Alignment discussion. Is this an evil act?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Xaratherus wrote:

Well, but it's not, even for Clerics - that's my point.

As a vengeance god, Ragathiel would have few moral qualms about 'eye for an eye' justice, but by the overall alignment guide (which is the only thing important) meting out such punishment would frequently be considered evil.

Eventually, following your god's purpose, you'd wind up shifting your alignment, and whether your god likes it or not, the rules require at that point that you lose your powers.

Oh! I misread that. Anyways, yes! Ideally your god's ethics should be all about his alignment. Vengeance is probably a weird lawful good to people.

Of course my opinion is ditch alignment that way you don't have a mess like this. I prefer to say "Hey, no child killing or torturing in my game please." rather than "No evil! Evil people are jerks." Evil is subjective and people get iffy about decisions, but if just say I don't want these particular acts in my game I don't have players attacking each other's decisions or making decisions based on alignment.

In the long run does the inquisitor torturing people hurt the game? That's probably something to ask the GM.

Shadow Lodge

Xaratherus wrote:

Well, but it's not, even for Clerics - that's my point.

As a vengeance god, Ragathiel would have few moral qualms about 'eye for an eye' justice, but by the overall alignment guide (which is the only thing important) meting out such punishment would frequently be considered evil.

Eventually, following your god's purpose, you'd wind up shifting your alignment, and whether your god likes it or not, the rules require at that point that you lose your powers.

But what you're describing is a flaw with the fiction surrounding the god, and not a flaw in the system itself. It doesn't require new rules to fix it, only more world-consistent fiction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am currently a GM for a NG inquisitor. What he did when faced with bandits was to require them to divulge information about their leader, extract a promise to halt all future banditry, and branded them as a bandit with a mark on their forehead. It was either that or death. If he didn't like their answer he would kill them. They don't get to decide if their own answer is good enough. He is the judge, jury and executioner.

He ended up killing one that refused to cooperate and branding four, one of which took an offered position as a porter as a way out of banditry. The inquisitor fully expects the others to go back to banditry, but if he catches them again there will be no discussion, just the sword.

So in your situation I think that the torture was evil, but just warning level evil. Don't do it again. The punishment for the cleric was light. She didn't keep her side of the bargain. She told you all about herself and nothing about her boss. You should have just killed her. Killing an evil being is a good act. It's brutal, but good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is one of those things that the game needs to get rid of.

That having been said, in a game where there are white hats and black hats (in the most Dudely Doright/Snidely Whiplash sense) is breaking somebody's leg because they said something bad about your god a 'good' act? No, it's pretty evil.


Daristal wrote:
We have, and have come to an agreement. There isn't really any animosity over the issue. I went back and read his version of what happened, and he certainly painted the situation in a much different light than I. Interestingly enough, his description sounds like he was talking about something else entirely. We have no issues out of play about all this.

Glad to hear it. I love to hear when reasonable people are reasonable. :)

Liberty's Edge

Breaking the leg of a woman who engages in banditry against innocent travelers and stealing their hard-earned money? I do not believe that is an evil act. Your character would have been perfectly justified in hanging her for being a bandit and a common thief. How many families have gone hungry as a result of her stealing from their breadwinners? Remember, this is a high medieval fantasy world, and few countries have a real social safety net (especially not countries like Taldor) outside of alms-giving churches. Thus, most commoners are often just a few steps from beggary and starvation. That is often why bandits and thieves were so brutally punished.

It is not a good act, mind you, but I would not consider it an evil act. Remember that Neutral Good is kind of like utilitarian philosophy: The greatest good for the greatest number of people. Turning someone away from banditry and preying on the populace with a bit of horrible physical discomfort is perfectly justified. It sounds like it wasn't possible for you to turn her into the local authorities (perhaps you were too far away?). She stated that she would continue to waylay travelers if she felt like it. If anything, as others have said, it sounds like you went too easy on her. You probably should have either sentenced her to death the moment she admitted she was going to continue to steal, or otherwise taken her to the closest settlement and turn her into the local sheriff.

Torture of prisoners on the other hand? Yes, that is evil. And you can couch it in all the things you wish to say in order to exempt it from being an evil act. "The people we were torturing were evil and trying to kill us!" Doesn't matter. Some acts, according to the game, are objectively evil no matter who you commit them against. You can house rule it, but otherwise, your character did wrong and must atone for it. As I read him, Ragathiel is about righteous vengeance, i.e. retribution. I think your Empyreal Lord would have been perfectly fine with you executing the people who attacked you, but is not about causing suffering for the sake of expediency. He is harsh, but he is not cruel.

And as an aside, when have torturers ever considered themselves evil people or the people they were torturing innocent? People have come up with countless justifications in order to rationalize their use of torture: The people I am torturing are traitors/criminals/terrorists, etc. They have it coming. Anyone can come up with a perfectly reasonable-sounding explanation to try and excuse the most horrendous atrocities. It is the Neutral Good person's ability to refrain from such expediency and rationalizations that makes them a truly good person.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post and the replies quoting it. Please revisit the messageboard rules.


mcbobbo wrote:
But what you're describing is a flaw with the fiction surrounding the god, and not a flaw in the system itself. It doesn't require new rules to fix it, only more world-consistent fiction.

How so? I'm not certain how you could take a god of vengeance and 'eye for an eye justice' and retain any of its purpose and flavor while rewriting it to adhere to a system of ethics and rules that are contradictory to its purpose.


Xaratherus wrote:
mcbobbo wrote:
But what you're describing is a flaw with the fiction surrounding the god, and not a flaw in the system itself. It doesn't require new rules to fix it, only more world-consistent fiction.
How so? I'm not certain how you could take a god of vengeance and 'eye for an eye justice' and retain any of its purpose and flavor while rewriting it to adhere to a system of ethics and rules that are contradictory to its purpose.

But you can still follow Ragathiel and be within the alignment spectrum he permits. You just have to NOT be the Punisher. :P

You have to mete out righteous vengeance, AND be a nice guy. Remember its not just the bad things you do that affect your alignment. Every time a follower of Ragathiel displays altruistic behavior, self sacrifice and is generally being a polite and nice guy, his alignment is moved towards good or good/neutral. Its only when he has to cut the tongue from his prisoners (or whatever vengeance is fitting in the case) that he commits evil acts with few if any redeeming factors (in the eyes of the alignment system), and 1 or 2 or 30 so acts do not change your alignment, alone. Especially not if you temper them with other actions. As I said, being the Punisher will turn you evil quickly, and Ragathiel will have none of you. But be a good guy, represent his chivalrous and noble ideals, and don't be an ass for the most part, and you'll be in the clear, even when you have to commit arson or mass murder in the name of justice.

-Nearyn


Ragathiel also gives you the right to rage and remain lawful! That's a thing.


"even when you have to commit arson or mass murder in the name of justice."

Are we seriously having a discussion in which it is being argued that a person can commit arson and mass murder 1 to 30 times and be a good guy?
wtf!

No wonder people used to argue that DnD was a game played by devil worshipers.


Nearyn wrote:
But you can still follow Ragathiel and be within the alignment spectrum he permits. You just have to NOT be the Punisher. :P

But that's what I'm saying: What Ragathiel does or does not permit is irrelevant. The morality of your actions is not based on Ragathiel's code, but on a centralized code of alignment.

Shadow Lodge

Xaratherus wrote:
But that's what I'm saying: What Ragathiel does or does not permit is irrelevant. The morality of your actions is not based on Ragathiel's code, but on a centralized code of alignment.

Because the entire world falls within that centralized code, so should the gods. When they don't, it means their fiction doesn't match the world. It's like fire being wet. It is obviously possible within the realm of imagination, just not in the ruleset we are all assumed to use.

Easiest fixes are along the lines of:

Change that god's alignment
Re-flavor 'vengeance' to 'justice'
Etc


mcbobbo wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
But that's what I'm saying: What Ragathiel does or does not permit is irrelevant. The morality of your actions is not based on Ragathiel's code, but on a centralized code of alignment.

Because the entire world falls within that centralized code, so should the gods. When they don't, it means their fiction doesn't match the world. It's like fire being wet. It is obviously possible within the realm of imagination, just not in the ruleset we are all assumed to use.

Easiest fixes are along the lines of:

Change that god's alignment
Re-flavor 'vengeance' to 'justice'
Etc

No. They are gods. The mortals just have to live up to an impossibly arbitrary standard that their creators and superiors have no intention of following. And if the mortals complain? Then the Gods will make more Inquisitors break more people's legs while falling out of Alignment. It's really quite beautiful.


Good PCs should abide by higher moral codes than any church or god. That's part of where the dramatic conflict comes from.


mcbobbo wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
But that's what I'm saying: What Ragathiel does or does not permit is irrelevant. The morality of your actions is not based on Ragathiel's code, but on a centralized code of alignment.

Because the entire world falls within that centralized code, so should the gods. When they don't, it means their fiction doesn't match the world. It's like fire being wet. It is obviously possible within the realm of imagination, just not in the ruleset we are all assumed to use.

Easiest fixes are along the lines of:

Change that god's alignment
Re-flavor 'vengeance' to 'justice'
Etc

Drifting somewhat far afield, but:

The concept of an objective morality - i.e., the basis of the alignment system - presumes that you have some external judge reviewing the actions to determine their moral 'value'. Real world examples would be Jehovah, Allah, and Yama.

If there really is a moral law to which the various gods are beholden, then that law itself must stem from yet a higher deity, or it's not objective.

What you're calling an 'easy' fix I see as far from easy. It would require a rewrite of at least a quarter (and probably more like half) of the deities in the game because they have moral concepts within their portfolios the practice of which would violate their alignment within the 'prime' alignment code. Pharasma, for example, is Neutral - but she requires her followers to slaughter undead, even intelligent undead who are causing no harm whatsoever; fulfilling that would almost certainly require either dropping that completely, or require her to shift toward Evil, which is contradictory to the goddess's primary concept.

You'd probably wind up getting rid of about half of them simply because there would be too much overlap in their portfolio of ideas, and some of them would become so watered-down that they would bear no resemblance to their original concept - for example, 'vengeance' and 'justice' just aren't an equivalent trade.


Daristal wrote:

And since I have your attention, let me ask a follow up. On two other occasions I used torture to get answers from enemies. They were evil adversaries (checked with discern alignment), who until we subdued them had been trying to kill us. I tortured them with fire for a few rounds and then executed them when they told me what they knew (which wasn't much). My character certainly didn't enjoy it, but felt it was necessary to further our goals (which included the rescue of innocents). So again, were these evil acts?

Mainly I am trying to get a handle on 'doing the right thing' with this character. I certainly don't want to play him like some kind of Torquemada, but I honestly thought I was still firmly in NG land.

Thoughts?

You're an inquisitor.

Torture away, if the paragons of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy can use advance interrogation techniques, I don't see why you can't.


Daristal wrote:

And since I have your attention, let me ask a follow up. On two other occasions I used torture to get answers from enemies. They were evil adversaries (checked with discern alignment), who until we subdued them had been trying to kill us. I tortured them with fire for a few rounds and then executed them when they told me what they knew (which wasn't much). My character certainly didn't enjoy it, but felt it was necessary to further our goals (which included the rescue of innocents). So again, were these evil acts?

Mainly I am trying to get a handle on 'doing the right thing' with this character. I certainly don't want to play him like some kind of Torquemada, but I honestly thought I was still firmly in NG land.

Thoughts?

Evil. VERY evil. You tortured and murdered them, for Pete's sake. How is this even a question?


But he had to stop the terrorists!


Zhayne wrote:
Daristal wrote:

And since I have your attention, let me ask a follow up. On two other occasions I used torture to get answers from enemies. They were evil adversaries (checked with discern alignment), who until we subdued them had been trying to kill us. I tortured them with fire for a few rounds and then executed them when they told me what they knew (which wasn't much). My character certainly didn't enjoy it, but felt it was necessary to further our goals (which included the rescue of innocents). So again, were these evil acts?

Mainly I am trying to get a handle on 'doing the right thing' with this character. I certainly don't want to play him like some kind of Torquemada, but I honestly thought I was still firmly in NG land.

Thoughts?

Evil. VERY evil. You tortured and murdered them, for Pete's sake. How is this even a question?

Because had he lit them on fire with alchemist's fire and then slaughtered them on the battlefield, under the alignment rules it would have been perfectly acceptable?


Marthkus wrote:
But he had to stop the terrorists!

You can't stop them by becoming them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Suuuuure you can't.

Just like you can't stop a murderer by killing him OH WAIT.


Xaratherus wrote:
Because had he lit them on fire with alchemist's fire and then slaughtered them on the battlefield, under the alignment rules it would have been perfectly acceptable?

Exactly. Lighting people on fire and laughing while your friend cuts him into pieces is good, while putting a sleeping enemy painlessly out of his misery is EVIL.

Also what the TC did to the bandit cleric was pretty much a slap on the wrist. "Oww that hurts, but will only continue to do so until I get my spells back." If you really wanted justice you should have removed the cleric's ability to cast... which usually means hands and tongue.


This sort of scenario is exactly where the alignment system shows its flaws and breakdown.

You can take the exact same sets of actions - light an Evil person on fire, let them burn for seconds\minutes, and then stab them in the heart, all with the same intentions - and depending on the location, it's good in one case (on a battlefield) and evil in another (after a battle). :P


I like how most people are using the dodge of what the OP's god would allow, or what his/her class is, as opposed to, well you know...

Actually answering the question of whether the action of breaking a person's leg and leaving them in the forest possibly to gimp along until eaten by wolves is evil.

My answer to this is, if your god allows this sort of thing, then he is probably as wicked as you are, and any other answer is a dodge.

In this scenario:

Good is not doing harm.
Neutrality is neither doing harm nor good.
Evil is doing harm and leaving somebody to die.

Pretty simple.


Bruunwald wrote:

Good is not doing harm.

Neutrality is neither doing harm nor good.
Evil is doing harm and leaving somebody to die.

Pretty simple.

So every adventuring party is evil because they hurt people pretty much all day every day. Are they doubly evil if they leave them unconscious after the vicious beating instead of executing them, as per the leaving them to die clause?


Bruunwald wrote:
Actually answering the question of whether the action of breaking a person's leg and leaving them in the forest possibly to gimp along until eaten by wolves is evil.

I think your adding an intention to that. Was it mentioned it was specifically to be eaten by wolves? I don't even know if there are wolves in the region.


Xaratherus wrote:

This sort of scenario is exactly where the alignment system shows its flaws and breakdown.

You can take the exact same sets of actions - light an Evil person on fire, let them burn for seconds\minutes, and then stab them in the heart, all with the same intentions - and depending on the location, it's good in one case (on a battlefield) and evil in another (after a battle). :P

That's because after the battle, assuming you won, your life is not in imminent danger. The losers are no longer an active threat, and are usually helpless ... it is no longer self defense. If you kill them, it is clearly premeditated, aka murder.


Bruunwald wrote:

I like how most people are using the dodge of what the OP's god would allow, or what his/her class is, as opposed to, well you know...

Actually answering the question of whether the action of breaking a person's leg and leaving them in the forest possibly to gimp along until eaten by wolves is evil.

My answer to this is, if your god allows this sort of thing, then he is probably as wicked as you are, and any other answer is a dodge.

In this scenario:

Good is not doing harm.
Neutrality is neither doing harm nor good.
Evil is doing harm and leaving somebody to die.

Pretty simple.

Wounded a demon and left him to die in woods so he would stop eating babies.

By your definition that would be an evil act.


Bruunwald wrote:

I like how most people are using the dodge of what the OP's god would allow, or what his/her class is, as opposed to, well you know...

Actually answering the question of whether the action of breaking a person's leg and leaving them in the forest possibly to gimp along until eaten by wolves is evil.

My answer to this is, if your god allows this sort of thing, then he is probably as wicked as you are, and any other answer is a dodge.

In this scenario:

Good is not doing harm.
Neutrality is neither doing harm nor good.
Evil is doing harm and leaving somebody to die.

Pretty simple.

So you have no combat in your games? I like a good social game, but they still generally have some combat in them.

I mean, after all, killing someone is doing about as much 'harm' as you possibly can.

Or is it that all of the characters in your games are all Evil-aligned?

I disagree that anyone is 'dodging' here, because by your definition of alignment there would be no Paladins (how can they be Lawful Good when they are required by their own class to murder any Evil-aligned creature they come across?) and anyone who engaged in combat on even a semi-regular basis would be Something-Evil.


Zhayne wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

This sort of scenario is exactly where the alignment system shows its flaws and breakdown.

You can take the exact same sets of actions - light an Evil person on fire, let them burn for seconds\minutes, and then stab them in the heart, all with the same intentions - and depending on the location, it's good in one case (on a battlefield) and evil in another (after a battle). :P

That's because after the battle, assuming you won, your life is not in imminent danger. The losers are no longer an active threat, and are usually helpless ... it is no longer self defense. If you kill them, it is clearly premeditated, aka murder.

Murder or Justice?

If a demon surrenders to you after you catch him eating babies, should you still not kill him?

He's a demon with greater teleport. No mortal prison feasibly with in your reach will hold him. So by virtue of the demon not attacking you, you are suggesting it is less evil to just let the monster go, or fail at holding it prisoner, then it would be to kill the monster and save baby lives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:

This sort of scenario is exactly where the alignment system shows its flaws and breakdown.

You can take the exact same sets of actions - light an Evil person on fire, let them burn for seconds\minutes, and then stab them in the heart, all with the same intentions - and depending on the location, it's good in one case (on a battlefield) and evil in another (after a battle). :P

That's because after the battle, assuming you won, your life is not in imminent danger. The losers are no longer an active threat, and are usually helpless ... it is no longer self defense. If you kill them, it is clearly premeditated, aka murder.

And if you let them go, and they go on to slaughter an orphanage and then eat an entire Humane Society's-worth of puppies? In my opinion, considering that the priestess stated that given the chance she would go on to do further evil, leaving her alive was itself an evil act.

Also, I'd point out that unless you're taking penalties to only deal non-lethal damage, then even combat is 'premeditated'. I don't know about your games, but in a lot of the ones I've seen, the adventurers are often going out of their way to track down things to slaughter; oh, they might justify it by saying that the goblins they're hunting down killed a convent full of nuns, but that doesn't change the fact that their hunt of the creatures is wholly premeditated.

I'm comfortable with the fact (this is me, in the real world) that if someone ever attacks me with intent to hurt me, that I will murder them. It'll still be murder, because even though I might not want to, I will kill them if it's a "them or me" situation - in that vein of thought, it's premeditated.


chaoseffect wrote:
Also what the TC did to the bandit cleric was pretty much a slap on the wrist. "Oww that hurts, but will only continue to do so until I get my spells back." If you really wanted justice you should have removed the cleric's ability to cast... which usually means hands and tongue.

I have to agree on that point. Heck, going off of Kingmaker the normal punishment for banditry in Golarion is execution, followed by the bodies being publicly displayed to serve as a warning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Also what the TC did to the bandit cleric was pretty much a slap on the wrist. "Oww that hurts, but will only continue to do so until I get my spells back." If you really wanted justice you should have removed the cleric's ability to cast... which usually means hands and tongue.
I have to agree on that point. Heck, going off of Kingmaker the normal punishment for banditry in Golarion is execution, followed by the bodies being publicly displayed to serve as a warning.

You can't stop bandits by becoming them!


Xaratherus wrote:


Well, but it's not, even for Clerics - that's my point.

As a vengeance god, Ragathiel would have few moral qualms about 'eye for an eye' justice, but by the overall alignment guide (which is the only thing important) meting out such punishment would frequently be considered evil.

Eventually, following your god's purpose, you'd wind up shifting your alignment, and whether your god likes it or not, the rules require at that point that you lose your powers.

I admit I never heard of Ragathiel before this thread... so this is all based of his Pathfinder Wiki article.

http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Ragathiel

THAT disclaimer aside... He doesn't sound AS Vengeful as everyone here seems to want him to be... I don't see anything in his description okaying torture or Eye for an eye... What I see is a portfolio including Duty and Chivalry to go with the vengeance.

What I also see are comments like this

wiki wrote:
1) Ragathiel takes an active role in the battle against Hell's fiendish legions.

Ok... General of Vengeance against armies of Fiends... Doesn't really say anything about dealing with human bandits... Even Sarenrae codes has no mercy for beasts of Rovagug or undead...

wiki wrote:
Ragathiel's tainted heritage has left him with a wrathful heart, and the angel struggles constantly to master his baser impulses in service to the light.

Frankly... this sounds to me like a NG god working his way up to LG... but regardless... it doesn't really say anything about CONDONING Evil acts in his name or in his own code...he fights AGAINST those impulses to be the better Angel...

It sounds like people are just reading 'god of Vengeance and assuming Ghost Rider here... As written here, he seems like a very interesting god and I could see making an inquisitor of his... but I wouldn't be playing it like so many seem to O.o


Remember, however, an Inquisitor has leeway to be a crueler or more ruthless version of a Cleric of the same god.


Because you know. Inquisitor...

"An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."


Rynjin wrote:
Remember, however, an Inquisitor has leeway to be a crueler or more ruthless version of a Cleric of the same god.

Pfft, you don't play a class or character. You play an alignment, duh! Unless your a paladin. Then you just fall.


Rynjin wrote:
Remember, however, an Inquisitor has leeway to be a crueler or more ruthless version of a Cleric of the same god.

Perhaps a bit... They aren't as bound by the hierarchy of the established religion. But they still have to stay within the 'one step' of alignment from their god. Same as Clerics. Which is still a lot more leeway than the paladin who has ONE alignment that he can be... And he can do a few evil things... as long as his alignment doesn't go THAT far away...

But really, I'm not reading anything that say "oh, for an inquister... this action doesn't count as 'evil'."


I always love these discussions. So, torture and leaving someone to a slow death = good, letting someone live = evil. Is that right? Why are you not held accountable for your actions when you're torturing someone, but you are held accountable for someone else's actions if you let them live? That is a very odd sense of morality to me.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I always love these discussions. So, torture and leaving someone to a slow death = good, letting someone live = evil. Is that right? Why are you not held accountable for your actions when you're torturing someone, but you are held accountable for someone else's actions if you let them live? That is a very odd sense of morality to me.

I find letting murderers and thieves run rampant an equally absurd morality.

Justice has its place.


phantom1592 wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:


Well, but it's not, even for Clerics - that's my point.

As a vengeance god, Ragathiel would have few moral qualms about 'eye for an eye' justice, but by the overall alignment guide (which is the only thing important) meting out such punishment would frequently be considered evil.

Eventually, following your god's purpose, you'd wind up shifting your alignment, and whether your god likes it or not, the rules require at that point that you lose your powers.

I admit I never heard of Ragathiel before this thread... so this is all based of his Pathfinder Wiki article.

http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Ragathiel

THAT disclaimer aside... He doesn't sound AS Vengeful as everyone here seems to want him to be... I don't see anything in his description okaying torture or Eye for an eye... What I see is a portfolio including Duty and Chivalry to go with the vengeance.

What I also see are comments like this

wiki wrote:
1) Ragathiel takes an active role in the battle against Hell's fiendish legions.

Ok... General of Vengeance against armies of Fiends... Doesn't really say anything about dealing with human bandits... Even Sarenrae codes has no mercy for beasts of Rovagug or undead...

wiki wrote:
Ragathiel's tainted heritage has left him with a wrathful heart, and the angel struggles constantly to master his baser impulses in service to the light.

Frankly... this sounds to me like a NG god working his way up to LG... but regardless... it doesn't really say anything about CONDONING Evil acts in his name or in his own code...he fights AGAINST those impulses to be the better Angel...

It sounds like people are just reading 'god of Vengeance and assuming Ghost Rider here... As written here, he seems like a very interesting god and I could see making an inquisitor of his... but I wouldn't be playing it like so many seem to O.o

His Obedience requires you to slay a proven wrongdoer to get his Boons. Every. Single. Day.

That's pretty wrathful to me.


Marthkus wrote:


Justice has its place.

Unless the PC has been given an actual writ by the local or national law forces to execute high justice (which would define the limits of what he is authorized to do), murdering captured bandits is not justice (even if you think your church said it was okay).


Justin Rocket wrote:
Marthkus wrote:


Justice has its place.
Unless the PC has been given an actual writ by the local or national law forces to execute high justice (which would define the limits of what he is authorized to do), murdering captured bandits is not justice (even if you think your church said it was okay).

Bandits were always fair game for people to kill if they found them even IRL.

Hell, it was probably a MERCY in Roman controlled lands since they crucified the poor motherf@$~ers.


Rynjin wrote:


Bandits were always fair game for people to kill if they found them even IRL.

Always? And your proof of that would be..?


Justin Rocket wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


Bandits were always fair game for people to kill if they found them even IRL.
Always? And your proof of that would be..?

Wikipedia entry on banditry: "A bandit is one who is proscribed or outlawed"

Linked page on outlawing: "In historical legal systems, an outlaw is declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, this takes the burden of active prosecution of a criminal from the authorities. Instead, the criminal is withdrawn all legal protection, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute or kill them. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system. In early Germanic law, the death penalty is conspicuously absent, and outlawing is the most extreme punishment, presumably amounting to a death sentence in practice."

By definition anyone can lawfully do with a bandit what they please, since they have forfeited their legal rights.

In short "Bandits were always fair game for people to kill if they found them even IRL."

So far I'm 2 for 2 on you condescendingly questioning my posts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of it has to do with how things are phrased and the inability to read faces or inflection over the Internet.

As for a source, here's England's historical attitude towards outlaws.

Edit: By the way, I got that source from the Wikipedia page. Even if Wikipedia isn't trustworthy by a high school teacher's standards, it nearly always uses trustworthy sources. The exception being articles about anything controversial.


This is an interesting topic. How should the alignment system handle a character who is absolutely ruthless in dealing with those who prey on the good?

Firstly he is an unrelenting defender of the good: he fights to protect the good, the weak and the innocent.
Secondly he is absolutely ruthless in dealing with the evil people who prey on them: resorting to harsh punishment, mutilation, torture and merciless killing.

Real world history and myth is littered with characters like this. Especially since the world hundreds of years ago was a much more ruthless place than it is today.

51 to 100 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Alignment discussion. Is this an evil act? All Messageboards