comes down to resources, and what you are ready to sacrifice to uphold your beliefs and ideals.

Will you let a monster feast upon you, because you believe that "it can be redeemed"?
Will you sacrifice somebody you love in order to redeem a monster?

Hell, it doesn't even have to be so dramatic, so let's down the stakes - will you spend a sizeable amount of your personal wealth that you worked hard to obtain, in order to redeem a monster, with little to no guarantee that it will actually work?

This is what this is all about.
Some people are good at making decisions. They can see the optimal decisions from the get-go, and don't allow personal factor to cloud their mind and make a suboptimal decision.
Some people are bad at making decisions.

In the end, whether "a monster can be redeemed" depends on the person who is in charge of making the decision to redeem it.

>>48374626
Depends on the setting, system, kind of monster, and individual monster.

>>48377280
Are you implying Undertale monsters are worth mercy? They're a extreme threat to humanity; even the one you posted can kill a child just by being near them.

>>48378681
>They're a extreme threat to humanity
And yet all of them can be viciously and horrifically murdered by a single human child.

>>48378806
The stronger monster could still easily kill an unsuspecting child like Asgore did. the game tells you it only takes one human to to become whatever the goat at the end came to be.

File: 1467651274455.gif (327KB, 1000x773px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1000x773px

>>48378681
>Are you implying Undertale monsters are worth mercy?

>>48377446
Stop it with your reasonable answers.

This is a bait thread, you're not welcome here.

>>48378681

Even the very strongest monsters outside of Asgore and Toriel, like Undyne, take quite a lot of effort to kill a single human child who is making no attempt to fight back. A human child with a stick, meanwhile, can literally hate even the strongest monsters to death.

The veteran hero from the human versus monster war isn't celebrated because he killed a lot of humans, but because he was one of the only survivors on the monsters' side. Humans have monsters so badly outgunned without soul merging taken into the mix it's not even funny. You can instantly kill a monster by attacking it while wanting it to die hard enough, and based on the player's HP increasing as a result of their LV increasing, the less you empathize with a monster, the less it can hurt you in response.

Undyne is one of the strongest monsters out there and a small child who bears her no ill will at all is the only human she has any chance of significantly injuring with her attacks, while a small, callous child can mortally wound her with a single attack.

Even the soul-fused monster wasn't invincible, and its better nature was its undoing; it died when a group of humans attacked it despite its godlike power because it didn't have the heart to fight back.

>>48374626
> It is ethical to kill the children of monsters, even if they haven't done anything?
Depends. Grats on making this thread again.

>>48379293
On a minor note, RE: having the heart to fight back, it's also mentioned that monster SOULs all are made of love, hope and compassion. As in it's a requirement, whilst human souls don't require these things. So given how it's all intention-based, that does gimp them even further.

Dunno about monsters, but OP is an irredeemable faggot.

File: 1385582962174.jpg (198KB, 900x1125px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 900x1125px

>>48375443
But before they cause harm aren't the "monsters" as you call them innocents too?
And in that case couldn't humans/the races of the adventurers fit the criteria of monsters heavily predisposed to harming innocents?

>>48382892
>aren't the "monsters" as you call them innocents too?
no, they aren't

>>48374626
Yes, when we are talking about a monster monster. Look up the word "monster" if you don't know what that is.
As in;
>not simply members of a primitive civilization
>not simply an exotic kind of animal
>not simply a misinterpreted group or individual

I mean come on, if something lives exclusively on human blood/brains/soul, then we have to wait until it eats one?

>>48374626
>Are monsters really iredeemable?
Yes.

They're evil because they're The Other, not because of their behaviour or philosophy (even though these may well be considered evil in their own right).

>>48382977
Then how do you define the "innocents" that the "monsters" might kill?

>>48383550
It's not a sliding scale, m809.

The opposite of innocent is guilty, not monster. You don't judge animals in the same way you do people.

Irredemable monsters don't have kids. They grow from hatred, summoned from other realms, created by dark wizards, the minions of Gods or the great Formorian giants in the sea.

Anything that has kids is either an animal, which doesn't have ethical concepts like right and wrong, or is just a being of another race that is inheritately malleable.

At least that's how I do it.

>>48383691
I can agree with that.
True monsters are monsters. They aren't exotic animals, or a civilization called that by those whom it defeated. They are either from the depths of hell, and/or their existence depends on the indiscriminately killing of others, like classic, no-nonsense vampires.

File: gothic_3_king_brooding_by_o_matter.jpg (53KB, 600x849px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x849px

Monsters are at best a bunch of dindus who are essentially schrodinger's murdering rapists, they usually hail from extreme raider societies, even vikings farmed, but your average goblin tribe probably doesn't do much art or ply many crafts besides making crude weapons and attempting to steal your shit.

Call me when the orcs pick up a fucking spade and a hoe and maybe I'll tell the paladins to hold their wrath but till the day their pathetic modus of society can be called society at all Monsters they'll remain.