Did I go too far?


Advice

101 to 150 of 237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Because killing is normally an evil act, but sometimes there are mitigating circumstances. If you become a habitual killer, well there can't possibly be mitigating circumstances on every occasion, therefore you slide towards evil.

Killing is not an evil act.

Murder is an evil act.

You can't murder something that isn't sentient anyway. (In Pathfinder terms a decent reflection would be an Int of at least 3, maybe more.) You also can't murder something which just started a fight with you and was fighting mere seconds ago.

By your logic all butchers are evil. As are executioners. Probably soldiers too. Certainly every adventurer who ever picked up a blade or staff.

Since Pathfinder is based around the idea of good adventurers going off and killing stuff - obviously not the case.

Totally disagree with the first point. It means that within the game a feebleminded human is not sentient and that other mammals are not sentient. And what is the status of vampires? They are typically very intelligent and certainly sentient. In the real world if you deliberately shoot someone in the back while they are running away after a fight you will be charged with murder. You cannot claim self defence if you are not in immediate danger.

Butchers are not evil, they are neutral like most people because there is a huge list of mitigating factors. However, at some point technology will allow us to grow meat without the killing of animals and we would have to decide whether it was still ethical to kill animals for meat. What is your position once that happens? Of course executioners are evil, that is a strange point to raise in support of your argument.

Regarding soldiers, I used to serve in the defence forces when I was young and foolish, I made a lot of great friends there and there are plenty of people with some really exceptional qualities that I admire. However they are not good people, they are pragmatic people who understand that what they do is an unfortunate but necessary evil. They have no delusions about what they do so if I had to assign an alignment to them I would say lawful neutral fits best for most of them.

For those of you who believe that killing the ape is a good act, how do you differentiate between a good act, a neutral act and an evil act in that circumstance?


MeanMutton wrote:
The rules of combat absolutely allow for the killing of an enemy who is retreating. It's frankly idiotic and suicidal not to.

What rules are you referring to? As far as I know the actual rules of combat in the real world specify the opposite and in the Pathfinder world there are no rules of engagement.

For example: the Geneva convention states that you may not shoot at parachuting troops, except when they are paratroopers who are deploying into battle. The reason the distinction is made is that a fighter pilot who parachutes to safety is fleeing the battle and therefore a non-combatant. Paratroopers are obviously deploying for battle and are therefore viable targets.

Sovereign Court

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Because killing is normally an evil act, but sometimes there are mitigating circumstances. If you become a habitual killer, well there can't possibly be mitigating circumstances on every occasion, therefore you slide towards evil.

Killing is not an evil act.

Murder is an evil act.

You can't murder something that isn't sentient anyway. (In Pathfinder terms a decent reflection would be an Int of at least 3, maybe more.) You also can't murder something which just started a fight with you and was fighting mere seconds ago.

By your logic all butchers are evil. As are executioners. Probably soldiers too. Certainly every adventurer who ever picked up a blade or staff.

Since Pathfinder is based around the idea of good adventurers going off and killing stuff - obviously not the case.

Totally disagree with the first point. It means that within the game a feebleminded human is not sentient and that other mammals are not sentient.

See bolded. Obviously feebleminded people are still sentient. And no - other mammals are not sentient. In the real world - it's just humans. (and potentially aliens) In Pathfinder - there are bunches.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
And what is the status of vampires? They are typically very intelligent and certainly sentient. In the real world if you deliberately shoot someone in the back while they are running away after a fight you will be charged with murder. You cannot claim self defence if you are not in immediate danger.

Depends on the circumstances. If they're in your home - you totally can. Castle doctrine. If you have reason to think that they're going for a weapon and are going to come right back - you totally can.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Of course executioners are evil, that is a strange point to raise in support of your argument.

Wait - what? So - someone who is designated by the gov. to throw the switch on a serial killer is evil? So - Tom Hanks' character in The Green Mile was evil? Same with everyone who ever sat on a jury and sentenced someone to death? Same with every DA & ADA who have gone for the death penalty? Gotcha... no. Just... no.

Not unless you're a total pacifist. Not gonna argue the real world version of that here - but it makes no freakin' sense in Pathfinder. You'd have to have major issues with the very idea of adventurers.

(Of note - before it becomes the focus - I'm actually against the death penalty. In theory I'm for it - but the justice system is imperfect - and I've read of too many cases - while rare - of the wrong guy getting convicted.)


Poink wrote:

An interesting situation popped up last week: while fighting an NPC with Hunter class levels, the NPC dies, leaving his large ape AC behind against five angry PCs. The ape is gravely wounded, and he gets Grease cast on him. Bewildered by the sudden magic and almost falling over, it grabs the headless (the PC said he decapitated him) body of his master and retreats in a very agitated state.

This was a surprisingly emotional moment at the table. I was trying to act according to the instincts of the ape, but it was pretty upsetting to some of the players. Would this be an issue to you if you were playing? Was it too dramatic?

Also, one of the PCs (the same that killed the hunter btw) tried to finish off the ape when it was obviously retreating. While I have noted the.. tenacity of some people in discussions regarding alignment, I would still like to know: would you consider this an evil act?

To oversimplify the argument:

It is LAWFUL to accept people's surrender or to let them leave when fleeing.
It is EVIL to wantonly kill people or creatures.
It is CHAOTIC to not accept surrender or to refuse to allow people to flee.
It is GOOD to carefully kill only those who deserve death.

In this case, the ape is fighting the PCs. It is retreating, but it is also effectively stealing loot from the party. For something to be evil, the ape would have to have the unprovoked ire of the PCs, and, last I checked, trying to kill someone is quite a provoking action.

Evil? No. Chaotic? Probably. It did steal the loot of the encounter, so I'd call it neutral at worst.

One thing to keep in mind is that alignment isn't particularly important. However, you can get around this by just having the NPC's gear slowly fall off of him in a line, thus allowing the PCs to grab everything of worth off his body as they track the ape. Alternatively, the PCs could fine this hunter's stash of rare gems that he was hording for a rainy day.


Once you have captured the serial killer and they are in prison you have no justification for killing them. They are no longer a threat. Everyone who participates in the process is culpable. There are some really great documentaries about death row and the evidence shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent and that a large proportion of people on death row are innocent but are either in need of psychiatric help or have other issues that require treatment.

At the end of the movie: The Green Mile, Paul (Tom Hanks' character) transfers to a youth detention centre because he realises what he has done is wrong. He also makes the confession that his extraordinary long life is punishment from god for the execution of John Coffey. How you equate this to execution being just and reasonable is beyond me.

But getting back to the opening post, nobody has posted a reasonable justification for killing the ape. If I was running that game and the PCs were evil, sure go nuts, but if they are good aligned then I would warn them that another infraction risks an alignment change.

Liberty's Edge

Yes, there's reasonable justification. Seriously. Animals that have attacked humans tend to do it again, and they tend to prey upon the weak - the elderly, the very young, and the sickly.

It's a GOOD act to get rid of that threat.


OF COURSE you have justification.

Every day that serial killer is in there he's consuming resources that the good citizens of your society could put to far better use if left in their own pockets rather than robbed via the tool called taxes.


"Bleeding hearts scream compassion, What of those who cannot cry? A life is worth a life. Justice, merciful and blind."

Stavesacre-Zyyxx Scarecrow.

As far as the game is concerned I'd definitely not consider attacking a fleeing enemy evil. From an in character standpoint, you don't know what is going to happen. Will that foe come back with reinforcements? Maybe they will sneak past the night guard and slit your throat while you sleep? Maybe they'll just kill an innocent person or group of people when they run across them.

If you kill them you remove the what if's and know for certain that no innocent parties are going to be killed or injured.


EldonG wrote:

Yes, there's reasonable justification. Seriously. Animals that have attacked humans tend to do it again, and they tend to prey upon the weak - the elderly, the very young, and the sickly.

It's a GOOD act to get rid of that threat.

Removing the threat is fair enough, but there are other ways of doing that than killing. A good character would attempt to capture the ape first. Agree?


Combat Monster wrote:

"Bleeding hearts scream compassion, What of those who cannot cry? A life is worth a life. Justice, merciful and blind."

Stavesacre-Zyyxx Scarecrow.

As far as the game is concerned I'd definitely not consider attacking a fleeing enemy evil. From an in character standpoint, you don't know what is going to happen. Will that foe come back with reinforcements? Maybe they will sneak past the night guard and slit your throat while you sleep? Maybe they'll just kill an innocent person or group of people when they run across them.

If you kill them you remove the what if's and know for certain that no innocent parties are going to be killed or injured.

I hope you are joking.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

OF COURSE you have justification.

Every day that serial killer is in there he's consuming resources that the good citizens of your society could put to far better use if left in their own pockets rather than robbed via the tool called taxes.

This what came up with a basic Google search.

The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.)

Liberty's Edge

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
EldonG wrote:

Yes, there's reasonable justification. Seriously. Animals that have attacked humans tend to do it again, and they tend to prey upon the weak - the elderly, the very young, and the sickly.

It's a GOOD act to get rid of that threat.

Removing the threat is fair enough, but there are other ways of doing that than killing. A good character would attempt to capture the ape first. Agree?

No.

Have you ever even player a frpg? No good character could even exist.


Why not?


I've been playing RPGs since 1987. It's not meant to be easy to be good, that is part of what makes it special.


Nebula, I'm dead serious. I wouldn't say a hero who finishes off a fleeing bad guy is bad. There is a good chance they'll halt the flow of evil with that action.

I'd say killing a fleeing foe is neutral and would have no bearing on the alignment of a heroic character. And I can say that if my current adventurer let a foe live/escape only to learn that foe later killed an innocent party, he'd be kicking himself. He'd also rectify his mistake by tracking down and killing that foe with extreme prejudice.


You are missing my point, you don't have to let him go, knock him out if you have to. Killing is the LAST resort for a good character.


Boomerang Nebula wrote:
But getting back to the opening post, nobody has posted a reasonable justification for killing the ape. If I was running that game and the PCs were evil, sure go nuts, but if they are good aligned then I would warn them that another infraction risks an alignment change.

Honestly this is just encouraging them to play bat-shit evil characters instead of trying to be honorable or noble. You might end up with everyone playing Lawful, neutral and chaotic evil or not worship good deities.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the GM is incentivizing the players to kill this ape since it just ran off with what equates to a big bag of stuff to be sold for gold. If you decry them as evil, then don't be surprised when they all show up with evil skeleton summoning murderers who all dream of becoming liches.

As I said, don't worry about alignment, it is a guideline unless your class is alignment dependent.

Let me put it like this to make it simple: your players must pose the question, "What is the GM incentivizing us to do?"

Scenario 1: "The ape steals your loot, and it gets away. You find no loot. Congratulations, because you chose not to kill this ape, you now have less money, but at least you're a good person." The players are effectively being punished for not being cut-throats.

Scenario 2: "The ape steals your loot, and it gets away. As you search the area, you find a small stash of gems the hunter was hoarding for whatever reason, a rainy day you presume, and the sounds of the ape are already crossing beyond your ability to hear." This lets the players know that the GM isn't going to just hang them out to dry, and it reaffirms to them that everything is going to be ok, even if some craziness happens. This makes it so the players will trust your weird stuff a bit more. This also encourages them to do things that you consider "good" in nature.

We are also talking about a non-sentient animal here, not an awakened ape. I guess those cattle herders who slaughter their cattle for beef are all evil. Not to mention hunters, they're the most villainous of the lot—I mean, they actually go into the wild, hunt down innocent creatures and murder them!

XD

Sovereign Court

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

OF COURSE you have justification.

Every day that serial killer is in there he's consuming resources that the good citizens of your society could put to far better use if left in their own pockets rather than robbed via the tool called taxes.

This what came up with a basic Google search.

The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.)

Shooting an ape with an arrow doesn't cost nearly that much.


Why would I incentivise my players to pay lip service to being good? If they want to be evil, play evil characters.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

OF COURSE you have justification.

Every day that serial killer is in there he's consuming resources that the good citizens of your society could put to far better use if left in their own pockets rather than robbed via the tool called taxes.

This what came up with a basic Google search.

The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.)

Shooting an ape with an arrow doesn't cost nearly that much.

That sounds suspiciously like a justification used by evil characters.

Sovereign Court

Boomerang Nebula wrote:


That sounds suspiciously like a justification used by evil characters.

I've already made plenty of arguments as to my reasons to kill the ape - and it being a good to neutral act. Your only decent reason left is that it's cheaper not to kill it... which is a silly argument and obviously not the case.

(Note - when it comes to real-world death penalty - I've already stated that I'm against it - though for not entirely the same reasons you are. Don't make this a awkwardly veiled real-world death penalty argument. And frankly - they should be avoided on here - I only stated my real-world opinion above in an attempt to head it off - though said attempt apparently failed miserably.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
For those of you who believe that killing the ape is a good act, how do you differentiate between a good act, a neutral act and an evil act in that circumstance?

I'll go ahead and address this because while I didn't say it was necessarily a good act, I did say I could come up with justifications for how members of any alignment could be justified in killing the ape.

Chaotic Evil: It looked at me funny.
Neutral Evil: We can't leave witnesses.
Lawful Evil: Anyone who attacks me dies.
Chaotic Neutral: They're running off with our loot!
Neutral: It's an enemy and it hasn't surrendered.
Lawful Neutral: They'll probably be a threat later. Better to deal with it now.
Chaotic Good: It's injured, just lost its only friend, and we have next to no hope of getting through to it. We have to put it out of its misery.
Neutral Good: We managed to defend ourselves against this threat but the next people to encounter it might not be as strong as we are. We must do it for the public good.
Lawful Good: Its master was evil and taught it to do evil. Though ultimately not its fault, we must stop it, tragic though that may be.

If it's all the same to everyone else, I'll stay out of the real-life analogies. All I will say is that I would expect many different beliefs and opinions on this topic, and that the GM should try to work with the players to craft a story they all can enjoy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you have made a reasonable argument for a neutral character to kill the ape, but a fairly flimsy one for a good character.

I will refrain from any further discussion on the merits or otherwise of capital punishment as per your request.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do wonder how Paladins survive in games where people seem to think that their Smite Evil power actually reads as Give Friendship Hugs.

Sovereign Court

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
I think you have made a reasonable argument for a neutral character to kill the ape, but a fairly flimsy one for a good character.

I'll agree that it's not be an inherently good act. But good characters can do neutral acts without changing alignments.


Cuuniyevo wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
For those of you who believe that killing the ape is a good act, how do you differentiate between a good act, a neutral act and an evil act in that circumstance?

I'll go ahead and address this because while I didn't say it was necessarily a good act, I did say I could come up with justifications for how members of any alignment could be justified in killing the ape.

Chaotic Evil: It looked at me funny.
Neutral Evil: We can't leave witnesses.
Lawful Evil: Anyone who attacks me dies.
Chaotic Neutral: They're running off with our loot!
Neutral: It's an enemy and it hasn't surrendered.
Lawful Neutral: They'll probably be a threat later. Better to deal with it now.
Chaotic Good: It's injured, just lost its only friend, and we have next to no hope of getting through to it. We have to put it out of its misery.
Neutral Good: We managed to defend ourselves against this threat but the next people to encounter it might not be as strong as we are. We must do it for the public good.
Lawful Good: It's master was evil and taught it to do evil. Though ultimately not its fault, we must stop it, tragic though that may be.

If it's all the same to everyone else, I'll stay out of the real-life analogies. All I will say is that I would expect many different beliefs and opinions on this topic, and that the GM should try to work with the players to craft a story they all can enjoy.

Excellent post.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I do wonder how Paladins survive in games where people seem to think that their Smite Evil power actually reads as Give Friendship Hugs.

YOUR MOM IS A CLASSY LADY!


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
I think you have made a reasonable argument for a neutral character to kill the ape, but a fairly flimsy one for a good character.
I'll agree that it's not be an inherently good act. But good characters can do neutral acts without changing alignments.

Agree!

Liberty's Edge

Eating meat just encourages evil. Someone murdered that animal.

/nonsense


Chengar Qordath wrote:
I do wonder how Paladins survive in games where people seem to think that their Smite Evil power actually reads as Give Friendship Hugs.

There are plenty of viable enemies for a paladin to use smite evil against. Smite evil doesn't work on neutral aligned animals, so I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.


I love this discussion! Thanks to every person who has contributed thus far.

While I have read that the system of Good/Evil and Law/Chaos is objective in this system, it seems that there is actually a very large amount of ambiguity regarding what counts as one of these things in a given situation. Not that I would really expect it to be anything different; we can't figure this stuff out in real life!

There have been a number of legitimate arguments made for the killing of the ape being regarded as any of the things under the alignment system. The ambiguity regarding these things when they are applied leads to a number of different opinions, and this leads to the well-known controversy over the subject. It's clear that this is a GM fiat matter to be reckoned by herself and her players, but the discussion is enriching to me.

There are some factors that I have not clarified: no loss of treasure was risked, for one. They were in a city, and they were being chased by the "local authorities", of which one was the aforementioned Hunter+Ape. While the Ape could maybe be a danger to others, with other people chasing after them, they would likely find the Ape very quickly, long before it could do anything really bad.

Like I said, there is a lot of really good stuff here, and I appreciate all of it!

E: It's "Evil", not "Bad"


Just curious, what alignment are the PCs?

Sovereign Court

EldonG wrote:

Eating meat just encourages evil. Someone murdered that animal.

/nonsense

Don't forget all of the animals which are killed while farming grains & vegetables! Bunches of mice/moles etc. are run over by harvesters each year. So... eating is evil?


Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I do wonder how Paladins survive in games where people seem to think that their Smite Evil power actually reads as Give Friendship Hugs.
There are plenty of viable enemies for a paladin to use smite evil against. Smite evil doesn't work on neutral aligned animals, so I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.

If killing, or destruction of evil, or even Evil, is seen as the last resort, then no, Paladins would not have a lot of viable enemies outside of non-sentient undead that Smite Evil would work on. After all, even demons and devils can be rehabilitated with enough work, right?

Right?


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I do wonder how Paladins survive in games where people seem to think that their Smite Evil power actually reads as Give Friendship Hugs.
There are plenty of viable enemies for a paladin to use smite evil against. Smite evil doesn't work on neutral aligned animals, so I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.

If killing, or destruction of evil, or even Evil, is seen as the last resort, then no, Paladins would not have a lot of viable enemies outside of non-sentient undead that Smite Evil would work on. After all, even demons and devils can be rehabilitated with enough work, right?

Right?

There seems to be an attitude here that goes something like this.

GM: the situation is as follows, there is a big ape...
Players: sounds dangerous, let's kill it, for the good of humanity, yeah that sounds plausible.

With nothing in between.

This is a roleplaying game the opportunity is there for good characters to explore options and arrive at the conclusion that an enemy is irredeemably evil. It poses a great role-playing opportunity and also can make combat more challenging and more interesting.

Why is it acceptable for the players of good characters to make no effort to resolve the situation in any other way and proceed immediately to killing? The answer is that it is not acceptable and you know it. Please refrain from posting disingenuous strawman arguments.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, more like 'there is this big ape...that was trying to kill you, just now'.

Why do you insist on making it sound like killing kittens?


The thing i find most amusing about this whole thing is how people see the same alignment in different lights.

Some are saying good would be to kill said ape and prevent it from doing harm.

To me and some others good would be to leave said ape alive or even try to capture it and take care of it or find someone to do so.

This thread , like so many others before it , will go on pretty much forever , since this is a fundamental difference on how people see each alignment.

Reason it is so important for the GM to make clear each time what he believes in and warn the player so that they can change their actions to fit said view.


EldonG wrote:

No, more like 'there is this big ape...that was trying to kill you, just now'.

Why do you insist on making it sound like killing kittens?

I read through your last 100+ posts and you seem like a reasonable person (and your online campaign sounds awesome). It wasn't my intention to compare killing the ape to killing kittens (and I don't recall ever saying that) however if I have given that impression I apologise for being misleading.

I thought my position was quite clear, but since it isn't I will clarify. My view is that whilst the ape is clearly dangerous it is not a good act to kill it when you have other less lethal options. You need to explore the other options first before going down that path. Killing is a last resort, which is NOT the same as saying that it is never an option.


Boomerang Nebula wrote:
nonsense

I'm going to go ahead and call this guy a troll who is arguing nonsense.

It sort of sounds like he thinks good characters are all Jesus. His arguments are absurd. I guess all his good characters are disguised celestial outsiders.


Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
nonsense

I'm going to go ahead and call this guy a troll who is arguing nonsense.

It sort of sounds like he thinks good characters are all Jesus. His arguments are absurd. I guess all his good characters are disguised celestial outsiders.

Can you please just state what your point is rather than misquote me and call me troll?

Sovereign Court

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
nonsense

I'm going to go ahead and call this guy a troll who is arguing nonsense.

It sort of sounds like he thinks good characters are all Jesus. His arguments are absurd. I guess all his good characters are disguised celestial outsiders.

You obviously forgot about John 2 - where Jesus made a badass whip and proceeded to beat the crap out of the merchants/money-changers who were violating the temple. And then in Matthew 21 when he came back to Jerusalem he did it a 2nd time because they hadn't learned.

(The whole 'turn the other cheek' thing is often taken vastly out of context. It doesn't mean that you should just take a physical beating - it had to do with insults. Culturally at the time - if you slapped someone with the back of the hand you were slapping an inferior - open hand slapping was for an equal in a disagreement. So - the 'turn the other cheek' was in reference to standing your ground against insults and making them respect you for it without replying with insults of your own.)

Scarab Sages

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
nonsense

I'm going to go ahead and call this guy a troll who is arguing nonsense.

It sort of sounds like he thinks good characters are all Jesus. His arguments are absurd. I guess all his good characters are disguised celestial outsiders.

You obviously forgot about John 2 - where Jesus made a badass whip and proceeded to beat the crap out of the merchants/money-changers who were violating the temple. And then in Matthew 21 when he came back to Jerusalem he did it a 2nd time because they hadn't learned.

(The whole 'turn the other cheek' thing is often taken vastly out of context. It doesn't mean that you should just take a physical beating - it had to do with insults. Culturally at the time - if you slapped someone with the back of the hand you were slapping an inferior - open hand slapping was for an equal in a disagreement. So - the 'turn the other cheek' was in reference to standing your ground against insults and making them respect you for it without replying with insults of your own.)

Yeah... also, he never killed anyone. >_>

Also, as to the whole Paladin thing: There's no reason a Paladin can't Smite with subdual damage. Nothing says it has to be lethal.


I didn't read the whole thread, but I just wanted to point something out to the "the Paladin falls" crowd. So if I'm a bad guy who burns orphans for kicks, all I have to do is run away and the Paladin can't touch me? That seems logical to you?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As a good Pathfinder character with great power, it's your responsibility to prevent harm to innocents. If you can reliably prevent your opponent from harming innocents without killing them, you should do so. If not, either because the confinement wouldn't be an effective deterrent or because pulling your punches would make you lose, sometimes killing is necessary for the greater good.

In this case, there are two possible reasons being good would mean stopping the ape. If there's a reasonable probability the evil ranger would be resurrected if his body got away, that's one reason. If the ape is likely to pose a threat (even unintentionally) to town, that's another.

A suspicion that the ranger has something necessary for stopping a greater evil (e.g. a key) is another reason, but it's weaker. But what we should be requiring isn't that it be good, only not evil. And there's precedent for killing without it being evil.

I think we can agree that hunting for food isn't evil. Third level spells aren't exactly accessible (30 gold is expensive for eating for a day). Spider climb requires killing a spider and isn't an evil act. And those creatures didn't even attack first.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

If something attacks you, then you kill it. That way you survive. You don't kill it, then it will come back and kill you later.

Wound a cougar and leave it to its devices and continue to camp in those same woods for a few weeks and see what happens.

[...]

one of three things would happen.

1: Ape engages in suicidal but ruthless Guerilla Warfare [pun partly intended] against the party, haunting them mercilessly until it dies, the party dies or the party somehow convinces it that they aren't its enemy.

2: Ape flees back to its pack [excuse me, I'm pretty sure a family group of Guerillas is a Troop], musters up reinforcements and returns at night [under good moonlight of course] for an all-out-assault.

Uh, if you're asserting that the expected result of letting a predator go will be a midnight revenge raid, I'd say that you probably have it backwards. Most predators don't survive by picking even moderately-risky fights, let alone near-deadly ones, day to day. If a predator has had an object lesson that tangling with adventurers leads to severe wounds and pain and near death, it's probably not coming back for seconds from you, and actually, probably not from any other adventurers in the future either.

Frankly, predators limping off wounded from lost fights with adventurers are the least important to run down and kill. They're learning to avoid you and those like you in the future. You really want to hunt down the predators who have won fights with adventurers.

There's a reason that encounters like this don't end with the rhino chasing down the lions and slaughtering them all to save itself from the lions' commando revenge raid. Lions figure out rhino is stronger, lions give up. They aren't coming back for it tomorrow, they aren't going to fight some sort of ridiculous suicide battle of attrition until they are all dead.

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

If something attacks you, then you kill it. That way you survive. You don't kill it, then it will come back and kill you later.

Wound a cougar and leave it to its devices and continue to camp in those same woods for a few weeks and see what happens.

Uh, if you're asserting that the expected result of letting a predator go will be a midnight revenge raid, I'd say that you probably have it backwards. Most predators don't survive by picking even moderately-risky fights, let alone near-deadly ones, day to day. If a predator has had an object lesson that tangling with adventurers leads to severe wounds and pain and near death, it's probably not coming back for seconds from you, and actually, probably not from any other adventurers in the future either.

Frankly, predators limping off wounded from lost fights with adventurers are the least important to run down and kill. They're learning to avoid you and those like you in the future. You really want to hunt down the predators who have won fights with adventurers.

Absolutely.

They tend to go after the weakest, like children.


And for good reason. Nobody likes to get hurt, but predators least of all, since their dinner depends on them being in top shape. So if one has learned that a certain species presents a threatening fight, it will tend to go back to the other food sources. For your cougar, probably raccoons and such.


As far as the original post, I think many of you have overlooked the fact that the victim in question was an animal. While the situation may be sad from a human perspective, an animal has limited capacity to understand what has happened to its master and the effects of its own actions against the party.
While my character would have left it alone, I still wouldn't say finishing the ape off would warrant anything so drastic as an alignment change. The situation is pretty neutral ground, IMO.


iambobdole1 wrote:

As far as the original post, I think many of you have overlooked the fact that the victim in question was an animal. While the situation may be sad from a human perspective, an animal has limited capacity to understand what has happened to its master and the effects of its own actions against the party.

While my character would have left it alone, I still wouldn't say finishing the ape off would warrant anything so drastic as an alignment change. The situation is pretty neutral ground, IMO.

You can rest assured that nobody in this thread has overlooked the fact the victim was an animal.

Also, nobody has recommended an alignment change for a once off event.


Coriat wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

If something attacks you, then you kill it. That way you survive. You don't kill it, then it will come back and kill you later.

Wound a cougar and leave it to its devices and continue to camp in those same woods for a few weeks and see what happens.

[...]

one of three things would happen.

1: Ape engages in suicidal but ruthless Guerilla Warfare [pun partly intended] against the party, haunting them mercilessly until it dies, the party dies or the party somehow convinces it that they aren't its enemy.

2: Ape flees back to its pack [excuse me, I'm pretty sure a family group of Guerillas is a Troop], musters up reinforcements and returns at night [under good moonlight of course] for an all-out-assault.

Uh, if you're asserting that the expected result of letting a predator go will be a midnight revenge raid, I'd say that you probably have it backwards. Most predators don't survive by picking even moderately-risky fights, let alone near-deadly ones, day to day. If a predator has had an object lesson that tangling with adventurers leads to severe wounds and pain and near death, it's probably not coming back for seconds from you, and actually, probably not from any other adventurers in the future either.

Frankly, predators limping off wounded from lost fights with adventurers are the least important to run down and kill. They're learning to avoid you and those like you in the future. You really want to hunt down the predators who have won fights with adventurers.

There's a reason that encounters like this don't end with the rhino chasing down the lions and slaughtering them all to save itself from the lions' commando revenge raid. Lions figure out rhino is stronger, lions give up. They aren't coming back for it tomorrow, they aren't going to fight some sort of ridiculous suicide battle of attrition until they are all dead.

Sure in the real world kyrt-ryder's response is utterly ludicrous.

I think he is referring to the game world and perhaps some GMs run animals in this fashion. I prefer not to change the way animals behave in my game worlds because I find it tends to lead to confusion.

At my table it is very easy to deal with wild animals, show them fire and they run away. Animals pose no real threat to the PCs unless they are controlled by magic.

101 to 150 of 237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Did I go too far? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.