Respect for life and concern for dignity do not prevent nor prohibit neither killing nor executing.

Never said being good "prevented or prohibited" you from doing anything. I merely stated executing is not a good act according the the rules, because it does not demonstrate altruism or a respect for life.

They would however inhibit both of the above to a great degree.

The inhibition is dependent on your desire to do good acts.

Good I thought we were on the same page.

If you say so...

Source is common sense.

The statement also has to it a question which is...
"how (are PCs) actually supposed to deal with enemies (that are captured) (in your view as player or DM?)?

Not just disagree, what then is the answer to the question?

You know that if a person asks for a source and says they've never felt or thought that way, telling them that the source is common sense is saying "you have no common sense" right? I just want you to realize that and possibly consider rephrasing your answer.

I don't think that DnDs default assumption is that characters are judge, jury and executioner and that they can't really rely on anyone else to protect the neighborhood. I thought the default assumption was that you were heroes who wound up in situations beyond your control who's beliefs and experiences shaped your behaviors as determined by the setting, thus while a LN cleric in the forgotten realms might feel that the basic assumption is valid a LG paladin from your homebrew world that is actually bordered by heaven and hell would not. So how can you answer a question who's basic premise is How do you expect every different possible character to respond to the same situation?

I think a lot of the paladin conflicts come down to a question of Old Testament style versus New Testament style.

OT paladins are judge, jury, and executioner - and often times the emphasis is on the latter. Evil is there to be smited, no questions asked. Is it evil? If yes, then smite. The gods have given him the power to bring judgement to the world.

NT paladins are forgiving and merciful. They raise their sword to defend others, but they aren't the aggressors. It's sad when an enemy will not repent and has to be brought down. The gods have given him the power to bring mercy and protection to the world.

The OT paladin sees NT sparing foes and calls him evil - those enemies could easily escape and attack again. The NT paladins sees OT cutting down foes and calls him evil - he never even gave them a chance to surrender.

I think a lot of the paladin conflicts come down to a question of Old Testament style versus New Testament style.

OT paladins are judge, jury, and executioner - and often times the emphasis is on the latter. Evil is there to be smited, no questions asked. Is it evil? If yes, then smite. The gods have given him the power to bring judgement to the world.

NT paladins are forgiving and merciful. They raise their sword to defend others, but they aren't the aggressors. It's sad when an enemy will not repent and has to be brought down. The gods have given him the power to bring mercy and protection to the world.

The OT paladin sees NT sparing foes and calls him evil - those enemies could easily escape and attack again. The NT paladins sees OT cutting down foes and calls him evil - he never even gave them a chance to surrender.

Ima go OT on those b*@&%es!

EDIT: A language filter? Really? What are we, 12? but i digress...private property and all...

EDIT: A language filter? Really? What are we, 12? but i digress...private property and all...

I got a good chuckle out of this, considering your user name

I think a lot of the paladin conflicts come down to a question of Old Testament style versus New Testament style.

OT paladins are judge, jury, and executioner - and often times the emphasis is on the latter. Evil is there to be smited, no questions asked. Is it evil? If yes, then smite. The gods have given him the power to bring judgement to the world.

NT paladins are forgiving and merciful. They raise their sword to defend others, but they aren't the aggressors. It's sad when an enemy will not repent and has to be brought down. The gods have given him the power to bring mercy and protection to the world.

The OT paladin sees NT sparing foes and calls him evil - those enemies could easily escape and attack again. The NT paladins sees OT cutting down foes and calls him evil - he never even gave them a chance to surrender.

I consider paladins to be both. One is more LN while the other is more LG, but both are within the bounds of the rules regarding paladins. Which is more appropriate is scenario dependent.

Xpltvdeleted wrote:

EDIT: A language filter? Really? What are we, 12? but i digress...private property and all...

I got a good chuckle out of this, considering your user name

Yeah, it was a wow character name...I had to change that character's name 3 times before i gave up and went with this lol.

I like it so we have the OT paladins and the NT Paladins.

That being what I have said all along there is more than one way to play a paladin,

One being very different from the other and others that range in between the two extremes.

I do think that some paladin concepts appear more extreme on messageboards due to limited space.

Did not mean to offend anyone with source being common sense. I guess I meant RAW & core.

Source? because I've never thought or felt that way.

How about every Paizo AP so far? Deciding that the group X is evil and dangerous, and must be stopped with lethal force is seriously what the adventurers do all the time. It is their very job. And it means they are judges and jury (they condemn other creatures according to their personal judgement) and executioners (then they wipe them out).

This is also what they were supposed to do in this adventure and what they did. Therefore it is completely frikking baffling, that if PCs decide not to to reverse their decision just because some of the opponents, the opponents they came to stab right in their faces (with full approval of the author and the GM who decided to run this adventure, after all), were too chicken$hit for a real fight, then the moral laws of the setting suddenly condemn them as evil. Sorry, no, morals don't work like that. Either their decision to go and swordinate Bastards of Erebus was evil in the first place, or their killing of the tiefling pair was not evil.

Granted, that was not a good act either, for the reason I mentioned in my very first post in this thread.

NT paladins are forgiving and merciful. They raise their sword to defend others, but they aren't the aggressors. It's sad when an enemy will not repent and has to be brought down. The gods have given him the power to bring mercy and protection to the world.

I'm not a theologist, but the paladin's job seems irreconcilable with turning the other cheek.

I'm not a theologist, but the paladin's job seems irreconcilable with turning the other cheek.

The full context of that statement was in reference to the tradition of "an eye for an eye," in other words, that if someone has done something to you, you have the legal right to do the same to them as a punishment.

It has nothing to do with defending one's own life or the life of others that may come to harm. It just means that once the bad guy isn't a threat, you don't get to treat him the same way he treated others as a "just punishment."

once the bad guy isn't a threat

When does that happen ?

KnightErrantJR wrote:

once the bad guy isn't a threat

When does that happen ?

Hmmm... well, when they are naked, trying to surrender and begging for their lives. It's game over at that point. Either do evil (kill them) or hand them over to whatever local authorities there are. Wasn't that what this thread started out about? I tend to lose track after several hundred posts and various mutations of the topic :)

I don't know about Golarion, but in my homebrew there are, in many areas, legal authorities. City watch, Church types, local lord, the King's Sherrif, the village elders,... someone. Not saying they always do their job, are uncorruptible or perfect, but then that's life.

In the wilderness... well, hall their butts back to whatever passes for civilization. Nobody said being the good guy was easy or convenient :D

Hmmm... well, when they are naked, trying to surrender and begging for their lives. It's game over at that point. Either do evil (kill them) or hand them over to whatever local authorities there are. Wasn't that what this thread started out about? I tend to lose track after several hundred posts and various mutations of the topic :)

I don't know about Golarion, but in my homebrew there are, in many areas, legal authorities. City watch, Church types, local lord, the King's Sherrif, the village elders,... someone. Not saying they always do their job, are uncorruptible or perfect, but then that's life.

In the wilderness... well, hall their butts back to whatever passes for civilization. Nobody said being the good guy was easy or convenient :D

Nobody also said being the good guy mandated idiocy.

First of all, PCs, more often than not, are either cut off from any support by legal authorities (because that's sort of their job description) or are the legal authorities. Assuming PCs give a $hit and are settled in some area, the probability of the latter approaches 100% by two-digit levels in any setting that tries to make sense. Just for an example, my current highest-level (10th-11th) party legally answers only to the king of the country they live in (and de-facto to no one save gods).

And in the premise of this particular adventure, authorities are clearly stated to not be of any use.

Second, the idea that you can beg for your life and this will automatically turn killing you into an evil act is really stupid. People who advocate it basically say that even the vilest of the villains can, in essence, refuse to play with the heroes at any time and the heroes will be forced to obey his wish on the pain of being condemned as evil by the objective moral laws of the world. Sorry, no, offing surrendered foes is unquestionably evil only in the world where these foes can be effectively prevented from taking more lives and causing other harm without dealing with them on the spot. Which is certainly not the case in DnD. Yes, taking heroes out of action for days, if not weeks, required to haul prisoners to authorities, is causing further harm, and putting lives at risk, as heroic PCs tend to be on pretty critical quests. That's assuming prisons don't have revolving doors, and in DnD they have.

Finally, who the heck spares villains, who already tried to attack and flee after surrendering. Faking a surrender, like tieflings in question did, is a war crime in RL, and the reason enough even for goody-two-shoes action heroes to dispatch the villain in fiction.

Nobody also said being the good guy mandated idiocy.

So having a respect for life, devotion to the welfare of others and a consideration for the dignity of all is being an "idiot"?

First of all, PCs, more often than not, are either cut off from any support by legal authorities (because that's sort of their job description) or are the legal authorities. Assuming PCs give a $hit and are settled in some area, the probability of the latter approaches 100% by two-digit levels in any setting that tries to make sense. Just for an example, my current highest-level (10th-11th) party legally answers only to the king of the country they live in (and de-facto to no one save gods).

And in the premise of this particular adventure, authorities are clearly stated to not be of any use.

So? Authority or not, good people (by the rules) would rather not kill people, guilty prisoner or otherwise.

Second, the idea that you can beg for your life and this will automatically turn killing you into an evil act is really stupid.

Stupid or not, thems the rules! Now, doing evil acts does not mean you necessarily have an evil alignment.

People who advocate it basically say that even the vilest of the villains can, in essence, refuse to play with the heroes at any time and the heroes will be forced to obey his wish on the pain of being condemned as evil by the objective moral laws of the world.

So what if the heroes are evil? It really only matters to one class, the paladin. As long as you aren't playing a paladin, who cares what your alignment is.

Sorry, no, offing surrendered foes is unquestionably evil only in the world where these foes can be effectively prevented from taking more lives and causing other harm without dealing with...

Well, every single campaign I've run, it is evil, since every campaign I've run you can effectively imprison anyone. There's always a bigger fish ;) If you choose to make good people in your campaign have no other choice than to murder people, that's your perogative. If you then choose to say it's not an evil act despite what the rules say, well it is your game and you can house rule however you like.

lastknightleft wrote:

Source? because I've never thought or felt that way.

How about every Paizo AP so far? Deciding that the group X is evil and dangerous, and must be stopped with lethal force is seriously what the adventurers do all the time. It is their very job. And it means they are judges and jury (they condemn other creatures according to their personal judgement) and executioners (then they wipe them out).

This is also what they were supposed to do in this adventure and what they did. Therefore it is completely frikking baffling, that if PCs decide not to to reverse their decision just because some of the opponents, the opponents they came to stab right in their faces (with full approval of the author and the GM who decided to run this adventure, after all), were too chicken$hit for a real fight, then the moral laws of the setting suddenly condemn them as evil. Sorry, no, morals don't work like that. Either their decision to go and swordinate Bastards of Erebus was evil in the first place, or their killing of the tiefling pair was not evil.

Granted, that was not a good act either, for the reason I mentioned in my very first post in this thread.

Really, because I'm running a paizo AP right now so lets look at it maybe you've heard of it, it's called rise of the runelords, it goes from being self defense and saving people being attacked, to being asked to protect the town by the sheriff while he goes out of town, in other words the local authority gives them powers to make decisions. And no, they aren't expected to be judge jury and excecutioner, at least no-where I can see in the AP. They are sent to investigate, now if combat breaks out, and the party defends itself, that's one thing. But no-where does it say, the party is supposed to ignore or circumvent all forms of law. In my game Ripnugget was able to be captured and brought to town to face judgement where he was put on trial and hung. In that case since the sheriff was with them when they caught ripnugget if they had acted as judge, jury, or executioner. I would have had them face some serious reprocutions. In the second book, once again they are asked to investigate and given the authority to deal with matters, in the third AP, once again they are given authority. They aren't acting outside the bounds of law. They are given authority by the law. Now am I saying there is never an AP or a situation where the PCs have to act as if the local authorities can't deal with situations, or have to act as the law in a lawless land. No, But I do not think the default assumption is in every game the PCs are judge, jury, and executioners who can't trust the local authorities to deal with things. I think your character history, your in game experiences, and what you know of the setting are what makes you determine if you feel your characters act as judge, jury, and executioner. I've had character who very much act as such before, but I've also had characters who only ever dealt non-lethal damage, and always captured enemies and turned them over to the proper authorities.

or hand them over to whatever local authorities there are.

Isn't that equivalent to killing them in most cases ? I guess some of those authorities might organize a trial, but the legal systems of a medieval-like setting are only exceptionally oriented towards rehabilitation. I mean, handing them over to the local authorities is the lawful way, not the good one.

I am curious about CNH the method that can "effectively imprison anyone" thus eliminating the need to ever set as a judge and render justice.

That sounds like a great resource. What is it and who can get one?

R_Chance wrote:

or hand them over to whatever local authorities there are.

Isn't that equivalent to killing them in most cases ? I guess some of those authorities might organize a trial, but the legal systems of a medieval-like setting are only exceptionally oriented towards rehabilitation. I mean, handing them over to the local authorities is the lawful way, not the good one.

At least if we follow a new testament version of what's good. Because definitely, beating someone into submission for a formal (and probably final) punishment at the hands of the authorities, isn't the meaning of turning the other cheek.

I think, if New Testament teachings are the definition of good (a proposition I find laughable, but *shrug*), then Paul telling a slave that they should return to the slave master gives some support that handing over someone to a lawful authority even when doing so is harmful to that someone is the "good" thing to do.

Isn't that equivalent to killing them in most cases ?

Depends if the local society is good, neutral, or evil, doesn't it? Moreover, perhaps you will not hand them over depending on your alignment. There is no single absolute answer.

I guess some of those authorities might organize a trial, but the legal systems of a medieval-like setting are only exceptionally oriented towards rehabilitation.

Just because many settings are based off medieval era technology does not mean their legal system is. If a society is defined as good then the death penalty should not be legal.

I mean, handing them over to the local authorities is the lawful way, not the good one.

Agree completely.

At least if we follow a new testament version of what's good. Because definitely, beating someone into submission for a formal (and probably final) punishment at the hands of the authorities, isn't the meaning of turning the other cheek.

I recommend we follow the game rule definition of good. That way we are all on the same page.

I am curious about CNH the method that can "effectively imprison anyone" thus eliminating the need to ever set as a judge and render justice.

That sounds like a great resource. What is it and who can get one?

You already have it. It's call the SRD. Everything has a counter, or the rules to create one. A lack of intelligence or creativity does not justify murder. But like I said, if you want to play an avenger that executes people, go for it. Just know, by the rules, that is not a good act.

Great a non-answer that says figure it out. Everything has a counter.
You have unlimited resources...

Sorry my VOP paladin does not own much and begs for beer, so pretty much leave out having a "paddy wagon" with shackles/cages/crates...

I wanted to have the example or some examples...

I have never seen such incompetent BBEG that they can not figure out a way to escape...

Not murder. execution and yes it is a good act, as we have already discussed ad naesuem.

You are useing the definition from the SRD and so am I,

I have already stated that respect for life/dignity and the full quotes do not preclude execution.

I have trouble figuring out how you are saying that it says something it does not say, and acussing me of homebrew when obviously you are doing the homebrew.

Great a non-answer that says figure it out. Everything has a counter.

You have unlimited resources...

You asked a question you already knew the answer to. What did you expect? You KNOW there is no magical bean, why did you ask and expect a different answer? You were merely being a smartass and got a smartass answer.

Sorry my VOP paladin does not own much and begs for beer, so pretty much leave out having a "paddy wagon" with shackles/cages/crates...

I've never player with VOP, so I don't know the specifics. Feel free to quote the relevant rules if you want to discuss non-open content. However, I believe that would be a violation of copyright law.

I wanted to have the example or some examples...

Give me an example and I'll give you the answer since you are unable to figure it out. OPG only please.

I have never seen such incompetent BBEG that they can not figure out a way to escape...

Or perhaps you've never been competent enough to secure them.

Not murder. execution and yes it is a good act, as we have already discussed ad naesuem.

Execution is not a good act, by the rules. You can house rule however you want, that's your perogative.

You are useing the definition from the SRD and so am I,

I have already stated that respect for life/dignity and the full quotes do not preclude execution.

Alignment does not preclude. It is merely a generalization of your actions within the scopes defined by the rules.

I have trouble figuring out how you are saying that it says something it does not say, and acussing me of homebrew when obviously you are doing the homebrew.

Perhaps you should express yourself more clearly. Babbling about what something does or does not say without given specifics it pointless.

I guess that is the essence of the argument.

I say execution can be a good act (depending upon circumstances).

And you "seem" to be saying that it is impossible for execution to be a good act.

Since neither position is stated in the SRD I guess neither one of us can be correct.

I say execution can be a good act (depending upon circumstances).

Like I said you can use any houserules you like.

And you "seem" to be saying that it is impossible for execution to be a good act.

I'm not saying anything. I'm just following the rules on alignment.

Since neither position is stated in the SRD I guess neither one of us can be correct.

Except, it is stated.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

execute: to put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence

If you do not understand that putting something to death is not respecting life, and therefore by the rules not a good act, then we are at an impasse and will have to just agree to disagree.

If you do not understand that putting something to death is not respecting life, and therefore by the rules not a good act, then we are at an impasse and will have to just agree to disagree.

So, what's your stance on euthanasia? Not sure it's directly relevant to the current discussion, I'm just curious giving the above post.

So, what's your stance on euthanasia? Not sure it's directly relevant to the current discussion, I'm just curious giving the above post.

It doesn't matter what my stance on euthanasia is. We are not discussing my personal morals or ethics.

Deviating from the rules is how such threads explode into a flame war.

I am following the same rules. I am not houseruling anything.

There is no reason for you to stick with the stance that you are right and following SRD and I am houseruling.

I will try one more time.

I agree that putting a living creature to death is not respectful.

The respect for life part comes into providing a trial in following a process, it is through that process that the life is respected....
A trial rather than a lynching, an offer at redemption that is respecting life....

Of determining if execution is even the right solution for said offences......like not letting them hang horse thieves!

LilithsThrall wrote:

So, what's your stance on euthanasia? Not sure it's directly relevant to the current discussion, I'm just curious giving the above post.

It doesn't matter what my stance on euthanasia is. We are not discussing my personal morals or ethics.

Deviating from the rules is how such threads explode into a flame war.

Then let me put it this way.

It is manifestly not true (using euthania as an example) that respect for life is incompatible with putting someone to death.

I am following the same rules. I am not houseruling anything.

There is no reason for you to stick with the stance that you are right and following SRD and I am houseruling.

I will try one more time.

I agree that putting a living creature to death is not respectful.

The respect for life part comes into providing a trial in following a process, it is through that process that the life is respected....
A trial rather than a lynching, an offer at redemption that is respecting life....

Of determining if execution is even the right solution for said offences......like not letting them hang horse thieves!

So you agree that the character in the OP should have followed proper process rather than mercilessly cutting down someone who had surrendered and was pleading for her life, while knowingly putting herself in mortal danger to non-violently protect someone else?

I am following the same rules. I am not houseruling anything. There is no reason for you to stick with the stance that you are right and following SRD and I am houseruling.

If you say so. The english language would disagree.

I agree that putting a living creature to death is not respectful.

So if respecting life by definition is good, and putting to death is not respectful (by your own statement above), then how is exectuing someone good?

The respect for life part comes into providing a trial in following a process, it is through that process that the life is respected....

A trial rather than a lynching, an offer at redemption that is respecting life....

You are confusing lawful with good. They are defined differently by the rules and are not mutually inclusive.

Of determining if execution is even the right solution for said offences......like not letting them hang horse thieves!

This statement is a fragment of thought and I do not understand what logical point you are trying to make with it. Instead of assuming, please clarify. Thanks.

It is manifestly not true (using euthania as an example) that respect for life is incompatible with putting someone to death.

If you would like to expand the discussion beyond the rules, so be it.

DISCLAIMER: I am not talking about the rules of the game, these are my own personal thoughts. Please do not use any game material since it is irrelavant in this discussion. Hoepfully that suffices.

As background. I have an MD and PhD in biomedical research which involved extensive animal studies. I have taken numerous classes on animal rights and medical ethics.

Your statement depends on your own personal definition of "life". Even more so, it depends on your definition of sentient/sapient life.
Therefore your statement is false.

LilithsThrall wrote:

It is manifestly not true (using euthania as an example) that respect for life is incompatible with putting someone to death.

If you would like to expand the discussion beyond the rules, so be it.

DISCLAIMER: I am not talking about the rules of the game, these are my own personal thoughts. Please do not use any game material since it is irrelavant in this discussion. Hoepfully that suffices.

As background. I have an MD and PhD in biomedical research which involved extensive animal studies. I have taken numerous classes on animal rights and medical ethics.

Your statement depends on your own personal definition of "life". Even more so, it depends on your definition of sentient/sapient life.
Therefore your statement is false.

This has everything to do with the rules. You assert that where the rules state "respect for life", it prohibits putting someone to death.

I assert that that is a very baseless stance to take and I point to euthanasia as an example.

This is every bit about what the rules state and about what you are reading into them.

calvinNhobbes wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

It is manifestly not true (using euthania as an example) that respect for life is incompatible with putting someone to death.

If you would like to expand the discussion beyond the rules, so be it.

DISCLAIMER: I am not talking about the rules of the game, these are my own personal thoughts. Please do not use any game material since it is irrelavant in this discussion. Hoepfully that suffices.

As background. I have an MD and PhD in biomedical research which involved extensive animal studies. I have taken numerous classes on animal rights and medical ethics.

Your statement depends on your own personal definition of "life". Even more so, it depends on your definition of sentient/sapient life.
Therefore your statement is false.

This has everything to do with the rules. You assert that where the rules state "respect for life", it prohibits putting someone to death.

I assert that that is a very baseless stance to take and I point to euthanasia as an example.

This is every bit about what the rules state and about what you are reading into them.

...

...so, your argument, in this case, is that euthanasia is in the exact same place on the moral "sliding scale" as someone who is unarmed, helpless, and is begging for their life and their loved one's to be spared?
Really?

Otherwise, please expand on your argument...

Guys, don't feed the troll!

...so, your argument, in this case, is that euthanasia is in the exact same place on the moral "sliding scale" as someone who is unarmed, helpless, and is begging for their life and their loved one's to be spared?
Really?

Otherwise, please expand on your argument...

My assertion is simply that respecting life is not incompatible with putting someone to death.

To expand on that, if I know that I can prevent a bombing by killing someone, is it good to do so? The argument can certainly be made that it is.

You are talking about someone being unarmed and begging for their life and that of their loved one. The question I'd like to ask is, especially in a world where magic exists, is that sufficient to ensure that they are helpless?

This has everything to do with the rules. You assert that where the rules state "respect for life", it prohibits putting someone to death.

I never said respect for life "prohibits" anything. Once again, alignment does not restrict action.

I assert that that is a very baseless stance to take and I point to euthanasia as an example.

As an example of what? Respecting life? As I said, it depends on one's definition of life. In the modern world, there is not simply life and death. Medicine can keep different parts of a body alive while other parts are dead. Is the person alive or dead? Science and medicine have drawn a line at where this is, but not everyone agrees.

You asking me to extrapolate a modern phenomen to the game is outside the scope of the rules. Otherwise, please let me know the next time you have the BBEG with cortical brain death but an intact brain stem on a respirator in your high fantasy RPG session.

This is every bit about what the rules state and about what you are reading into them.

And what exactly am I reading into them?

I had a group turn the BBEG into a tortoise. They were very cruel to him, too. Occasionally they would take him out of the bag they were carrying him in and "let him go free" only to pick him up 10 minutes later when he had "run" about 5 feet. =P

Yes, there are ways to secure BBEG's, even without magic. They aren't foolproof, but then what is?

My assertion is simply that respecting life is not incompatible with putting someone to death.

You can have any personal views you want. Like I said, once we open up personal views it becomes a flame war.

I once again, I don't really care what houserules you use.

To expand on that, if I know that I can prevent a bombing by killing someone, is it good to do so? The argument can certainly be made that it is.

Are you talking about a bomb in the game? Or a bomb in real life?

You are talking about someone being unarmed and begging for their life and that of their loved one. The question I'd like to ask is, especially in a world where magic exists, is that sufficient to ensure that they are helpless?

No, but knocking them out is. The non-lethal damage rule exists for a reason. As far as I know, no rule exists that allows spells to be cast while unconscious.

In the modern world, there is not simply life and death. Medicine can keep different parts of a body alive while other parts are dead. Is the person alive or dead? Science and medicine have drawn a line at where this is, but not everyone agrees.

And I didn't ever say that I was restricting my comments to those cases where it is difficult to determine whether a person is alive or dead. So, it should be obvious that I'm including cases where people are known to be alive, but would be better off dead - such as some incidences of cancer, or some incidences of burn victims.

And I didn't ever say that I was restricting my comments to those cases where it is difficult to determine whether a person is alive or dead. So, it should be obvious that I'm including cases where people are known to be alive, but would be better off dead - such as some incidences of cancer, or some incidences of burn victims.

So you have rules for cancer and burn victims in your campaigns?

Like I said, I have no deisre to bring personal views into this, but you insisted. Since you obvisouly are getting upset by it, I suggest we simply return to the game world and the rules of the game. Thanks.

You can have any personal views you want. Like I said, once we open up personal views it becomes a flame war.

My point is that that is exactly what you are doing - putting your personal view of "respect for life" on the question of "what is good?" If you can see that your entire argument is based on your personal views, then there is no issue here.

Are you talking about a bomb in the game? Or a bomb in real life?

For the sake of the argument, a bomb in the game.

No, but knocking them out is. The non-lethal damage rule exists for a reason. As far as I know, no rule exists that allows spells to be cast while unconscious.

You, as a PC, don't know how many hit points they have, so you don't know when they are knocked out and when they are just pretending to be.

LilithsThrall wrote:

And I didn't ever say that I was restricting my comments to those cases where it is difficult to determine whether a person is alive or dead. So, it should be obvious that I'm including cases where people are known to be alive, but would be better off dead - such as some incidences of cancer, or some incidences of burn victims.

So you have rules for cancer and burn victims in your campaigns?

My post was in direct reply to a post you made which began, "In the modern world..".

Like I said, I have no deisre to bring personal views into this,

Yet, that is exactly what you are doing.

I had a group turn the BBEG into a tortoise. They were very cruel to him, too. Occasionally they would take him out of the bag they were carrying him in and "let him go free" only to pick him up 10 minutes later when he had "run" about 5 feet. =P

Yes, there are ways to secure BBEG's, even without magic. They aren't foolproof, but then what is?

You don't actually know much about tortoises do you? trust me a tortoise Running for 10 minutes would be no-where near 5 feet away. A tortoise that is actually running and not hiding in it's shell is actually a fast little bugger, easily covering 5ft as a move action. giving him 10ft a round or 40ft as a full run, 10 rounds in a minute gives him 100ft (400ft full run), and 10 minutes gives him 1000ft (4000ft full run) Unless you're PCs were obsessively watching him/ in a large empty parking lot, that tortoise is gone. [/threadjack]

My point is that that is exactly what you are doing - putting your personal view of "respect for life" on the question of "what is good?"

How do you figure?

Respect: high or special regard

Life: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body

Is there some other definition you are using?

If you can see that your entire argument is based on your personal views, then there is no issue here.

It is not. That is why I did not want to answer your question. You obviously have no leg to stand on within the rules themselves, and have resulted to attacks on my own personal beliefs which are irrelevant.

For the sake of the argument, a bomb in the game.

As far as I know, the game does not have bombs, so this is an irrelant discussion.

You, as a PC, don't know how many hit points they have, so you don't know when they are knocked out and when they are just pretending to be.

Well, that is actually not true. For you own education, look up the Glasgow Coma Scale. If your DM wants to lie and deceive, he can, but he can do that whether you are doing lethal or non-lethal damage so the point is moot.

My post was in direct reply to a post you made which began, "In the modern world..".

So? The modern world is not relevant to the discussion.

Yet, that is exactly what you are doing.

No, that is exactly what YOU are doing!

I want to remind you all that killing someone, in most DnD settings, is in no way a definite solution to the temporary problem he poses.
A BBEG that doesn't come back to life or undeath isn't really a BBEG.

And aside from this, does anyone else see a contradiction between "Good implies respect for life" and "good characters make personal sacrifices" ?

I like how you put the definition for life, but not the definition for respect.

Uh, yes I did, it's right there.

Harvesting crops is not respecting life, therefore farmers are not good. Discuss.

Life:the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body

I find it curious that a person with an MD is going to an online dictionary to get the definition of a word like 'life'.

As far as I know, the game does not have bombs, so this is an irrelant discussion.

You've not read the Alchemist class, for one example.

For you own education, look up the Glasgow Coma Scale.

You've got to figure out if you want to restrict this discussion to game rules (like you claim) or you want to include things like the Glasgow Coma Scale (which isn't part of the rules). I am familiar with Thanatology.