[GoblinLoveChild]

look basically its all about impressions and influence.

to the average commoner. If they see an orc strolling down the street, they will freak out. most commoners rarely meet monsters. they only hear old wives' tales about how X monster killed and ate Y's baby.  most commoners however will probably flee or gather a pitchfork wilding mob to deal with it.

Now if that monster is being escorted. Say by 3 knights. who walk down the street with this monster in tow, speakin out saying: "calm everyone its all under control. nothing to fear" They will receive a very different reaction. Due mainly to the fact that thier faction bears a lot of influence and trust. 

If the Arcanists did this people would probably avert their eyes and hurry away in case the whole thing exploded and demonic rifts opened.

The point is monsters will be treated as vile dirt.  Unless someone backs them up by exerting in game influence.  Will this influence work? maybe...
you may walk through the streets 3 times uneventfully but on the fourth time a guardsman whose fed up and had enough of your monster sauntering through the street will have a crack.
And be lawfully entitled to do so.. 

Ineveitably it is a high stakes risk.  If you fail it will cost you your life.

[Aetrion]

I'm personally not a fan of monster-characters because it destroys the purity of good and evil in the game when you can have a friendly relationship with a monster and suddenly killing monsters becomes a moral gray area for any character who doesn't see violence as the first option for conflict resolution.  Not that moral ambiguity isn't interesting in some settings, but in D&D it's annoying if a DM starts making you feel bad for killing ogres.

The themes of racism and imperialism are already contained in the relationship between the Netherese and other humanoid races and barbarians, we don't need to make good adventurers second guess the morality of wiping out orcs.

The whole point of monsters should be that they are evil and can't be reasoned with because violence and cruelty against humanoids is something they have an undeniable urge to enact as a result of being pawns of evil deities that have no qualms about depriving their minions of free will.

Since monster characters are a thing and I'm strictly against taking anyone's character away I play the game the way it presents itself, and my character wouldn't kill someone just for being a certain creature if they can be talked to and reasoned with, but as a player I prefer if there is no moral quandary when it comes to killing monsters.

[Leyoz]

Since monster characters are a thing and I'm strictly against taking anyone's character away I play the game the way it presents itself, and my character wouldn't kill someone just for being a certain creature if they can be talked to and reasoned with, but as a player I prefer if there is no moral quandary when it comes to killing monsters.

But most of the monsters are intelligent? They are just very evil.

[Aetrion]

But most of the monsters are intelligent? They are just very evil.

The issue isn't intelligence. I'd say there are two general categories of evil: Evil beings who do harm in the pursuit of a goal, and evil beings who pursue the goal of doing harm. These are fundamentally different. Someone who's evil because they want money and don't care if they harm people to get it can be reasoned with, because you can create a situation where they can get more money if they don't hurt anyone. Laws can be written to constrain their ambitions to activities that are a net benefit to society. Someone who's actual goal is to harm people on the other hand can't be reasoned with. Any resources you give them will just be invested back into harming people. Any laws you write will only be obeyed to stay undetected while doing harm. If you set them loose on one of your enemies they will be a threat to you again the moment that enemy is defeated. There is no possible arrangement where everyone gets what they want.

The latter is the nature of evil deities, demons, devils, and IMO monsters in a campaign that's true to the setting.

[Solomon]

Someone who's actual goal is to harm people on the other hand can't be reasoned with. Any resources you give them will just be invested back into harming people. Any laws you write will only be obeyed to stay undetected while doing harm. If you set them loose on one of your enemies they will be a threat to you again the moment that enemy is defeated. There is no possible arrangement where everyone gets what they want.

The latter is the nature of evil deities, demons, devils, and IMO monsters in a campaign that's true to the setting.

Surely there's nothing to fear from a big bad Minotaur who keeps getting more money and more magic items. There's no possible way it'll backfire. I can't imagine a monster would do anything this terrible, cruel, and evil.

Oh wait.

Seriously, though, I am surprised by how many just accept the beast instead of outright fighting him at first sight. Monsters on the server are KoS and those that play them have to agree to that stipulation during the application process. Trust me, if a player of a monster character gets upset about getting PvP'd and killed outside of Sullivan's, they shouldn't have chosen a monster character. Everything is spelled out rather well on that front. The only reason there is a monster acting as a mercenary is because people are allowing it to happen! It's not a fault of the server's rules or of DM leniency.

[Aetrion]

Well, there is also the fact that without monster mercs I wouldn't have any fighters to team up with for quests. 

[Autarch]

Seriously, though, I am surprised by how many just accept the beast instead of outright fighting him at first sight.

Probably the same reason they have no problem with visiting Sullivan's Port. If they're playing a character that doesn't and never has gone to Sullivan's Port... maybe they're just not interested in PVP and rationalise their character's actions accordingly. It could also just be 'if he doesn't attack me, I have no reason to murder this creature that's just minding it's own business that isn't (at this time) anything questionable.'

Really though, if a PCs first reaction to seeing a monster is to immediatelly murder it then how is that really different from this:

can't be reasoned with because violence and cruelty against humanoids is something they have an undeniable urge to enact

It isn't.

[Fiverine]

I suspect that some PCs would be reluctant to outright attack something as powerful as a minotaur immediately.  Hell, I know I was.  It's likely suicide.

[Aetrion]

Really though, if a PCs first reaction to seeing a monster is to immediatelly murder it then how is that really different from this:

can't be reasoned with because violence and cruelty against humanoids is something they have an undeniable urge to enact

It isn't.

That's exactly why my character doesn't do that.