So last night in my homebrew game my PC's encountered a town full of werewolves. long story short only half the town attacked them while the other half has asleep in there beds. The Rogue decided that since all the other townspeople have attacked them (in human form) that killing them while they are asleep is perfectly fine and not evil at all. My question is, is killing people that MIGHT attack you while they are asleep and helpless evil?
My general rule of thumb is that if you have to ask, it probably is. If you feel the need to justify your actions, it is probably not inherently a good act.
That being said, you do need to defend yourself and sometimes a preemptive strike is the best option. Sometimes pragmatism looks like evil. Sometimes it looks like good. The good news is that you're the GM and you get to decide.
Does the rogue have any evidence that these sleeping dogs are running around and hurting people while they're awake?
'Cause otherwise that sounds like a pretty evil act.
How did he kill them? Or how was he going to kill them?
Wow. Evil. You cannot just indiscriminately kill
1) all innocent civilians of group x just because some of group x attacked you.
2) especially people who did so under a curse
he didnt get a chance to kill them as i told him that it would be an evil act to do so (though i told him if he wants to he can, i have no problems with it). he was going tostab them, cut their throat, that kinda thing while they were still asleep. Anyways, The village they were in was pretty much warded to keep all werewolves/tigers inside of it. so there was no chance of them escaping to the PC's knowledge.
Evil, by a lot.
I would say evil. The evil alignment is described to be that which destroys life either by whim or out of hatred. Good is described as respecting life. Neutral, in the good/evil axis, is described has favoring neither. However, a neutral character can see the value is generally respecting life since it's better to live in a society where they won't be randomly murdered but still makes no concerted efforts to support either view.
Yep. Evil.
The rogue could've been trying to cut corners, but I would consider intent and information available.
If people are continously waking up and attacking the PCs in human form, I would certainly consider the act of neutralizing potential attacks to be a survival instinct rather than a malicious one. Some players will approach the scenario zombie-apocalypse style and that cultural factor should be taken into account.
I've run characters through similar quests and some GMs/DMs would shift a PC's alignment towards neutral if they didn't try to subdue the cursed townfolk first. Paladins fell and clerics got fussy.
I think this is one of those troubling situations.
Does the party have knowledge about lycanthropy?
In PF werewolves are treated as almost always CE so there should be knowledge that in rare circumstances some are not complete monsters. This alone should prove cautionary.
Are these afflicted or true lycantrhopes? Does the party know?
If your DM is following different lore on lycanthropes it might be different. For instance in the recent Red Riding Hood movie the wolves were by in large viewed completely evil, to the point that holy ground burned them if they set foot on it.
I think that there are differences in evil races from time to time.
For instance Drow are by in large evil but capable of being good and fighting and resisting the nature of their society. Demons (in my view) are within out such a capability their natures are wholly evil. Killing a drow in his sleep (without cause or proper sanction or reason) would be different than offing a demon in a helpless state.
So the real question here is are these werewolves beings completely incapable of anything other than evil. If lycanthropy in your GM's world is such that the innocent people are lost already to the darkness of their curse and nothing can reverse it then I could see the rogues actions condoned even encouraged by good. If they are curse struggling with the condition, already imprisoned then this drastically changes things in this case only in defense of innocent lives should they be slain and goodness might require every effort made to reverse the curse they are under.
Its reactive. I'd say a neutral character could justify it based on his roleplay thus far, but they would have to justify it. A good character would be a solid resounding no.
Im the gm in the game. The party didnt know anything about werewolves, and the townsfolk were going to let them leave but one of the pcs kinda found out there secert nor wheb they were surronded did the barb put away her weapon as asked. One of the townsmen whispered to their leader that they should attack the pcs. Before the converation was even done or decided the wizard cast a spell which then the people rushed them
NO NO NO NO YOU DON'T TELL THE PLAYERS WHAT TO DO. WRONG.
You dont read post do you rob? i said i didnt care if he did it, just that it was evil to do so. Dont commet if you dont read everything
Wrong, you explictly stated that you would push his character into an alignment that would be frowned upon and didn't let him act the way he originally wanted to. "he didnt get a chance to kill them as i told him that it would be an evil act to do so (though i told him if he wants to he can, i have no problems with it)." You're sending mixed messages that effected his choices. You'v corrupted his character with metagaming alignment politics.
Wrong, you're extrapolating data and determining what the dms future actions would be based off of an indeterminate statement. Warning a character that the action they are going to take would be in violation of their alignment or against their chosen god is a courtesy that some gms would not give.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wrong, you're extrapolating data and determining what the dms future actions would be based off of an indeterminate statement. Warning a character that the action they are going to take would be in violation of their alignment or against their chosen god is a courtesy that some gms would not give.
And should NOT give according to the RAW. Otherwise, what's the point of having a phylactery of faithfulness at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually do not give warnings but my group can have a skewd perception on "evil" and no i wouldnt have changed his ailnment or anything if he did it, but this being within the first 5 sessions i wanted to set a baseline for what I AS A DM consider evil
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner.
From the alignment section if its against his alignment you as the GM should let him know so yes it is raw.
How od. Rules contradiction.
Why ever use a phylactery of faithfulness then?
It helps with non alignment issues that might affect your standing with you diety such as dealings with dead bodies and such.
I agree they probably shouldn't give them a warning unless they've got one or the appropriate gear. If they want a heads up I agree generally they should have to pay for it, but to each dm his own.
"And it's so easy when you're evil, this is the life you see, the Devil tips his hat to me".
but yeah, they haven't wronged him, and he doesn't know FOR SURE if they will, so i'm going to say Evil +1.
Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
+2
|
And should NOT give according to the RAW. Otherwise, what's the point of having a phylactery of faithfulness at all?
I imagine a player should be able to say that his character realises that he is about to commit an act that is not normally within his usual beliefs or behaviour. Like a NE rogue who decides to give candy to babies and save people without any personal benefit out of altruistic concern for the well-being of others.
However, the NE cleric might know he is going to act outside his usual beliefs or behaviour, but wants to double check that his deity is okay with the decision. He does not want to fall to out of favour (beyond one step of his deity's preferred alignment) so he uses a phylactery of faithfulness to do so:
The wearer of a phylactery of faithfulness is aware of any action or item that could adversely affect his alignment and his standing with his deity, including magical effects.
This takes the guess work out of it and gives a more useful clue before violating your character's alignment. That is my take on it anyway.
It depends on the alignment of the werewolves. If they are evil, it is perfectly fine to kill them, because it is preventative self-defense. If they are not evil, well, then yes, it's evil to kill the ones that did not attack you.
Did you read the rest of the thread at all Atarlost? It says the reason they attacked and that the Pcs threw the first punch. These townsfolk were N, they were recently turned by something i wont get into, but no they were not CE and the PC's were in there town.
The awake towns people attacked because they were more or less attacked themselves and no one got away. The towns first reaction to the party wasn't to attack wholesale without giving them a chance. Unless the sleeping people awoke, saw what was going on and decided to just go back to sleep there wasn't much reason for the sleeping people to attack them right away
What elder horrors have brought TOZ out from his aliases and back witha full name?
You'll find the answer to that question cleverly hidden, granted some of it is misspelled but not altogether hard to discern, on this page.
You'll find the answer to that question cleverly hidden, granted some of it is misspelled but not altogether hard to discern, on this page.
If you're referring to myself with the misspellings I'm sorry if that made my post harder to understand, I was on a phone at the time and am not the best with touchscreens
Nah you're cool dude at least on my end. I understood you. It can be a difficult question depending on the group. Some characters would feel justified in lumping the whole village in with the part, but at the same time cutting throats left and right while people are sleeping is sliding into questionable territory.
ok, i've gotta ask. if slitting their throats while they sleep is evil, even after they've proven themselves to be violent enemies who will attack you and try to kill you, does that make it evil to kill them when they're awake? we aren't talking about a good/holy act by any means,i admit that freely, but why is it evil?
would it still be evil if they were goblins/orcs/half-fiends?
what if the wizard were to wake them all with a bell or something then fireball them indiscriminantly as they came out of their houses, would that be evil?
it's not that cut and dried. you could argue all killing is evil, reguardless of the circumstances.
you could argue that killing in self defence isn't evil, but all other killing is.
You could argue that killing those that are a threat to you, your friends and your family isn't evil, but all other killing is.
you could even say that killing isn't in and of itself evil, only the intent behind it can make it so.
adventurers tend to assume the last one. even paladins (who will kill people they don't know for other people they don't know but who claim to share the same belief system.)
Only part of the village was in conflict with the group. Could you justify killing everyone in the village while they slept because a few members of the village fought with your party as not an evil action? In my book sure as long as you have a very very very good reason
Edit:more verys
Who proved what now? I thought we were talking about killing the half of the town that DIDN'T try to murder the party?
my bad, i misunderstood the OP.
I'd say evil, since it's localized genocide, non-combatants and all.
Not like the party has to stay there.
Not like doing evil stuff is really a game breaking thing.