| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the character is neutral.
Yeah, okay. If we now need to quibble over the definition of "non-combatants" in regards to children, I think this conversation is over.
And kyrt, it depends on the severity of the action and the intent and what happens after. It's not hard math. ;)
Possible /monster/ children and their mother. Monsters who might need feeding. Feed being humanoids. Like human children.
the moment the child picks up and uses a potentially lethal weapon, they are no longer a civilian, but a soldier.
if a 6 year old boy donned a C4 vest in Iraq and had the intent to blow up an American camp by detonating the vest in a suicide bombing. the moment that child walked onto an American camp. i would try to shoot the child before he detonates the vest.
But Children are innocent? not when they intend to sacrifice their own life to end multiple others with themselves.
the moment a child picks up and readies a weapon that could potentially cause great harm, whether death or injury. and the moment that child enters a known military base or encampment with an obvious murderous intent. they were prepared to kill, and if i were a soldier, i would have a right to save my platoon by shooting and killing the armed child who would have ended many lives if he wasn't shot first.
that child is no different from any soldier. he may be smaller and younger. but he is still a soldier nonethless.
|
that child is no different from any soldier. he may be smaller and younger. but he is still a soldier nonethless.
Other than the fact a child is unlikely to be aware of exactly the meaning and outcome of what they are about to do. A child or teenager is not equipped biochemically or experienced enough to make complex judgement calls. Now we are assuming that all fantasy creatures behave as real world animals (including humans). That is why in most countries there is a minimum age at which a person can be charged as an adult.
In the rock throwing case if the 'mother' threw a rock first I can see the 'children' joining in but I think it unlikely they would be thinking "lets kill those adventurers", more likely "hey lets do what out mother is doing".
S.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem, though. We don't know what the GM's intention was. It could have been "monkey see, monkey do" (mimic their mother/nanny) it could have been "scare off the intruders" or it could have been "yum, dinner". Either of the first two leaves the potential for evil on the table, but the third one doesn't, and there are no indications that a Sense Motive roll was called for or used, which leaves us with the player character simply retaliating to a perceived lethal threat, which is definitely NOT evil.
Stefan, these are morlocks. Apparently, they're vicious from birth and have to be taught to leave others of their kind alone.
I think the analogies here are getting a little silly. A kid with a rock is not a kid in a C4 vest. I'll take this the other direction: Do you fireball a kitten that scratches you? This kitten is now a lethal combatant! Clearly the kitten is trying to kill you, and not lashing out because it feels threatened. Let's hit it with maximum force.
The character in question is a Sorcerer of at least 7th level. The character has surely has spells besides Fireball that could neutralize a group of kids with rocks without killing them.
Like in that other post where a poster says that Fireball is more like throwing a grenade than a molotov. But you've also got flashbangs.
The police doesn't open fire on rioters with live ammunition and grenades. They use rubber bullets and tear gas.
Petty, to be fair, your analogy is a little silly as well. A rock can kill someone very easily. A kitten? Even a level 1 commoner could handle that.
And again, it doesn't matter whether attacking the kids was a good idea or not. IC-wise, it was a mistake. If the sorcerer had been utterly horrified by this error and sought to make amends any way she could, there wouldn't be an alignment issue at all.
I think the analogies here are getting a little silly. A kid with a rock is not a kid in a C4 vest. I'll take this the other direction: Do you fireball a kitten that scratches you? This kitten is now a lethal combatant! Clearly the kitten is trying to kill you, and not lashing out because it feels threatened. Let's hit it with maximum force.
The character in question is a Sorcerer of at least 7th level. The character has surely has spells besides Fireball that could neutralize a group of kids with rocks without killing them.
Like in that other post where a poster says that Fireball is more like throwing a grenade than a molotov. But you've also got flashbangs.
The police doesn't open fire on rioters with live ammunition and grenades. They use rubber bullets and tear gas.
i wouldn't fireball the lone kitten, unlike the horde of children throwing dangerous rocks.
i would magic missile the kitten.
but in pathfinder, a kitten is a lethal and dangerous threat for the 1st 5 levels. magic missile it.
horde of man eating children and a man eating nanny throwing rocks. rocks, while not as lethal as a fireball, still count as lethal force. and evil creatures must generally be slain expediently before they perform their evil.
fireball the morlocks. the fact they are evil orphaned savages who could slaughter a small village on their own ability, is reason enough for me to fireball the horde of them.'
horde of kittens? burning hands the darned furballs, if i don't have burning hands, nor intensify spell, then i use fireball.
Uh, no. Murdering a kitten for clawing you is psychopathic. If you don't like cats, put it in a box and take it to the Humane Society.
Uh, no. Murdering a kitten for clawing you is psychopathic. If you don't like cats, put it in a box and take it to the Humane Society.
true in the real world, where housecats aren't a lethal threat.
but not in a world where your typical domesticated feline can down your average commoner in around 12-18 seconds and claw your unconscious body the rest of the way to death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 for CN alignment.
Also, on Morlocks...
Morlocks are CR2 ... simple rebuild rules for "young" makes them CR1 and gives them a +2 to "all dex based rolls" (like say, throwing rocks), though it lowers their hp by 6 and gives them bad other saves (but better reflex saves actually) and a -2 to damage.
Morlocks have a move of 40, leap attack, sneak attack of +1d6 and the ability for 2 to share the same space and then are considered flanking.
Which is to say that that's 15 ranged attacks at +6 for 1d3+2, 1 ranged attack at +4 for 1d3+2, with the attacks able to mass flank and sneak attack the next round if they survive (because they can share the same square and then are able to sneak attack you). They can also go up the walls and ceilings with natural climb at +16 which acts as Spider Climb except that they can't cling to smooth surfaces.
Fireball is for sure a good answer if you're a 7th L Sorcerer. Because if they live, next round it may be your turn in the barrel.
-TimD
PS Lamontius, you forgot the "devs hate monks" sidebar in your recipe. Very important for bringing all the seasoning together.
Uh, no. Murdering a kitten for clawing you is psychopathic. If you don't like cats, put it in a box and take it to the Humane Society.true in the real world, where housecats aren't a lethal threat.
but not in a world where your typical domesticated feline can down your average commoner in around 12-18 seconds and claw your unconscious body the rest of the way to death.
Uh, that's a full-grown cat, not a kitten. Like I said. Also, you are not a commoner, you're an adventurer. Finally, a kitten clawing 'cause it's scared is not going to go for blood, it's going to run away.
Uh, that's a full-grown cat, not a kitten. Like I said. Also, you are not a commoner, you're an adventurer. Finally, a kitten clawing 'cause it's scared is not going to go for blood, it's going to run away.Uh, no. Murdering a kitten for clawing you is psychopathic. If you don't like cats, put it in a box and take it to the Humane Society.true in the real world, where housecats aren't a lethal threat.
but not in a world where your typical domesticated feline can down your average commoner in around 12-18 seconds and claw your unconscious body the rest of the way to death.
most unprepared 1st level adventurers are vulnerable to felines, and even more so to kittens.
kittens, on the metagame scale, are deadlier than their adult kin, despite having a lower CR.
even 2nd-5th level adventurers can be harmed by a kitten.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The kitten does 1 nonlethal damage, assuming it hits, and will be slain in a single blow. Oh, and it's diminutive. Here, let's go over the encounter just for fun.
Round One: Kitten moves into fighter's square, provoking attack of opportunity.
End of combat!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, that's a full-grown cat, not a kitten. Like I said. Also, you are not a commoner, you're an adventurer. Finally, a kitten clawing 'cause it's scared is not going to go for blood, it's going to run away.Uh, no. Murdering a kitten for clawing you is psychopathic. If you don't like cats, put it in a box and take it to the Humane Society.true in the real world, where housecats aren't a lethal threat.
but not in a world where your typical domesticated feline can down your average commoner in around 12-18 seconds and claw your unconscious body the rest of the way to death.
most unprepared 1st level adventurers are vulnerable to felines, and even more so to kittens.
kittens, on the metagame scale, are deadlier than their adult kin, despite having a lower CR.
even 2nd-5th level adventurers can be harmed by a kitten.
As much as I find the idea hilarious, the cats deal 1d2-4 claw damage, 1d3-4 bite damage.
The kitten does 1 nonlethal damage, assuming it hits, and will be slain in a single blow. Oh, and it's diminutive. Here, let's go over the encounter just for fun.
Round One: Kitten moves into fighter's square, provoking attack of opportunity.
End of combat!
Adult Cat is dimimutive
kitten (cat with the young template) is fine. having 19 Dex and a +8 size bonus to attacks/AC.
higher level fighters might laugh at the 22 AC, but the first level fighter will have issues. not impossible.
but the fighter will be hit by 1-4 points of damage unless he gets lucky enough to hit the cat, where the cat will die in one attack.
wizard is able to kill the kitten with a single magic missile.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sticking to my guns.
If it's wrong to have sex with it, then it's wrong to kill it.
No matter the reasoning.
Never thought I'd see such a cunning argument for not eating beef from you, BBT.
Adult Cat is dimimutive
kitten (cat with the young template) is fine. having 19 Dex and a +8 size bonus to attacks/AC.
+4, with Diminuitive.
higher level fighters might laugh at the 22 AC, but the first level fighter will have issues. not impossible.
18 AC. The average 1st-level fighter has about a +5 to attacks, with Weapon Focus, no masterwork weapon, and a 16 Strength. Odds are good the second attack will hit, so the fight is over in the first round (AoO plus fighter's action). Maybe the second, if the cat gets lucky. Assuming it's being attacked only by a single 1st-level fighter, that is, and assuming the fighter isn't fairly maxed. Those are two big assumptions.
but the fighter will be hit by 1-4 points of damage unless he gets lucky enough to hit the cat, where the cat will die in one attack.
Assuming the cat has about equitable luck, the cat will manage to deal one or two points of nonlethal damage. Tops.
It's simply not dangerous. And it certainly isn't anything resembling a threat to 2nd-level and beyond.
EDIT: Oh, by the way, the CMD of that little cat is going to be 5, and it has no ranks in Escape Artist. If I were a fighter, I would grapple it, put it in a box, and take it back to town. Doing this will get me dealt 2-3 nonlethal damage, which will be healed without any trouble the next time the cleric channels. Easy-peasy. No threat.
No need to murder the poor kitten, it's obviously traumatized. Crazy mages...
|
|
I am sticking to my guns.
If it's wrong to have sex with it, then it's wrong to kill it.
No matter the reasoning.
Dude that is seriously messed up. Either that or I think I really should become vegetarian because no matter how cute calves can be I'm just not doing the former to it before having a veal steak.
You still haven't explained why the cat is dealing nonlethal damage Kobold Cleaver.
Sorry, didn't see your post. If a foe deals 0 or less damage on an attack, it instead deals 1 nonlethal damage. :)
It is, yes. Here's the quote:
Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
I wasn't saying you were doubting me, just wanted to clarify. :P
And yeah, it's one of those subtle little changes that can take a while to be noticed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are no good cats.
EDIT: Oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm not talking about how all animals have to be Neutral. That doesn't matter. There are no good cats. Period.
This isn't really a "murdering children" or "innocents". This all happened during or right after combat in enemy environment. This wasn't some random fireball inside the city for the "lulz". If a town is infested with zombies, and four survivors disguise themself as zombies to survive/sneak past the shambling horde, the sorceress doesn't become evil when she fireballs both the disguised survivors and the zombies, only later realizing they were humans.
Same for the fighter that tears down a part of the structure to somehow stop or hinder the bad guy, is he evil if the damage accidently kills the mother and daughter hiding in the floor above with falling and enviromental damage. Not everyone deals with death same way, just because he doesn't drop to his knees sobbing with remorse doesn't mean he's evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Putting the morlock incident aside for now, the sorcerer killed a lot of innocents because she panicked. That doesn't make her Evil, or even Neutral. It does mean she made a big mistake, and it was not a case of "for the greater good". Failing to feel guilt over accidentally killing a dozen noncombatants is not "a different way to handle death", it's brushing off an atrocity.
Yeah, okay. If we now need to quibble over the definition of "non-combatants" in regards to children, I think this conversation is over.
No need to quibble, they were literally in combat, having taken their readied actions to attack whoever opened the door. Also the victims are actually evil. Also the paladin seems to have told the party that the victims were evil.
The sorceress is probably not CG with the lack of self-reflection that she has displayed, but conversely is not deserving of this barrage of threats to make the character evil and take control away from the player and what have you.
As I said above, I make it abundantly clear to my players what I consider evil or neutral character behaviour even during the campaign. My players so far have been okay with my decisions.And you seem to overlook that most people who have a big problem with the characters act are referring to the behaviour after throwing those fireballs.Neutral's aren't required to feel remorse. In fact apathy is a fairly normal neutral response. The character isn't running around saying "Yay! I got to kill a bunch of helpless innocents today! I feel so awesome!" That would be evil. SO FAR this character has not stepped over the line to evil however close they seem to be to that line.
With the above being said I would be justifiably upset if you took over her character for BEING NEUTRAL when you only promised to do it for evil PCs.
It seems like you have adjusted the definitions of good and evil in your game if you have to lay it out to your players as house rules, which is fine if your players agree to it of course.
What I am not going to condone is what you do to characters that fall afoul of your guides. It shows a basic disrespect of the players and their character concepts to just force the character to go full-frontal almost-parody darkside as in the example you described. If you feel the need to take a player's character away, at least try to work with that player to get the coolest antagonist you can out of it rather than just going with the most punitive and insulting approach.
the character is neutral.
...and sliding towards evil if she doesn't care about killing innocents.
Even a neutral character would check before blasting a room she knows nothing about.
Another episode like that, and it's chaotic evil, and the paladin would kill her out of goodness.
To be fair, the sorcerer did know a bit about the room. She knew she was being attacked, and her triggerhappy tendencies made themselves known once again.
It's definitely the "doesn't care" bit that's the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another episode like that, and it's chaotic evil, and the paladin would kill her out of goodness.
Even if it were appropriate to force an alignment change on the character for the events detailed in this thread, the paladin certainly doesn't get any rights to enforce anything on the now evil character. What needs to happen is communication between the DM, the player of the sorceress and the player of the paladin to determine what will happen IC.
I have especially little tolerance when it comes to disruptive f%!$ery from the players of paladins that they then try to justify with "...but evil". If the paladin tries to engage in PvP they are out on their ass, with the character effectively removed from the game either in administrative tribunals, or maybe with a promotion to somewhere far away in a setting where a paladin can just murder someone evil and get away with it.
Yeah. The paladin should only resort to combat if given no other choice. The sorceress is, in general, a comrade of his. Just a stupid one.
|
Never thought I'd see such a cunning argument for not eating beef from you, BBT.I am sticking to my guns.
If it's wrong to have sex with it, then it's wrong to kill it.
No matter the reasoning.
It is actually one of my life goals to eat every edible creature.
As long as it is legal, and non-poisonous, of course.