|
So a common trope is that CN is a kind of "evil light", and I'm trying to avoid that with my CN character. She likes to play tricks (even on those that might not appreciate them), is selfish, and power hungry, but she is not in general a killer - she will always resort to diplomacy first and try to talk her way out of the fight with any intelligent being. However, she is also a devout follower of Calistria, and she will not forgive any slight, always taking her vengeance when the opportunity presents itself. Hence, if someone else chooses to start things despite her attempts to diffuse it, she will be sure to bring them to their bloody finish.
That gets into the questionable part. She won't accept a surrender, finishing off wounded opponents rather than turning them over to the law. Also, she is enchantment specialized and her spell selection tends toward disabling - sleep for early levels, and later things like hold person/monster - so she is probably going to be doing lots of knocking things out then finishing them off with a crossbow Coup de Grace to the head, even if we are out of combat and they could otherwise be bound and captured. Perhaps even occasionally finishing someone *after* they they have been captured and interrogated.
So my question. Does this level of vindictiveness qualify as a drift toward evil alignment? As I see it, it's acting out an aspect of a major CN deity, done in service to that deity, and hence a CN act - it's not wanton destruction as you'd expect from CE, it's a very personal thing. But I could also see the argument that the unnecessary killing would count as an evil act, regardless of the character's motivation. Since this is PFS, this makes a big difference, given that a character that a GM judges to have become evil immediately becomes unavailable for play! Hence my question to all you GMs out there - would you count this as some manner of Evil act, as a CN act, or even something different?
It's difficult to predict how a character will come out in play. The same belief systems can produce different alignments by how extremely they are enforced.
For example, if someone insults you during a heated argument, are you now obligated to kill them? That's definitely an evil, not CN, act.
Personally, I would not play your character in PFS as you have described her, especially in a group with paladins. The character you describe isn't CE if played moderately, but she is definitely walking the line with the vengeance and 'kill all prisoners' outlook. All it takes is one crossbow bolt to the head of a clearly innocent (perhaps because he accidentally insulted you?) man who just surrendered to you for an alignment warning.
If you just tone it back a bit she seems ok though. Make it once someone has tried to kill her, she swears vengeence cannot accept surrender - but as she is CN she is pragmatic enough to back down if her party are dead set on taking a prisoner and tell her about it beforehand. Perhaps she should let her party know in advance she has a 'no prisoners unless requested' policy.
|
I would expect a lot of table variation here.
Often, killing prisoners will be interperted as evil. Sometimes, killing helpless enemies even in combat could be seen that way too. It will depend on circumstances and the outlook of the GM and players involved.
At best this character, as you have described them, may end up having problems co-operating with other party members. If your refusal to not take prisoners extends to killing those that other members of your party want to take alive, then you WILL be a problem character, and in my experience GMs tend to give less leeway to "problem characters" than others when deciding if an action is evil or not.
I understand that vengance is a big part of the calistrian philosophy, but vengance does not always have to be lethal, and from what I am reading, I would tend to say your character just MIGHT be a CE follower of a CN god, but it's hard to get the full story behind a character in a few short paragraphs.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always like to say, one action can be justified by different alignments in totally different ways. A lot of the time, it isn't what your character does, but WHY they do it.
Let's say you have a band of Orcs who just surrendered to you let's see what a character from each alignment might say to justify their execution.
Lawful Good Paladin of Torag: "My code says thus, 'Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.' If these orcs wish to surrender, I will shake my head and command them to pick up their blades again to fight me in honorable battle. If they refuse, I will run them through as my god commands."
Neutral Good Bard: "They've already proven to be quite murderous... I may not like it, but they are going to die anyways if we bring them to town for a trial. We might as well execute them here in a relatively painless fashion."
Chaotic Good Rogue: "They killed that family! This is the wasteland where there are no 'true judges' so let us have justice and be on with it."
Lawful Neutral Hellknight: "I am... the law!"
Neutral Druid: "Their murder of innocents is a perversion of the natural order of things. In order to achieve balance, their lives must be taken in return."
Chaotic Neutral Barbarian: "They attacked us... f**k 'em."
Lawful Evil Bard: "This is the wilderness and they are mere orcs. There will be no repercussions for their deaths. If you won't do it I will."
Neutral Evil Cleric: "They do have gold on them... besides it'll be funny to hear them scream."
Chaotic Evil Antipaladin: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! DIE!!!!"
|
|
Can you coup de grace with a crossbow? I thought it required a melee attack.
I would advise you tell your party members and GM about your PC's quirks before the session so that are not surprised by such an act, and can register their opinion on it before the it's too late.
Yes, you can CdG with a ranged weapon, as long as you are adjacent to your CdG target.
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
And, yes, you will need to warn the party, and listen very carefully to the briefing. Some of the briefings explicitly say to take prisoners, or not to make waves.
|
|
Man, no CDG with a rock?
What if it's a big rock?
Seriously though, I'd watch out for N characters more than anything. Chaotic peeps in PFS tend to adopt a strange deity or develop abolitionist tendencies, etc. It's the ones who "couldn't pick an alignment so I'm Neutral" I worry about.
I don't see any limitation in that rule saying it couldn't be an improvised weapon, just that it has to be a melee weapon or a ranged weapon used adjacent.
Obviously, when you CdG, unless you have a damage penalty, you want to use an x4 crit weapon.
There are differences between CdGing with a 1d3-2x2 weapon and a 2d6+9x4 weapon... The first one is more likely to have the target need to make that Fort save, the second one is likely to bypass that requirement.
You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.
|
On the CDG with a Rock aside, you could always get a Stone Club (for free), which is literally just a rock itself.
As for the OP, I have a CN Calistrian Witch with a somewhat similar sensibility (he takes particular offense at racist jabs about half-orcs), though he stops far short of what you propose. "Kill everyone who looks at me funny" is definitely evil in my book, especially looking at Inner Sea Gods treatment of Calistria's faithful:
Neutral temples (and elven temples in particular) try to mix both...while avoiding the more violent plans for vengeance." (p. 31),
Priests of neutral temples advise petitioners on how best to pursue vengeance, usually urging them to find non-injurious recompense, though if the offense is great enough, they are not averse to giving advice or explicit aid in fulfilling a debt of blood. (p. 32)
Contrast that with the CE Antipaladin code for Calistrians on page 30, which includes "All slights against me will be repaid tenfold." What you're proposing definitely sounds more like it belongs in this category to me.
One other argument towards restraint would be the Calistrian understanding of the value of knowledge. Leaving foes alive allows you to learn their secrets, and use them to exact greater revenge (for example, one scenario gives you the option to recruit a couple Aspis agents to work for the Society, or kill them. Securing their help gives valuable information about Aspis operations, that can be used to get revenge on the organization as a whole).
My witch tends to go for more subtle methods of vengeance, focusing heavily on enchantment spells, much like you mentioned, but also curses, which tend to have permanent durations (for a long time, he refused to teach his familiar Remove Curse, as he'd only curse someone if they legitimately deserved it. Eventually I picked it up to use on party members). Now that he's higher level, he's picking up a lot of save or sucks (Feeblemind, Baleful Polymorph, etc.) to continue that theme, though in the typical PFS scenario I wouldn't use them except as a last resort.
|
|
You're definitely pushing on the edge, and you're very likely to go over unless you're very very careful as a player.
It's been overwhelmingly true when a player brings up the "Is this evil?" question, the answer tends to be "yes".
+1 to that. especially the second sentence.
You can play an amoral antihero in PFS. You have to deal with the way different GMs will interpret what's evil in different ways, but at least there's the PFS rule mentioned upthread that prevents you from finding out you stepped over a particular GM's "evil line" after the fact.
|
|
After talking to one of the local GMs tonight, I guess I'm going to be playing this one very conservatively - as you guys say, it's borderline, and it sounds like they tend to take a pretty hard line on this stuff. Probably limit it to at most enemies that have directly dealt me damage - blood for blood, rather than having it being based on their engaging in combat with any party member (which was going to be my original tipping point for getting violent - definitely not for being insulted or such verbally like some of you seem to be thinking, although I see how my original post could read that way). Did get a bit of RP tonight when I was going to do it and the rest of the party talked me out of it, though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's very little more satisfying than watching your party's collective jaws drop when your paladin executes a prisoner. It takes a GM who understands that modern-day sensibilities aren't always appropriate for the setting of the RPG - sometimes, killing the orc is perfectly just, even if he does happen to be tied up when you end his life. Of course there's a time and a place for this. In a civilized land where the creature can be sent to trial, he should be. But in a lawless land where there is no authority but yours, and with an unrepentant prisoner, ending his life can be the just course of action.
|
|
You could play that character - but also play it that your party members can dissaude you from vengeance with relative ease. So basically - your first instinct is always vengeance/killig - but your friends can talk you out of it - and an hour later you've moved on and forgotten about it. (Maybe make them a bit ADD? it could also explain her penchant for tricks when she gets bored. Of course - I've always thought of many CN characters that way.)
|
|
It's not automatically an evil act to kill a prisoner. If transporting them back to civilization for a trial is infeasible, it's hardly an evil act to say "Well, we either leave him here to rot, or put him to the sword for trying to kill us."
Now, in that situation, I'd rule it'd be a specifically good-aligned (or lawful) act to say "Screw the difficulty, I'm gonna make sure he gets a fair trial." But it's a neutral act to execute a guilty prisoner if there's no civilization around and no other way to bring justice.
|
|
The only parts i see as evil acts is ... and the torture.
When did torture enter the discussion? Interrogation and Torture are not the same thing - interrogation would just be talking; you might make threats (Intimidate), false promises (Bluff), or just try to convince them that it would be in their general best interests to cooperate (Diplomacy), but none of those imply any kind of physical violence - the evil of torture would be the intentional infliction of physical pain upon a sentient creature, which is far, far worse than anything even remotely considered for this character concept.
|
|
I stop what's happening and say, "tell me exactly why right now your character is doing this. Not what they'll consider to justify it later, but right now, what is causing this to happen?"
If they still want to continue I ask their alignment, and ask, "is this what your character would do, and do you think this to be an act of evil."
If I'm not convinced I tell them that I feel it's evil, and if they want to do it they can, but there will be consequences of alignment change. I lastly inform that my ruling can always be appealed though.
Stuff is usually too subjective to say for sure, and sometimes it's a law vs chaos issue that people confuse for good and evil.
|
I don't see any limitation in that rule saying it couldn't be an improvised weapon, just that it has to be a melee weapon or a ranged weapon used adjacent.Obviously, when you CdG, unless you have a damage penalty, you want to use an x4 crit weapon.
No no, it was a Killer Croc reference. Of course you can do a melee CDG with a rock.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only parts i see as evil acts is you killing someone who has already surrendered and the torture. If an npc is redeemable and hassu surrendered (not an evil class obly or a demon or barring your knowledge they will never reform) you cannot kill them. As for the torturing i believe Mike said it is an evil act which is why kuthites cant take profession toturer. I as a gm consider any pfs member who willingly slaughters any character that has made themselves helpless/ has given themselves up to the society as an evil act.
I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only parts i see as evil acts is you killing someone who has already surrendered and the torture. If an npc is redeemable and hassu surrendered (not an evil class obly or a demon or barring your knowledge they will never reform) you cannot kill them. As for the torturing i believe Mike said it is an evil act which is why kuthites cant take profession toturer. I as a gm consider any pfs member who willingly slaughters any character that has made themselves helpless/ has given themselves up to the society as an evil act.I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.
+1
I've played paladins/samurai who're all about justice instead of mercy. (My preferred paladin style. The mercy end of the spectrum is too easily duped/manipulated.) Just because someone can theoretically be redeemed doesn't mean that they don't have to be punished for their crimes. Sometimes that punishment involves a sword swung hard at their neck. (Depending upon their crimes. Execution is a good punishment for murder, but I'm not going to execute an Oliver Twist style pick-pocket.)
She won't accept a surrender, finishing off wounded opponents rather than turning them over to the law. Also, she is enchantment specialized and her spell selection tends toward disabling - sleep for early levels, and later things like hold person/monster - so she is probably going to be doing lots of knocking things out then finishing them off with a crossbow Coup de Grace to the head, even if we are out of combat and they could otherwise be bound and captured. Perhaps even occasionally finishing someone *after* they they have been captured and interrogated.
From the SRD:
Neutral 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.
This seems like a classic evil character to me. I see few if any indicators of neutrality.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
She won't accept a surrender, finishing off wounded opponents rather than turning them over to the law. Also, she is enchantment specialized and her spell selection tends toward disabling - sleep for early levels, and later things like hold person/monster - so she is probably going to be doing lots of knocking things out then finishing them off with a crossbow Coup de Grace to the head, even if we are out of combat and they could otherwise be bound and captured. Perhaps even occasionally finishing someone *after* they they have been captured and interrogated.From the SRD:
Neutral 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.This seems like a classic evil character to me. I see few if any indicators of neutrality.
Bolded for emphasis. I'm going to assume that they aren't fighting random innocents. If they're not innocents - it's not evil. Just because someone has been captured doesn't make them innocent. (Arguably - innocence is a spectrum.)
|
|
Bolded for emphasis. I'm going to assume that they aren't fighting random innocents. If they're not innocents - it's not evil. Just because someone has been captured doesn't make them innocent. (Arguably - innocence is a spectrum.)She won't accept a surrender, finishing off wounded opponents rather than turning them over to the law. Also, she is enchantment specialized and her spell selection tends toward disabling - sleep for early levels, and later things like hold person/monster - so she is probably going to be doing lots of knocking things out then finishing them off with a crossbow Coup de Grace to the head, even if we are out of combat and they could otherwise be bound and captured. Perhaps even occasionally finishing someone *after* they they have been captured and interrogated.From the SRD:
Neutral 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.This seems like a classic evil character to me. I see few if any indicators of neutrality.
Generally, it's at least considered bad form to bayonet the wounded, if not a war crime.
Bolded for emphasis. I'm going to assume that they aren't fighting random innocents. If they're not innocents - it's not evil. Just because someone has been captured doesn't make them innocent.
Conversely, just because you're fighting them doesn't make them not innocent.
I see no indication that this character avoids fighting with the innocent -- in fact, this character makes a point of taking "vengeance" for any slight, no matter how small.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to point out that your alignment doesn't dictate whether an action is "evil" (or any other alignment for that matter). An action is either, itself, so blatantly good/evil/lawful/chaotic that it wouldn't matter who did it, or it's such a grey area that the only thing that matters is your intention and the results.
The reason why your character won't accept surrender determines the alignment of the action. If it's "because dragging around a bunch of 'surrendered' bad guys who might make trouble or try to escape is dang inconvenient," then you're looking at the south side of Chaotic Neutral at best.
Generally, it's at least considered bad form to bayonet the wounded, if not a war crime.
In the real world where "the wounded" can be out of the fight for weeks or months, it is pointless and immoral to target them. In a world where that same guy can get a pat on the back from a healer and be back to full fighting capacity in less than six seconds, targeting the wounded becomes an important tactical decision. Again, intention and result are what make the difference in the alignment of an action.
|
|
Conversely, just because you're fighting them doesn't make them not innocent.I see no indication that this character avoids fighting with the innocent -- in fact, this character makes a point of taking "vengeance" for any slight, no matter how small.
True - but beating the crap out of the innocent and tying them up in the first place would be evil.
Assuming that you're talking about rampaging orcs/evil human sarcrificing cultists/murdering bandits etc which you've captured, killing them wouldn't be evil. It wouldn't be good - but it wouldn't be evil either.
|
|
I see no indication that this character avoids fighting with the innocent -- in fact, this character makes a point of taking "vengeance" for any slight, no matter how small.
You seem to be missing the previous references to going out of the way to solve the situation diplomatically as preference to combat, and only takes vengeance for being attacked by an aggressive party who couldn't be reasoned with. Big difference there, and I'd be willing to argue the fact that the other party starts the fight and can't be reasoned with makes them inherently not innocent in most circumstances. It's not like I'm ambushing random people and executing them. There are corner cases - say we run into a guard who's just doing his job guarding some place that isn't in some way an implicitly evil location - but in general, if they attack first, odds are they aren't very innocent.
Generally, it's at least considered bad form to bayonet the wounded, if not a war crime.
Bad form perhaps, but war crimes are a fairly modern invention - the whole chivalry thing was so notable because it was such an exception to the standard practice of the time of "kill anyone who can possibly be a combatant... and a few of the women and children too, just to make a point".
|
|
Generally, it's at least considered bad form to bayonet the wounded, if not a war crime.Bad form perhaps, but war crimes are a fairly modern invention - the whole chivalry thing was so notable because it was such an exception to the standard practice of the time of "kill anyone who can possibly be a combatant... and a few of the women and children too, just to make a point".
True, but the alignment system itself has its principles rooted in modern thought. There are many things that we would consider "evil" if our players performed them that the ancient world would have been fine with, like slaughtering peasants or holding slaves. Likewise, there are practices that modern world thinks is fine with that would have horrified the ancient world, like a lack of hospitality or intermarriage between social class. What "used to be ok" is a bad barometer for alignment discussions.
|
|
War crimes are a modern invention, and this isn't a war. The Pathfinders aren't at war, they're breaking into ancient historical sites, robbing peoples' houses, and traveling into fantastic locales, wherein they are assaulted by, at various times, native creatures, rival adventurers, assassins, cultists, and innocent duty-minded security guards.
Different approaches for different types of foes apply.
True, but the alignment system itself has its principles rooted in modern thought.
No, many players' interpretations of the alignment system are rooted in modern thought. The alignment system itself isn't necessarily to be seen through a modern lens.
True, but the alignment system itself has its principles rooted in modern thought.No, many players' interpretations of the alignment system are rooted in modern thought. The alignment system itself isn't necessarily to be seen through a modern lens.
No, the alignment system itself is rooted in modern thought. For example, "slavery is evil," or more generally, "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient being." The idea that all sentient beings deserve respect and concern (as opposed to, "the right kind of sentient beings") is straight out of modern ethics. Similarly for the idea that evil is defined consequentialistically in terms of behavioral outcomes instead of based on adherence to God's will or something like that.
I'd go beyond BlackOuroborous' statement; the alignment system is an attempt to codify modern ethical theory into a set of playable categories, without more than a token regard for any of the traditional approaches to ethics beyond consequentialism.
True - but beating the crap out of the innocent and tying them up in the first place would be evil.
Conversely, just because you're fighting them doesn't make them not innocent.I see no indication that this character avoids fighting with the innocent -- in fact, this character makes a point of taking "vengeance" for any slight, no matter how small.
Nope. According to RAW, someone who beats the crap out of you and takes your stuff, but stops short of killing you is probably neutral.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. [...] People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent.
I see no indication that this character avoids fighting with the innocent -- in fact, this character makes a point of taking "vengeance" for any slight, no matter how small.You seem to be missing the previous references to going out of the way to solve the situation diplomatically as preference to combat, and only takes vengeance for being attacked by an aggressive party who couldn't be reasoned with..
I'm not missing it.
I'm looking at the following situation.
* The character angers someone else (possibly by pulling a prank).
* That person injures the character.
* The character kills the person, on the grounds that s/he is "tak[ing] vengeance for being attacked."
That is an express ticket to Eviltown.
You're basically saying that anyone angry enough not to be reasonable is by definition not innocent. That's so far from reality that I have no choice but to label the character chaotic evil.
|
|
True, but the alignment system itself has its principles rooted in modern thought.No, many players' interpretations of the alignment system are rooted in modern thought. The alignment system itself isn't necessarily to be seen through a modern lens.
Paizo disagrees with you here. Their definitions for good and evil are basically straight out of an Ethics 101 text book. Furthermore, even a cursory examination of the adventures they publish shows they are pretty free of moral ambiguity, almost boringly so. You can, of course, run your games how you wish; Lord knows there is little love lost between me and the alignment system. However, we aren't talking about a home game here, we're talking about PFS and Paizo goes out of their way to make sure that it is "Pathfinder Society Organized Play" not "Aspis Consortium Organized Play". If it were my table, I would probably give you heavy warnings about it because not only is it outside the bounds of play but I'm also concerned you would make the other players uncomfortable and their experience worse for it.
|
|
I'm not missing it.
I'm looking at the following situation.
* The character angers someone else (possibly by pulling a prank).
* That person injures the character.
* The character kills the person, on the grounds that s/he is "tak[ing] vengeance for being attacked."That is an express ticket to Eviltown.
You're basically saying that anyone angry enough not to be reasonable is by definition not innocent. That's so far from reality that I have no choice but to label the character chaotic evil.
So you're arguing that someone who initiates deadly combat over a simple prank is an innocent actor? If they're inflicting HP damage that's not nonlethal, that is an attempt to kill on their part, and they have a hell of a lot less justification for it. Are you really sure which one of these two is the evil one here?
Are you really sure which one of these two is the evil one here?
Positive. Both of them are. The difference being that the one with impulse control issues is probably only guilty of second-degree murder.
|
|
Positive. Both of them are. The difference being that the one with impulse control issues is probably only guilty of second-degree murder.
Second degree murder routinely gets dismissed in even modern courts for self defense cases :)
fwiw, I think part of the issue here is that it's pretty hard to work out all the subtleties and nuances of a character's personality in just a couple of paragraphs, especially when the character is still fairly new and hasn't had a lot of play experience to run into some of these situations (I'm pretty new to PFS and while I played 3.5, I usually played NG or CG, so this is my first real go at a character that's N in the G/E axis).
In actual play, would I kill a drunkard who started a bar fight over a prank, or a guard who was just doing their job? No, they're not showing rational malice, so they haven't really done anything worthy of vengeance. I'm not playing it as just some caricature of vengeance (that would be a CE antipaladin), but as a rational actor who gets really pissed off if someone tries to kill her or her friends and wants to even the score. I did a poor job of communication the difference, and so far in play (just hit level 3), I actually have not even inflicted a single HP damage, with the only time being close to doing so being when the party talked her out of killing a rogue who had just sneak attacked one of her party members in the back and nearly killed him.
I think the next thing I need to do is pick up a copy of the above mentioned Inner Sea Gods to read up in more detail on the behavior of the followers of Calistria and some of the alternative means of following her doctrine of vengeance. Even if it could be argued that it is in some way justifiable, it sounds like what I was thinking of doing has the possibility of causing arguments or problems with the other players and GMs - causing table problems is exactly the last thing I want to do, and it's not worth causing problems just to follow a character concept that's not even been fully realized yet.
|
|
True - but beating the crap out of the innocent and tying them up in the first place would be evil.
Conversely, just because you're fighting them doesn't make them not innocent.I see no indication that this character avoids fighting with the innocent -- in fact, this character makes a point of taking "vengeance" for any slight, no matter how small.
Nope. According to RAW, someone who beats the crap out of you and takes your stuff, but stops short of killing you is probably neutral.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. [...] People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent.
It's not that to be evil they have to do all three things. It's a list of things that evil people do. They don't have to complete the full checklist to qualify.
The only parts i see as evil acts is you killing someone who has already surrendered and the torture. If an npc is redeemable and hassu surrendered (not an evil class obly or a demon or barring your knowledge they will never reform) you cannot kill them. As for the torturing i believe Mike said it is an evil act which is why kuthites cant take profession toturer. I as a gm consider any pfs member who willingly slaughters any character that has made themselves helpless/ has given themselves up to the society as an evil act.I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.
That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.
If the result is the same, following the preferred means of enforcement of the government is primarily a matter of Law vs Chaos, not Good vs Evil.
|
|
Positive. Both of them are. The difference being that the one with impulse control issues is probably only guilty of second-degree murder.Second degree murder routinely gets dismissed in even modern courts for self defense cases :)
fwiw, I think part of the issue here is that it's pretty hard to work out all the subtleties and nuances of a character's personality in just a couple of paragraphs, especially when the character is still fairly new and hasn't had a lot of play experience to run into some of these situations (I'm pretty new to PFS and while I played 3.5, I usually played NG or CG, so this is my first real go at a character that's N in the G/E axis).
In actual play, would I kill a drunkard who started a bar fight over a prank, or a guard who was just doing their job? No, they're not showing rational malice, so they haven't really done anything worthy of vengeance. I'm not playing it as just some caricature of vengeance (that would be a CE antipaladin), but as a rational actor who gets really pissed off if someone tries to kill her or her friends and wants to even the score. I did a poor job of communication the difference, and so far in play (just hit level 3), I actually have not even inflicted a single HP damage, with the only time being close to doing so being when the party talked her out of killing a rogue who had just sneak attacked one of her party members in the back and nearly killed him.
I think the next thing I need to do is pick up a copy of the above mentioned Inner Sea Gods to read up in more detail on the behavior of the followers of Calistria and some of the alternative means of following her doctrine of vengeance. Even if it could be argued that it is in some way justifiable, it sounds like what I was thinking of doing has the possibility of causing arguments or problems with the other players and GMs - causing table problems is exactly the last thing I want to do, and it's not worth causing problems just to follow a character...
Yeah, I think I agree that I probably misunderstood your character. That being said, both characters (the one you described just now and the misunderstanding from before) would both be welcome at my home game because they do seem to be interesting (evil characters done well are some of my favorites, actually).
|
|
My advice is to RP that you will get your vengeance at some later date. Make a show of writing down his name along with a list of others whom you will kill at some point. Since actually killing the NPCs in-scenario benefits you little, there is nothing lost in the idea that you will kill these NPCs off-camera after the mission is complete.
Funny enough, I actually already do something like this. I carry a journal and ink with me at all times, and Page 1 is titled "People who will feel my divine wrath once I complete the Test of the Starstone" as my list of people who have slighted me but that I'm not permitted to act against. It was primarily meant to indicate my displeasure with other PCs ("I glare at [other PC name], pulling a journal from my pack and quickly scratching a note") or lore-significant figures (for example, entry #1 is "VC Marcos Farabellus, for making me do all that stupid unnecessary physical training" - she's also rather lazy about anything that's not magic or hedonism), but now that you mention it, I can put this to excellent use with NPCs that the other PCs don't want dead.
|
|
That does not strictly follow. Governments tend to be fairly jealous about who rightly has that sort of power. Executing someone as an individual, without that right, may be a fast track to getting a price on your own head.The only parts i see as evil acts is you killing someone who has already surrendered and the torture. If an npc is redeemable and hassu surrendered (not an evil class obly or a demon or barring your knowledge they will never reform) you cannot kill them. As for the torturing i believe Mike said it is an evil act which is why kuthites cant take profession toturer. I as a gm consider any pfs member who willingly slaughters any character that has made themselves helpless/ has given themselves up to the society as an evil act.I strongly disagree. If a government can execute people for acts of villainy so can an individual.
A government trying to kill you is not mutually exclusive with doing the right thing. If you re doing it right it may be a badge of honor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral Druid: "Their murder of innocents is a perversion of the natural order of things. In order to achieve balance, their lives must be taken in return."
Having experience of Pathfinder worlds, anyone who thinks murder of innocents is a perversion of the natural order of things is crazy. Gratuitous murder is the natural order of things. A more perceptive druid would embrace this.
On CN, the alignment is no more evil than any other alignment that does not include evil. Properly, a CN character who behaves in an evil fashion should have exactly as much trouble with their alignment as any other N character.
CN has just got a bad reputation as players who want to behave in an evil way choose this alignment as they are not allowed to be evil. Then say- " I am not evil, I am just not following the rules".