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?
I honestly don't see much wrong with the situation. The ape would obviously be upset because its best friend just got his head lopped off, so it would probably want to mourn its companion.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Were they just upset the ape "stole" all the treasure the NPC was carrying on him (except his fancy hat)?
Shooting dangerous animals shouldn't have an alignment issues. Even NG druids hunt and CE necromancers put out house fires (well, their own house fires, or house fires that threaten their homes).
SmiloDan wrote: Were they just upset the ape "stole" all the treasure the NPC was carrying on him (except his fancy hat)?
Shooting dangerous animals shouldn't have an alignment issues. Even NG druids hunt and CE necromancers put out house fires (well, their own house fires, or house fires that threaten their homes).
At that point I would not have called that animal "dangerous". Sure, it was combat-trained, but it was in no condition to fight, and it did not even want to fight.
Poink wrote: SmiloDan wrote: Were they just upset the ape "stole" all the treasure the NPC was carrying on him (except his fancy hat)?
Shooting dangerous animals shouldn't have an alignment issues. Even NG druids hunt and CE necromancers put out house fires (well, their own house fires, or house fires that threaten their homes).
At that point I would not have called that animal "dangerous". Sure, it was combat-trained, but it was in no condition to fight, and it did not even want to fight. Point is that was their enemy.
It bared its fangs against them and attacked them.
While finishing it off isn't 'Good' IMO it certainly isn't 'Evil' either.
Simple neutrality at its finest.
Poink wrote: SmiloDan wrote: Were they just upset the ape "stole" all the treasure the NPC was carrying on him (except his fancy hat)?
Shooting dangerous animals shouldn't have an alignment issues. Even NG druids hunt and CE necromancers put out house fires (well, their own house fires, or house fires that threaten their homes).
At that point I would not have called that animal "dangerous". Sure, it was combat-trained, but it was in no condition to fight, and it did not even want to fight. This is a single event. Very few single events will shift alignment so dramatically that it will result in an actual alignment change (See: A paladin sacrificing a pile of innocent newborns to Cthulhu). As for trying to stab/shoot it in the back, that's probably NE or CE. Minorly, though. A paladin could get away with it, if it were just this once.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
As with all alignment threads, alignment is silly, morality is more complex than a nine-square matrix. Let the players govern their own alignment at all times. Only question it as GM where something really insane is happening, like a Lawful Good character setting fire to every orphanage they come across. Alignment should personal and only there to facilitate a player's interest.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Poink wrote: SmiloDan wrote: Were they just upset the ape "stole" all the treasure the NPC was carrying on him (except his fancy hat)?
Shooting dangerous animals shouldn't have an alignment issues. Even NG druids hunt and CE necromancers put out house fires (well, their own house fires, or house fires that threaten their homes).
At that point I would not have called that animal "dangerous". Sure, it was combat-trained, but it was in no condition to fight, and it did not even want to fight. Point is that was their enemy.
It bared its fangs against them and attacked them.
While finishing it off isn't 'Good' IMO it certainly isn't 'Evil' either.
Simple neutrality at its finest. I'd agree that killing somebody currently attacking you is neutral or non-aligned (there's a difference). However, they tried to kill it as it left. That's not exactly a good act, though in the grand scheme of things, it's not all that evil, either.
Well, I was thinking of the Mad Ape running away and then eating a school full of school children. Kind of a pre-emptive kind of thing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
When a combat ape has been beating in your face and/or your friends' faces, there's not a lot of inclination to let the face-beater escape in the heat of combat.
No alignment repercussions unless they subdue it and torture it do death.
I totally agree with the idea that no alignment shift should occur, but like My Self suggested, doesn't this get put in the 'evil' category?
There is a point to killing creatures: they are not just things to hit when they are being inconvenient. In a situation where this creature, who cannot really be 'evil', just dangerous, is clearly no longer dangerous, that should eliminate the reason for even fighting it in the first place in my opinion.
'AC Gone Wild' is a theory that a PC could use to justify killing the fleeing creature. This was not an idea brought up at the table.
My Self wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Poink wrote: SmiloDan wrote: Were they just upset the ape "stole" all the treasure the NPC was carrying on him (except his fancy hat)?
Shooting dangerous animals shouldn't have an alignment issues. Even NG druids hunt and CE necromancers put out house fires (well, their own house fires, or house fires that threaten their homes).
At that point I would not have called that animal "dangerous". Sure, it was combat-trained, but it was in no condition to fight, and it did not even want to fight. Point is that was their enemy.
It bared its fangs against them and attacked them.
While finishing it off isn't 'Good' IMO it certainly isn't 'Evil' either.
Simple neutrality at its finest. I'd agree that killing somebody currently attacking you is neutral or non-aligned (there's a difference). However, they tried to kill it as it left. That's not exactly a good act, though in the grand scheme of things, it's not all that evil, either. Exactly. Not good, not evil. Just normal.
Edit: besides, I've heard gorilla [usually an 'Ape' in this context is a gorilla. If it were a Chimpanzee or Baboon or such I surmise we'd have been told so] is pretty good eating.
Poink wrote: I totally agree with the idea that no alignment shift should occur, but like My Self suggested, doesn't this get put in the 'evil' category?
There is a point to killing creatures: they are not just things to hit when they are being inconvenient. In a situation where this creature, who cannot really be 'evil', just dangerous, is clearly no longer dangerous, that should eliminate the reason for even fighting it in the first place in my opinion.
'AC Gone Wild' is a theory that a PC could use to justify killing the fleeing creature. This was not an idea brought up at the table.
It appears you might be under a misunderstanding of what it means to be Neutral and what it means to be Evil Poink [either you are or I am at least :P]
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.
In this particular case? Animal companions are of animal intelligence which is a lot better than roleplayers tend to give it credit for. Said Ape could EASILY have brought that body back to known allies of its companion who were somewhere in the area, at which time they could easily Raise him and come back in force.
If destroying your enemy makes you evil, sooner or later the entire world will be evil because nothing else survives.
It's evil. Does the player care? It's not like he's playing a Paladin, that you've told us.
Players get so uppity about alignment, but this isn't 1st edition D&D where alignment changes incurred an XP penalty. Unless you're an alignment-restricted class, there's no reason to care about it, really. It's all about character growth.
Please see my post immediately above yours Davor.
I seriously disagree that killing your enemy is evil.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Davor wrote: It's evil. Does the player care? It's not like he's playing a Paladin, that you've told us.
Players get so uppity about alignment, but this isn't 1st edition D&D where alignment changes incurred an XP penalty. Unless you're an alignment-restricted class, there's no reason to care about it, really. It's all about character growth.
No, it's neutral. The ape is an enemy. Fleeing doesn't suddenly change that. Retreating isn't a magical status that makes someone killing you a bad person.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Poink wrote: I totally agree with the idea that no alignment shift should occur, but like My Self suggested, doesn't this get put in the 'evil' category?
There is a point to killing creatures: they are not just things to hit when they are being inconvenient. In a situation where this creature, who cannot really be 'evil', just dangerous, is clearly no longer dangerous, that should eliminate the reason for even fighting it in the first place in my opinion.
'AC Gone Wild' is a theory that a PC could use to justify killing the fleeing creature. This was not an idea brought up at the table.
It appears you might be under a misunderstanding of what it means to be Neutral and what it means to be Evil Poink [either you are or I am at least :P]
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.
In this particular case? Animal companions are of animal intelligence which is a lot better than roleplayers tend to give it credit for. Said Ape could EASILY have brought that body back to known allies of its companion who were somewhere in the area, at which time they could easily Raise him and come back in force.
If destroying your enemy makes you evil, sooner or later the entire world will be evil because nothing else survives. Creatures with an Int of 2 don't have 'enemies', just things that are threatening them at the time, things that they are told to kill at the time, etc. They don't plot and scheme to get revenge. Once that ape leaves, he won't be coming back as a threat. Saying that you could run into it later and that it would attack you as a justification for killing an almost dead, retreating animal seems disingenuous. That cougar will leave you alone if you almost kill it unless it is desperate.
Even with this, I think there is a case to be made for this being neutral. Neutral characters can be spiteful without being evil, and if people they cared about were attacked by this thing, their emotions may drive them to slaughter it. I would expect a paladin to give the beast a reprieve unless there was some huge reason for it not being allowed to live, i.e. revealing their location on a top secret mission of great importance.
Anzyr wrote: Davor wrote: It's evil. Does the player care? It's not like he's playing a Paladin, that you've told us.
Players get so uppity about alignment, but this isn't 1st edition D&D where alignment changes incurred an XP penalty. Unless you're an alignment-restricted class, there's no reason to care about it, really. It's all about character growth.
No, it's neutral. The ape is an enemy. Fleeing doesn't suddenly change that. Retreating isn't a magical status that makes someone killing you a bad person. This might be a bit argumentative, but is it good for paladins to consistently go around stabbing fleeing enemies?
As for my own opinion: I think it's rather cowardly and slightly evil to go around stabbing enemies who have no interest in fighting, are not inherently, magically evil, and are fleeing. These are not merely dirty combat tactics (which violate the unspoken rules of combat), but rather an act of killing because you want to. Although it is dependent on the circumstances, if a player consistently does this, I'd say they're acting game-terms evil. Please convince me (politely) if you believe otherwise.
My Self wrote: Anzyr wrote: Davor wrote: It's evil. Does the player care? It's not like he's playing a Paladin, that you've told us.
Players get so uppity about alignment, but this isn't 1st edition D&D where alignment changes incurred an XP penalty. Unless you're an alignment-restricted class, there's no reason to care about it, really. It's all about character growth.
No, it's neutral. The ape is an enemy. Fleeing doesn't suddenly change that. Retreating isn't a magical status that makes someone killing you a bad person. This might be a bit argumentative, but is it good for paladins to consistently go around stabbing fleeing enemies?
As for my own opinion: I think it's rather cowardly and slightly evil to go around stabbing enemies who have no interest in fighting, are not inherently, magically evil, and are fleeing. These are not merely dirty combat tactics (which violate the unspoken rules of combat), but rather an act of killing because you want to. Although it is dependent on the circumstances, if a player consistently does this, I'd say they're acting game-terms evil. Please convince me (politely) if you believe otherwise. Old Chinese Proverb: Mercy to the enemy is cruelty to oneself.
A fleeing enemy is not a vanquished enemy. They have not been slain, they have not been captured, they have not been converted/redeemed.
The vast majority of the time either they will continue to behave exactly the same way that led to your altercation to begin with, or they will seek out the strength of others and come back to kill you.
In-combat very, very few beings continue to think on a rational basis. Your adrenaline's up to full output and you're fighting primarily on training, mostly with the objective of killing them before they kill you (or worse).
" The ginormous gorilla ripped my arm out, you bet your rear end I'm gonna frag it!! "
Now, if the ape companion was ineffective in the combat, then that is a different matter of which I don't see which way that went by the OP. That has a significant impact.
" Meh, the ape whiffed anyway, let it go find some bananas or whatever. We'll track it down if the loot is that important. Probably not, since NPCs usually have pretty cruddy gear. "
Poink wrote: Creatures with an Int of 2 don't have 'enemies', just things that are threatening them at the time, things that they are told to kill at the time, etc. They don't plot and scheme to get revenge. Once that ape leaves, he won't be coming back as a threat. Saying that you could run into it later and that it would attack you as a justification for killing an almost dead, retreating animal seems disingenuous. That cougar will leave you alone if you almost kill it unless it is desperate. Incorrect my friend! While there may be many animals that would simply put as much distance between them and their assailants as possible, Felines Canines and Ursids are known to be far more 'human-like' in their treatment of enemies.
All too often the hunter becomes the hunted.
Quote: Even with this, I think there is a case to be made for this being neutral. Neutral characters can be spiteful without being evil, and if people they cared about were attacked by this thing, their emotions may drive them to slaughter it. I would expect a paladin to give the beast a reprieve unless there was some huge reason for it not being allowed to live, i.e. revealing their location on a top secret mission of great importance. See, I would actually argue the other way here.
Killing out of vengeance, for the sake of satisfying a personal vendetta? That is evil.
Killing one's enemy is self preservation and perfectly neutral.
My Self wrote: Anzyr wrote: Davor wrote: It's evil. Does the player care? It's not like he's playing a Paladin, that you've told us.
Players get so uppity about alignment, but this isn't 1st edition D&D where alignment changes incurred an XP penalty. Unless you're an alignment-restricted class, there's no reason to care about it, really. It's all about character growth.
No, it's neutral. The ape is an enemy. Fleeing doesn't suddenly change that. Retreating isn't a magical status that makes someone killing you a bad person. This might be a bit argumentative, but is it good for paladins to consistently go around stabbing fleeing enemies?
As for my own opinion: I think it's rather cowardly and slightly evil to go around stabbing enemies who have no interest in fighting, are not inherently, magically evil, and are fleeing. These are not merely dirty combat tactics (which violate the unspoken rules of combat), but rather an act of killing because you want to. Although it is dependent on the circumstances, if a player consistently does this, I'd say they're acting game-terms evil. Please convince me (politely) if you believe otherwise. Unspoken rules are no rules at all. The direction an enemy is headed does not change their status. They may be running for reinforcements or to return with more resources. Retreating is a tactic that is beneficial to the enemy, and there is no logical reason to prevent that.
For the record, My Self, had I written that scenario and the Ape's companion had any known allies in the area the Ape WOULD have brought the corpse to them had it escaped.
If there were no allies 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.
3: Ape flees and never looks back.
This decision might be made based on the way the battle happened and the nature of the ape's relationship with its partner, or if I don't feel I have enough information to go on I might assign the options to a dicechart and roll randomly for it.
Point being statistically 2/3rds of the time that Ape will try to kill you, when you least expect it, and probably in a favorable environment to it.
Also, just as a player, I want to fight a variety of different creatures in a variety of different circumstances.
Fighting the same ape twice is less fun to me than fighting the ape once and fighting something else also.
I only get to game about once per month, so time at the table is precious. I don't want to fight the same thing twice.
The only exception might be a re-occurring villain, which the AC of a vanquished foe is unlikely to be. And even with a re-occurring villain, I hate it when they escape. I HATE it when the bad guy gets away. I always try to chase them down, used ranged weapons, whatever it takes.
But that's just me.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I read the other answers before I posted. Doesn't change my post. >_>
Fair enough Davor. It's apparent you and I have strikingly different views on what it means to be evil.
[And apparently I'm evil by your alignment perception xD]
kyrt-ryder wrote: Fair enough Davor. It's apparent you and I have strikingly different views on what it means to be evil.
[And apparently I'm evil by your alignment perception xD]
Ah. That's an important distinction. Actions are evil. People simply perform them. All Alignment in Pathfinder does is roughly measure the average actions taken by a character.
Alright then, allow me to rephrase.
By your interpretations of alignment there's a gigantic E in that slot on my imaginary character sheet.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Alright then, allow me to rephrase.
By your interpretations of alignment there's a gigantic E in that slot on my imaginary character sheet.
I think practically anyone capable of logical action is Evil under such a system.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Alright then, allow me to rephrase.
By your interpretations of alignment there's a gigantic E in that slot on my imaginary character sheet.
Unless you're basing your entire identity on your desire to perform one slightly evil-aligned act, I think you may be jumping to conclusions.
Neutral, and even most Good characters commit minor evil all the time, but balance the ruthless killing (for example) out with other, less unsavoury acts.
And yeah, killing a fleeing enemy isn't on par with killing an innocent, or even killing a surrendering enemy.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Alright then, allow me to rephrase.
By your interpretations of alignment there's a gigantic E in that slot on my imaginary character sheet.
I mean, if you killed things for a living just constantly, sure, maybe. But the idea is that the majority of us fall under Neutral, and I think that's generally pretty accurate.
Not enough information to decide if this is good or evil.
Intent matters. Why did the PC want to chase down and kill the ape?
Was it to prevent the Hunter from being brought back to life and becoming a threat again? (not evil. might possibly even be good)
Was it to kill the stupid animal because it had pissed him off? (neutral)
Was it out of pure sadism or greed? (evil)
Davor wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Alright then, allow me to rephrase.
By your interpretations of alignment there's a gigantic E in that slot on my imaginary character sheet.
I mean, if you killed things for a living just constantly, sure, maybe. But the idea is that the majority of us fall under Neutral, and I think that's generally pretty accurate. So... are soldiers Evil? Or are they Lawful Neutral?
I still think that Gorilla would have been pretty tasty.
Doomed Hero wrote: Not enough information to decide if this is good or evil.
Intent matters. Why did the PC want to chase down and kill the ape?
Was it to prevent the Hunter from being brought back to life and becoming a threat again? (not evil. might possibly even be good)
Was it to kill the stupid animal because it had pissed him off? (neutral)
Was it out of pure sadism or greed? (evil)
I almost agree with this post, though I'm of the opinion killing something 'because it pissed him off' leans awfully heavily towards evil.
Killing it because it's your enemy and liable to oppose you again in the future [or to stretch provisions]? Neutral for sure.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Poink wrote: Creatures with an Int of 2 don't have 'enemies', just things that are threatening them at the time, things that they are told to kill at the time, etc. They don't plot and scheme to get revenge. Once that ape leaves, he won't be coming back as a threat. Saying that you could run into it later and that it would attack you as a justification for killing an almost dead, retreating animal seems disingenuous. That cougar will leave you alone if you almost kill it unless it is desperate. Incorrect my friend! While there may be many animals that would simply put as much distance between them and their assailants as possible, Felines Canines and Ursids are known to be far more 'human-like' in their treatment of enemies.
All too often the hunter becomes the hunted.
Quote: Even with this, I think there is a case to be made for this being neutral. Neutral characters can be spiteful without being evil, and if people they cared about were attacked by this thing, their emotions may drive them to slaughter it. I would expect a paladin to give the beast a reprieve unless there was some huge reason for it not being allowed to live, i.e. revealing their location on a top secret mission of great importance. See, I would actually argue the other way here.
Killing out of vengeance, for the sake of satisfying a personal vendetta? That is evil.
Killing one's enemy is self preservation and perfectly neutral. A wild animal, seeking to feed itself, won't try to kill the same prey that almost killed it unless it is desperate. In fact, it may intentionally avoid interacting with future campsites out of fear. This is how animals learn to fear humans IRL.
What about killing a creature that is no longer an enemy? Are you saying revenge is automatically evil?
Revenge for its own sake IS evil. That's how entire clans end up slaughtering eachother, because each action snowballs into the next in a never ending wave of hatred and evil.
Violence against an active enemy who you know would still do you harm should the opportunity arise can range from neutral [personal enemy who needs to be eliminated for your own safety] to good [enemy to the public.]
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Create Mr. Pitt wrote: As with all alignment threads, alignment is silly, morality is more complex than a nine-square matrix. Let the players govern their own alignment at all times. Only question it as GM where something really insane is happening, like a Lawful Good character setting fire to every orphanage they come across. Alignment should personal and only there to facilitate a player's interest. I agree. Setting fire to every orphanage that you come across is clearly evil. Once in awhile just to treat yourself - maybe on special occasions - should be enough for any Lawful Good character. Moderation in all things.
;)
My Self wrote:
This might be a bit argumentative, but is it good for paladins to consistently go around stabbing fleeing enemies?
As for my own opinion: I think it's rather cowardly and slightly evil to go around stabbing enemies who have no interest in fighting, are not inherently, magically evil, and are fleeing. These are not merely dirty combat tactics (which violate the unspoken rules of combat), but rather an act of killing because you want to. Although it is dependent on the circumstances, if a player consistently does this, I'd say they're acting game-terms evil. Please convince me (politely) if you believe otherwise.
I agree that it's not good behavior (maybe not necessarily evil), but notice that this argument is about consistently going around and stabbing fleeing opponents. And that's what alignment is there to reflect - the general character and tendencies of a character, not the result of a single act. If this is the way a paladin behaves consistently, it should be considered when assessing the PC's alignment. If he's mostly murder hoboing and not putting in a lot of good works, then I think it would be entirely fair to shift him off good and into neutral - and thus lose his paladin powers.
But not for doing it once.
Bill Dunn wrote: My Self wrote:
This might be a bit argumentative, but is it good for paladins to consistently go around stabbing fleeing enemies?
As for my own opinion: I think it's rather cowardly and slightly evil to go around stabbing enemies who have no interest in fighting, are not inherently, magically evil, and are fleeing. These are not merely dirty combat tactics (which violate the unspoken rules of combat), but rather an act of killing because you want to. Although it is dependent on the circumstances, if a player consistently does this, I'd say they're acting game-terms evil. Please convince me (politely) if you believe otherwise.
I agree that it's not good behavior (maybe not necessarily evil), but notice that this argument is about consistently going around and stabbing fleeing opponents. And that's what alignment is there to reflect - the general character and tendencies of a character, not the result of a single act. If this is the way a paladin behaves consistently, it should be considered when assessing the PC's alignment. If he's mostly murder hoboing and not putting in a lot of good works, then I think it would be entirely fair to shift him off good and into neutral - and thus lose his paladin powers.
But not for doing it once. My Self wrote: Poink wrote: SmiloDan wrote: stuff more stuff This is a single event. Very few single events will shift alignment so dramatically that it will result in an actual alignment change (See: A paladin sacrificing a pile of innocent newborns to Cthulhu). As for trying to stab/shoot it in the back, that's probably NE or CE. Minorly, though. A paladin could get away with it, if it were just this once. I just quoted My Self, but yeah. I agree with your point.
Edit: "I just quoted myself" -> "I just quoted My Self"
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
kyrt-ryder wrote: Revenge for its own sake IS evil. That's how entire clans end up slaughtering eachother, because each action snowballs into the next in a never ending wave of hatred and evil. Ragathiel says revenge for its own sake can actually be a good act.
Intentions matter. Who you're taking revenge against, and why, both measure into the moral judgement in Pathfinder.
The thing people keep forgetting is that Good and Evil are not subjective in Pathfinder. There is no such thing as Kantian or Normative ethics. Morality is objective and completely predetermined by the gods and the moral forces of the multiverse.
Chasing down and killing a gorilla is a neutral act. It can be pushed one direction or the other by the intentions of the person, but the act itself has no actual moral weight Pathfinder.
Since the posters in this thread have examined and cross-examined the alignment aspect of firing at a retreating ape so I think I'll address your first question.
Point wrote: 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? I would say no personally for both myself and my current group.
Dramatic moments are something that happen. Not only do they help to tell a good, dramatic story (in this case, perhaps an implied story of this amazing relationship between the ape and the hunter) but they do so using one of story-telling's most important elements, 'show, don't tell'. Plus, they can help get the party invested in their characters and in the world of the game.
Side note-I would have love to have seen the reaction of the players after watching this ape drag off their headless master only for a fellow party member say something like, "Wow, I just brutally killed that hunter and now his wounded companion is retreating, possible to grieve...alright, who wants to see me go all Wyatt Earp on the monkey's ass?"
Michael Grate wrote: Side note-I would have love to have seen the reaction of the players after watching this ape drag off their headless master only for a fellow party member say something like, "Wow, I just brutally killed that hunter and now his wounded companion is retreating, possible to grieve...alright, who wants to see me go all Wyatt Earp on the monkey's ass?" "Seen it before. Do your thing bro, I'll get the cookfire going."
I love the unexpected reaction from the ape. I also would have loved to have been at that table to see the reactions of the players.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Create Mr. Pitt wrote: As with all alignment threads, alignment is silly, morality is more complex than a nine-square matrix. Let the players govern their own alignment at all times. Only question it as GM where something really insane is happening, like a Lawful Good character setting fire to every orphanage they come across. Alignment should personal and only there to facilitate a player's interest. You are describing "Subjective Morality" and that doesn't exist in Pathfinder. Pathfinder uses an "Objective Morality" system. Namely it uses a system where a moral authority beyond the mortal ken and understanding places labels on characters.
Characters are completely free to act however they wish, the alignment system does not have any bearing on that. The alignment system, however, will give them a label, or how they are judged by the universe.
Certain classes gain supernatual abilities from their relationship with the Universe. The Universe, or the Gods, or what-have-you gives the class powers providing they remain in-line with the guidelines set forth by the universe.
Namely:
"If you do X, Y, Z, then the universe/nature/your god will no longer consider you worthy for A, B, or C. No matter what your personal reasons or justifications are."
This is because alignment doesn't come from the character. It comes from without and a character has little to no control over it. The character can act within a certain alignment, yes, but they do not decide what evil, good, law, chaos, or neutrality is.
Anzyr wrote: Davor wrote: It's evil. Does the player care? It's not like he's playing a Paladin, that you've told us.
Players get so uppity about alignment, but this isn't 1st edition D&D where alignment changes incurred an XP penalty. Unless you're an alignment-restricted class, there's no reason to care about it, really. It's all about character growth.
No, it's neutral. The ape is an enemy. Fleeing doesn't suddenly change that. Retreating isn't a magical status that makes someone killing you a bad person. If an animal, that is wounded, flees tracking it down to kill it may, or may not, be considered an evil act.
Is the animal a threat?
Possibly.
It was an animal companion and if the person you killed who it was bonded with was a bad person it may be trained to attack and rob people. It would, presumably, continue to do this after the passing of its master. If the master was sufficiently powerful the Ape may indeed be intelligent enough to try to seek aid from the master's allies.
(Though I scoff at the idea that raising the dead is easy, simple, and affordable, that wholly depends on level. A level 1-5 is unlikely to be able to afford the diamond needed to raise the dead)
Remember that a fleeing foe is not a surrendering foe.
My understanding has always been that the animal companion's intelligence and other special qualities are gained through their bond with the Druid/Ranger/Hunter/Etc. Thus, when an animal companion is dismissed or its bonded character dies it reverts to a normal animal. Perhaps the transition would not be instantaneous or there could be some exception where an animal companion remains empowered (somewhat like a Rogue Eidolon), but in most cases you'd have a normal ape in short order.
Thus, there would likely be no need to kill the creature (unless it was in a city or some other area where a wild ape would likely cause mayhem). On the other hand, PCs wouldn't necessarily know this or be thinking about it in the heat of battle. Thus, no killing the ape likely would not be an evil act.
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?
I wouldn't be upset at all. I can't even imagine why anybody would be. Were they assuming the ape was going to eat him or something?
pipping in.
I don't think that was too far not remotely.. That is very in character for the ape trained by his master/friend/whatever.
Tring to kill it escaping isn't really evil. THey don't know for sure it just plans to never come back. it might be retreating to attack later. It was a enemy, and some viewpoints it would be crueler to leave something injured alone in the middle of no where so it dies of diesease and bloodloss slowly or gets eatin alive by scavanagers.
I get that its sad. It's like when a dog sits on it's former owners grave.. it is indeed sad. But That was an effective fight to the death by the sounds of it. Also remember that world, stuff like that isn't uncommon. Its not evil intricnitly. It all seems harsher by our world standards. but even in our world something might seem harsh to one person in one coutnry and not at all in another.
|
