Monsters

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

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

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.

Dots

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/

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.

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.

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

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.

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.