Alignment Hit After Killing Surrendered Opponent?


Advice

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

I'm looking for general opinions regarding a situation that recently arose in my campaign.

Big fight...a Big Bad Evil Guy, his almost-as big and bad henchman, and a large number of lower level cronies. Eventually the BBEG and his henchman go down. The cronies left alive throw down their weapons and fall to their knees in surrender.

The two melee characters in the party - 1 Neutral Good and 1 Chaotic Good - indicate they will keep swinging at their surrendered foes. I tell them this is inherently NOT a "Good" act and they could suffer alignment consequences if they proceed.

They have 2 counter arguments - 1) they're in the heat of the battle and can't just turn off the combat "juices" like a light switch, and 2) the fact that these bad guys were just trying to kill them justifies continued hacking, even after they've surrendered.

I say neither of these arguments holds water. But my players continue to disagree. Since we're mostly relatively inexperienced, I thought I'd throw it out to the PF community to get some feedback. I've read through some alignment threads that get down some big time rat holes in terms of interpreting the Alignment system in general, and I'm not looking to do that here. Just within the narrow confines of this scenario, is an alignment shift from Good towards Neutral warranted?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are sometimes reasonable arguments for executing people who have surrendered - for example, if they're evil orc child murderers and you have no possibility of bringing them to justice through a legal system.

The justification in this case is weak. Your PCs (and probably your players) are non-good according to the moral code of your campaign. Since they're not paladins, an alignment shift probably won't break anything.


I'm with you, but I think the topic is better placed in "Advice" as there are no actual rules on how to handle those issues.

Throw in another counter argument: maybe the lackeys were intimidated or mind-controlled into service. The bosses death released them from their bond (the magic ended or now the boss cannot threaten their families anymore).

The players cannot possibly know all the background. Even if the lackeys were all bad, unless they make certain that this is the case slaughtering them is not okay.

I once took this even further, group was breaking into a house and murdering the inhabitants as they defended their property. I had the Sarenrae cleric go blind for that one, everybody else got the choice between an alignment shift or a permanent negative level until they atoned in some way.

The fact that the people they murdered were Rakshasa didn't matter, since the group didn't know about this, it was still murder. They cannot just go about killing someone on the off chance that they may be evildoers, even if they turn out to be.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Evil. not pure wicked laughter evil, but still evil.

Call it a 6 on the wicked meter.

This reared up in my game as well, several of the enemies had fallen or given up, and one of the PCs(my loving, cookie baking wife) stabbed one of the fallen foes, because they only need on to talk. This was after another party member had stabilized them.

That rated about an 8 on the wicked meter.

(For scale 1 petty theft, lying just because you can
10 mass murder, demon/devil sacrifice, classic Big Bad Guy stuff)

Their alignment may not, or have to, change; but they have started down that path. Justification of an evil act will not lessen its evil.

Just my thoughts.

Also, good morning and off to work I go!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't change their alignment based on a single action.

Just state that this sort of behaviour is evil in your book (and the current game). Continuing such actions will make it very difficult to uphold a good alignment.

This way they get to react to your inputs, and be active in how their characters is going to develop alignment-wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't call it evil if they have reason to believe that their enemies may be attempting to deceive them. Lower your guard in the midst of battle and you can expect to die (can't expect your enemies to honor their word, after all). They are therefor playing it safe/smart; they'd rather not die, so they are minimizing risks.

Not "good", but neither is it "evil" (I'd call it a neutral act, leaning evil--due the fact the enemies chose not to fight back); both sides knew the inherent risks walking into the fight.

Now, I'd expect a paladin to show mercy to his enemies, offer quarter and all that, but these characters are not paladins. They are not held to the same standard, which fortunately for them, means that they are at less risk. Had a paladin been involved, had he taken the enemies prisoner, and had one or more of them escaped (or worse, killed one or more party members), that would be on him.


Eaghen- wrote:

I'm looking for general opinions regarding a situation that recently arose in my campaign.

Big fight...a Big Bad Evil Guy, his almost-as big and bad henchman, and a large number of lower level cronies. Eventually the BBEG and his henchman go down. The cronies left alive throw down their weapons and fall to their knees in surrender.

The two melee characters in the party - 1 Neutral Good and 1 Chaotic Good - indicate they will keep swinging at their surrendered foes. I tell them this is inherently NOT a "Good" act and they could suffer alignment consequences if they proceed.

They have 2 counter arguments - 1) they're in the heat of the battle and can't just turn off the combat "juices" like a light switch, and 2) the fact that these bad guys were just trying to kill them justifies continued hacking, even after they've surrendered.

I say neither of these arguments holds water. But my players continue to disagree. Since we're mostly relatively inexperienced, I thought I'd throw it out to the PF community to get some feedback. I've read through some alignment threads that get down some big time rat holes in terms of interpreting the Alignment system in general, and I'm not looking to do that here. Just within the narrow confines of this scenario, is an alignment shift from Good towards Neutral warranted?

The first excuse is just that, an excuse. The second one is more understandable, but it is still an evil act.

A good person kills because they have too. Evil kills because it is easy or convenient way out.

Even if they were cops in real life, if the bad guys surrender after a shoot out they can just keep firing and kill them anyway.

I would not change their alignment just yet, but I would let them know it may change later if they continue to behave that way.

For the most part the alignment change wont matter much unless they are certain classes, but if they go evil and detect as evil later, that could be an issue.


Basically, what I'm trying to say is that self preservation trumps morality in war scenarios.


wraithstrike wrote:
...Even if they were cops in real life, if the bad guys surrender after a shoot out they can just keep firing and kill them anyway.

That's a law/chaos conflict, not a good/evil conflict (unless, of course, the cops involved enjoyed the act of killing).


Eaghen- wrote:
Just within the narrow confines of this scenario, is an alignment shift from Good towards Neutral warranted?

If they continue to demonstrate this sort of behavior in the future: yes. However, as has been stated previously, one act does not cause a shift your alignment unless it can be categorized as diametrically opposed to your alignment (a LG paladin slaying a random person on the street for no other reason than to see what his insides look like [CE], for example).

Silver Crusade

In general, it sounds like we're all in agreement. That may be a PF Message board first! I should get a prize! :)

I agree with what everyone is saying here, that a) it definitely isn't a "good" act, but how "bad" it is depends on more of the situational details, b) an outright shift from "good" to "neutral" isn't necessarily warranted...it depends on past behavior patterns...but the act will certainly influence potential alignment issues in the future, and c) there are certainly some law/chaos implications here as well...killing them as opposed to handing them over to local legal system definitely is on the chaotic end of the law/chaos spectrum.

Thanks to all who responded...


The law/chaos implications are, I think, more relevant than the good/evil ones. Since the characters involved are NG and CG, it makes sense that they went with the "chaotic" action. Even then, if they had the lawful authority to meet out punishment like that, it wouldn't be considered "chaotic" at all (a situation that arose in a Kingmaker game I once ran; the characters were granted permission by the Crown to exercise whatever kind of justice they saw fit, when dealing with the local bandits).

Eaghen- wrote:
Thanks to all who responded...

You're welcome!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I somewhat disagree. If the enemies were undoubtedly evil, and the group KNEW it, then the Chaotic Good was spot on. Chaotic good is willing to and going to do good, regardless of "rules". therefor the bads have to die, period. Thats why he is chaotic. He didnt torture them, and drag it out, he killed them in combat while, yes helpless, but evil.

Neutral good kind of has a skinny little leg to stand on, where they generally follow "rules" but are not 100% beholden to them, so in theory, he could kill in the way a chaotic good would, but if he does it all the time, then he risks a shift towards chaotic. Neutral is just that, middle of the road.

I know this, because i am often one of these types as i usually play chaotic neutral. I will usually kill about 80% of the surrendered persons my groups come across, unless it's obvious they AREN'T evil. And i never kill the last guy, until we pump him for information, if the information is good i let him go. Neutrality is fun :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens Subscriber

My two coppers: each character kills one enemy who's surrendered? heat of battle, mark it down for future reference. A whole bunch of guys threw done their swords and the PCs hacked 'em down one by one? Premeditated slaughter - welcome to Evil land.


Unless they are worshippers of Goetus, I would say it is a step towards evil.


After the characters slew the first or second surrendered combatant, I doubt the rest of 'em just sat there immobile and allowed themselves to be slaughtered; they most likely reacted (fighting back or attempting to flee).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evilserran wrote:

I somewhat disagree. If the enemies were undoubtedly evil, and the group KNEW it, then the Chaotic Good was spot on. Chaotic good is willing to and going to do good, regardless of "rules". therefor the bads have to die, period. Thats why he is chaotic. He didnt torture them, and drag it out, he killed them in combat while, yes helpless, but evil.

Neutral good kind of has a skinny little leg to stand on, where they generally follow "rules" but are not 100% beholden to them, so in theory, he could kill in the way a chaotic good would, but if he does it all the time, then he risks a shift towards chaotic. Neutral is just that, middle of the road.

I know this, because i am often one of these types as i usually play chaotic neutral. I will usually kill about 80% of the surrendered persons my groups come across, unless it's obvious they AREN'T evil. And i never kill the last guy, until we pump him for information, if the information is good i let him go. Neutrality is fun :)

How does redemption ever happen if those that are evil are simply put to the sword for it?


Redemption isn't high on everybody's priority list, as adventurers, Mikaze. Whether a character is governed by mercy or wrath varies. Personally, I prefer playing merciful characters, but there always seems to be at least one wrathful character per party. Party dynamics, ha!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^which of course begs the question does killing a fleeing enemy mean you are commiting an evil act? Me and my group have fought about that one too....

1. Is he going to potentially get reinforcements?
2. Is he really just running in terror?
3. Is he going to activate some sort of trap?

If your character BELIEVES 1 or 3 is accurate, not evil. If believes 2, evil. It really boils down to "why your character acted as such" if it fits within the alignment parameters, it may or may not be evil/good/chaotic. Nothing irritates me more as a player then a DM that forces their beliefs upon my avatar. The lawful good paladin in my group often fights me on my choices, but we have yet to have a knuckle down drag out brawl over it, as i often can justify my actions wihtin my alignment. The characters above? That didnt justify squat, didnt even seem like a good attempt imo.

Lets look at it this way.

Scenario. Human rogue stabs a sleeping 10 year old kid and kills him.

Most would scream evil til they were blue in the face. But what if the rogue HONESTLY believed this 10 year old was a vessel for an ancient evil force?

"who would believe that? Still evil! many of you would say. And if he WAS..... now what? Belief functions to guide the alignment shifts more then the actions alone. Only a truly horrifying EVIL BEYOND ALL DOUBT action cannot be somewhat explained away.

Human rogue climbs into a church of pelor and murders the entire congregation with no prior knowledge.. Yea... evil... big bag gotcha. Alignment is tricky, hell technically, killing helpless opponents can even be considered lawful. What if your Warriors code states that surrendering to an opponent is the greatest blasphemy and steals the honor from the foe. Part of the same society states anyone impunging upon your honor deserves death. Now killing the surrendered person is actual lawful.

You CANNOT cut and dry say this changes that without analyzing why. HOWEVER, following this style requires your characters to flush out a good backstory which makes sense and supports their choices. Because when I DM, i keep track of what you did in each situation, ask for reasons, and if i dont buy em i maintain an alignment chart.

*if the action made sense 0pts.
*if the action was a little out of character and the explanation explains maybe why but not definitive, 2 pts.
*the action was out of character with no decent reson but was minor 3pts
*the action was out of character with no decent reson but was not big bad 5pts
*BIG BAD out of character with no viable reason = 15pts.

Every 12 points equals a shift towards that alignment. This allows me to go evil>good Lawful>Chaotic and is actually a bit tricky for those true neutrals, but really? who is truly true neutral? Such a tricky alingment to be sure.

Liberty's Edge

Remember that good and evil in this particular RPG setting is NOT our good and evil... massive societal difference, and evil is something "real", not just a behavior.

Putting a truly "evil" being to the sword even if they surrendered is an act of "good", because it defeats that evil.

Slaughtering surrendered minions who may be criminals or "evil by association" is most certainly not a "good" act, however, executing a prisoner after the fact may be both "lawful" and "good", depending on the laws of the land, the player's standing in the society, the culture(an honorable death for a foe) or even a character's religious beliefs and tenets.

That said, the excuse given were just that, excuses. As a former soldier I especially vehemently disagree with the "can't turn it off" nonsense... I mean, would they blindly mow down a wave of innocents sent to distract them/get in the way because their "juices were flowing"? They are adventurers, not sociopaths (though if they are, that would be reflected in their alignment). If you are GOOD, it is deeper seeded than a simple "oh, that's bad" mentality, and that means that you sometimes must reign yourself in. Of course there are always cases where being "good" means you can or even must do the "wrong" or "harsh" thing for the greater good. True evil BBEG? No mercy is required and unless your religious/philosophical is concerned with redemption, you can end their evil and still be good.


So Fomsie, i see we are i nagreement then, you and I?


Fomsie wrote:

Remember that good and evil in this particular RPG setting is NOT our good and evil... massive societal difference, and evil is something "real", not just a behavior.

Putting a truly "evil" being to the sword even if they surrendered is an act of "good", because it defeats that evil.

.

The its not our good and evil argument is a false one. Pfs alignment system is based on modern concepts and the system itself treats goid and evil as absolutes. There are irredimably evil creatures but this encounter did not seem to involve them.

In general as well pf has no in heat of battle as players often take advantage of the 360 degree allround vision and act on that view. The decision to ignore tge surrender was a concious one. Though i would just make a nite of it in case its a patter of behavior and move on.


Ok, as the (perhaps formerly) Chaotic Good player in this story, allow me to say something: We're not talking about ending the fight and then proceeding to slay 50 people in this scenario. We're talking about being knee deep in blood and gore and outnumbered. The BBEG eats dirt on the other side of the battle field. My comrade and I see the bad guys we are personally fighting with in that moment drop weapons. Now I'm not a paladin. The character is a veteran of the crusades in Mendev and a born, raised and trained soldier. If it makes him evil to finish striking down the bad guy who was working on chopping his head off a moment ago, then paint me evil, baby.

I'm no combat veteran or a soldier in real life, but I must believe that fighting an opponent face-to-face, nose-to-nose, wearing his blood would engender some degree of hate and rage. Even a good person must get a taste of rage and a strong desire to win when his life is on the line. I think that this feeling would be entirely different from shooting or not shooting a man across a battlefield.

C'est la vie. I'll take whatever's coming to me. The ethics and imaginary geneva convention that float somewhere overhead trouble me. I think that in RPG's the concept of killing becomes detached and clinical. It's easy to sit back, soda in hand and dispassionately say, ok, I'll lower my weapons and embrace my former mortal enemy. The people who are capable of that kind of behavior are few and far between, I think.

Silver Crusade

It isn't real life...it is a game...and as a previous poster pointed out, it is a game mechanic consideration, kind of like the "there is no facing" element of PF.

But I still think the best quote from this whole discussion was "the decision to surrender was a poor tactical choice on the part of the newly dead".

Liberty's Edge

@ Aravandor; That is why we have an alignment system in the first place, it is a system of beliefs, moral compass and an actual "real" force in the game world. People can argue good and evil in the real world, but in PF (and it's origin system) Good and Evil are real things, things that can in fact directly effect your life even against your will, so they impose some limitations on characters.

Again, there is a huge difference between killing a bad guy, executing a criminal, defending your life and murdering an innocent. Where you place slaying a surrendered/helpless foe along those lines is defined by your alignment.

@Mojorat; I dispute your argument and in fact say your view is false. The alignment system is not based on modern concepts, it is based on fantasy/heroic concepts. The whole wandering around looting and killing and being a "good guy" kind of kills that notion of modern values. It is a different world, belief, environment and setting where Good and Evil are real and not just ideals/philosophies.


Its evil, but not quite evil enough on its own to shift their alignment me thinks. But depending on how they role play from this point on I would strongly consider moving them from good to at least neutral. If they start doing good things like donating loot to orphans, helping people without accepting rewards, etc these are good acts and will keep them on the good end of the alignment spectrum. Neutral characters will accept the reward and it is a neutral act to do so. Evil characters will demand more money, and kick your puppy on the way out the door.


Killing a defenseless person is definitely a tick, although probably a minor tick.

However, remember that alignment shifts go both ways, and are dependent on your character's actions in all cases, at all times, and are GRADUAL. If you've just done four Incredibly Good things before breakfast, then kill a surrendering foe around lunchtime ... you're still fine. You can't just go 'you did evil here, and here' without also counting the number of times the character did good.

Remember, your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.


Fomsie wrote:
@ Aravandor; That is why we have an alignment system in the first place, it is a system of beliefs, moral compass and an actual "real" force in the game world. People can argue good and evil in the real world, but in PF (and it's origin system) Good and Evil are real things, things that can in fact directly effect your life even against your will, so they impose some limitations on characters.

Those 'real forces' are, however, adjucated and aribtrated by real people, so they are just as subjective in PF as in the real world.

Quote:
Again, there is a huge difference between killing a bad guy, executing a criminal, defending your life and murdering an innocent. Where you place slaying a surrendered/helpless foe along those lines is defined by your alignment.

Wrong. Your actions determine your alignment. Where the evil tick falls in there is dependent upon the GM's interpretations of what it is.

Quote:
@Mojorat; I dispute your argument and in fact say your view is false. The alignment system is not based on modern concepts, it is based on fantasy/heroic concepts. The whole wandering around looting and killing and being a "good guy" kind of kills that notion of modern values. It is a different world, belief, environment and setting where Good and Evil are real and not just ideals/philosophies.

You make large assumptions about how games are played.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kind of copying and pasting myself from an older thread.
People of good alignments can easily make bad decisions in times of extreme fear and stress that end up haunting them for the rest of their lives. If you've ever listened to stories from WWII vets about what they did in the war, you'll get what I mean. I've seen interviews where old men break down in tears recounting events where they killed enemy soldiers who have surrendered because they were afraid that person would kill them or their buddies later of if he was cut loose. They deeply regret that their actions, but saw no other alliterative. It doesn't make them evil so much as mark them as human beings that reacted to some of the most extreme circumstances a person can experience.
The situation in this thread isn't the same thing, but similar. Killing like this is something that will usually catch up to a person with a conscience.
Instead of an alignment change, something like having a character make a will save, adding in a sliding difficulty based on stress factors from the day, before they go to sleep would be an interesting mechanic. If they fail, they have a regret fueled nightmare that leaves them fatigued the next day.


Well, in that case, there are clearly two things I need to do going forward.

1. I need to stop thinking of my characters as "good". They are Neutral at best. Most likely Chaotic neutral.

2. I need to realize that alignment is a straight jacket that I will need to squeeze a character into.

This particular character is designed to be a former soldier (lawful), a trustworthy comrade to his party (lawful), but has little interest in being kind to those who take up arms against him or his companions (chaotic?).

Silver Crusade

Zhayne wrote:

Killing a defenseless person is definitely a tick, although probably a minor tick.

However, remember that alignment shifts go both ways, and are dependent on your character's actions in all cases, at all times, and are GRADUAL. If you've just done four Incredibly Good things before breakfast, then kill a surrendering foe around lunchtime ... you're still fine. You can't just go 'you did evil here, and here' without also counting the number of times the character did good.

Remember, your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.

In general I agree...I would just add that I believe a character who over a period of time averages 10 good things and 1 evil thing a day is not a "Good" character, but rather a neutral character, perhaps weighted towards good, but still neutral because of a pattern of doing evil things

Liberty's Edge

Having read only the o. p., there isn't nearly enough information here to make an informed decision.

First, were the pcs somewhere that they could have successfully captured the mooks and taken them to justice?

If not, or if the pcs didn't have time because they're on a time sensitive quest, and especially if the minions themselves are evil / have done evil things that the pcs know about, then I can definitely side with the pcs.

If the pcs were able to take the npcs captive and take them to justice and simply chose not to because it would be inconvenient, then I would accept that it was an evil act, at which point I would ask "so what?" Are you going to bounce the pcs around across the alignment scale every time they do an act that doesn't fit with their current alignment?


Eaghen- wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Killing a defenseless person is definitely a tick, although probably a minor tick.

However, remember that alignment shifts go both ways, and are dependent on your character's actions in all cases, at all times, and are GRADUAL. If you've just done four Incredibly Good things before breakfast, then kill a surrendering foe around lunchtime ... you're still fine. You can't just go 'you did evil here, and here' without also counting the number of times the character did good.

Remember, your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.

In general I agree...I would just add that I believe a character who over a period of time averages 10 good things and 1 evil thing a day is not a "Good" character, but rather a neutral character, perhaps weighted towards good, but still neutral because of a pattern of doing evil things

The great majority of people in the world would be neutral in this case; you'd have very few actual Good-aligned beings, and the only Paladins that could possibly exist in the world would have to be Lawful Stupid to avoid losing their powers.

To apply your example in a way I think would be more appropriate to the alignment system as written: A Neutral character would be one who averaged a roughly equal number of Good and Evil actions each day, not a 10:1 ratio.

Then again, I tend to throw out the alignment system because I think it's kludgey to the point of being useless. So take my advice with a grain of salt.


Aravandor wrote:

Well, in that case, there are clearly two things I need to do going forward.

1. I need to stop thinking of my characters as "good". They are Neutral at best. Most likely Chaotic neutral.

2. I need to realize that alignment is a straight jacket that I will need to squeeze a character into.

This particular character is designed to be a former soldier (lawful), a trustworthy comrade to his party (lawful), but has little interest in being kind to those who take up arms against him or his companions (chaotic?).

You need to stop thinking about alignment period, and just roleplay your character. If your alignment ever matters mechanically (and it shouldn't ... alignment mechanics are such total BS), the GM will tell you.


Eaghen- wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Killing a defenseless person is definitely a tick, although probably a minor tick.

However, remember that alignment shifts go both ways, and are dependent on your character's actions in all cases, at all times, and are GRADUAL. If you've just done four Incredibly Good things before breakfast, then kill a surrendering foe around lunchtime ... you're still fine. You can't just go 'you did evil here, and here' without also counting the number of times the character did good.

Remember, your actions determine your alignment, not the other way around.

In general I agree...I would just add that I believe a character who over a period of time averages 10 good things and 1 evil thing a day is not a "Good" character, but rather a neutral character, perhaps weighted towards good, but still neutral because of a pattern of doing evil things

He does more good things than evil things, so he's good. That's how it works. Actions determine alignment.

Of course, all this just demonstrates how alignment is dumb, contradictory and should be excised from existence. "It's not a straitjacket" it says in one place. "You have to stay this alignment or get screwed, so it's totally a straitjacket" says another.


Xaratherus wrote:


The great majority of people in the world would be neutral; you'd have very few actual Good-aligned beings, and the only Paladins that could possibly exist in the world would have to be Lawful Stupid to avoid losing their powers.

Actually, a great majority of people in any world would be neutral, just based on the descriptions in the rules.

PRD wrote:

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

and

PRD wrote:


Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Now, a good number of them will have good tendencies. They'll make sacrifices for friends and family, but it's a rare person that will actually make significant sacrifices for the greater good or a stranger, which is what a Good alignment entails.


If this person is a mortal enemy, perhaps, but it sounded like those guys were some flunkies working for that enemy. When you killed their boss, they stopped having any beef with you and tried to give up. As you stated, they had the numerical superiority, which would normally be a bad thing for you. You had won, they didn´t want to fight even though they had some advantages on their side.

The way I am seeing it, it wasn´t fitting for good characters, whether it´s enough to merit an alignment change itself is for your DM to decide. Most real people vacillate in their beliefs from time to time /shrug.


Whether a king or your organization's recruiter, there's always a long list of people more than willing to tell you that whatever has things they want or is interfering with them is baby-eating monsters who want nothing less than to destroy everything you've ever loved and stood for.

Tell them they're being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing their country to danger.

Many of the worst atrocities are carried out by people who genuinely believe they are committing "good", or protecting their loved ones from "evil".

Makes things rather subjective huh? If the characters honestly believed they were destroying 'evil'.... was it evil? was it not evil?


Hehehe , yeah , it is good to see people think that you can do this.

My paladin was forced to execute the evil guys because , "They are evil and you ARE justice , so kill them , even if they surrender." , even the GM did not care.

Man , my friends could not understand good or what a paladin is even if it hit them in the face.

I trully prefer to play CN , i do whatever i want, when i want and i wont listen to the crap others got say about it , simple and clean.

Liberty's Edge

Did the villains negotiate terms of their surrender?


@aravandor the problem is if the dm had said a leprachaun with a huge pot of gold is maming his way accross the battlefield. Say he's 100ft away the characters would have at no point been distracted by the battle. So at the end of the day we are given information and make decisions on it.

@zhayne the heroic concepts used by the game are modern ones set in a way that its easy to be a goodguy because good and evil are real quauntifiable things and not just philosophies.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Did the villains negotiate terms of their surrender?

I don't think they got a chance to.

Liberty's Edge

Mojorat wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Did the villains negotiate terms of their surrender?
I don't think they got a chance to.

Typically the time to negotiate terms of surrender is before you lay down your weapons, not after and talking is a free action that can be done irregardless of the initiative count.


Audrin_Noreys wrote:

Kind of copying and pasting myself from an older thread.

People of good alignments can easily make bad decisions in times of extreme fear and stress that end up haunting them for the rest of their lives. If you've ever listened to stories from WWII vets about what they did in the war, you'll get what I mean. I've seen interviews where old men break down in tears recounting events where they killed enemy soldiers who have surrendered because they were afraid that person would kill them or their buddies later of if he was cut loose. They deeply regret that their actions, but saw no other alliterative. It doesn't make them evil so much as mark them as human beings that reacted to some of the most extreme circumstances a person can experience.
The situation in this thread isn't the same thing, but similar. Killing like this is something that will usually catch up to a person with a conscience.
Instead of an alignment change, something like having a character make a will save, adding in a sliding difficulty based on stress factors from the day, before they go to sleep would be an interesting mechanic. If they fail, they have a regret fueled nightmare that leaves them fatigued the next day.

I think your example is great at showing how the a single event - or several events - does not change your alignment. Although real world psychology isn't as black and white as the alignment system.

That said, I don't like the suggested will save. IMO, this takes away the players choice as to how their characters react to the game world. In comparison, warning them that said behaviour is on the path toward shifting to neutral and eventually evil, gives the player the choice, how to play their characters and whether or not they are going to walk the road away from being good.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Did the villains negotiate terms of their surrender?
I don't think they got a chance to.
Typically the time to negotiate terms of surrender is before you lay down your weapons, not after and talking is a free action that can be done irregardless of the initiative count.

While that makes sense I've never seen it applied in practice. It also implies the enemy group has a leader rather than making a collective decision to beg for their lives.


This always causes problems. If the foes are truly Evil guys, then there’s two other arguments:

If we let them go, they will just do more evil

OR

Beyond the pale justice, where the party has the legal right to act as judge/jury/executioner.

The best way of handling this is don’t have really bad guys surrender in normal encounters. Sure, if that’s the whole goal to “bring ‘em back alive” or if they are fighting not really bad guys, then sure.

Calk this up to lack of genre savvy and inexperience, OOC explain you will try and not have it happen, but they need to rethink how they act. IC, give them some bad dreams, etc. No changing of alignments, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would you change the alignment of the bad guys if the bad guys accepted surrender?

Alignment is not a straight-jacket, it is a general tendency. Move on.


Of course it was an evil act, and you were right to point it out. And alignment shifts SHOULD have consequences for any character--if you're trying to run a heroic-fantasy game, that is. If you want "Mercs Play Shades of Gray," that's a different type of game.


Zhayne wrote:
You need to stop thinking about alignment period, and just roleplay your character. If your alignment ever matters mechanically (and it shouldn't ... alignment mechanics are such total BS), the GM will tell you.

Zhayne, I think you're right. That's the best advice I can find out of this soup of opinions. Your advice is the closest I can come to recognizing my own opinions in this forum, so yours is the advice that I'm going to endorse. You are the winner, sir. Thank you!

Liberty's Edge

Mojorat wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Mojorat wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Did the villains negotiate terms of their surrender?
I don't think they got a chance to.
Typically the time to negotiate terms of surrender is before you lay down your weapons, not after and talking is a free action that can be done irregardless of the initiative count.
While that makes sense I've never seen it applied in practice. It also implies the enemy group has a leader rather than making a collective decision to beg for their lives.

That's true, but in general, every social group is going to have a pecking order, and when the top of that pecking order is taken out the rest will generally follow the new leader.

1 to 50 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Alignment Hit After Killing Surrendered Opponent? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.