|
We, have never dealt with a world where we deal with non-human sentient creatures.
So, we tend to treat them like the only sentient creatures we know: us.
Should we?
That's almost another goblin baby question - only far less controversial. Though in this case it's not a purely nurture vs nature question, as - since they're adults - nurture has already happened.
Basically - I consider it as a big world-building question to answer rather than purely a morality one.
A lot of authors have used fantasy races & sci-fi aliens to tackle real-world race issues in a roundabout sort of way - but that doesn't mean that the metaphor carries over to all such worlds.
After all - no one worries about the right to a trial of zerg hive-minds despite their obvious sentience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to kill them anyways, why did you defeat them with nonlethal damage?
In any case, it sounds like the lawful execution of prisoners who broke the local laws.
Some builds are more effective with nonleathal damage(Enforcer feat), and enemies have 1 less HP if they take nonleathal (they go unconcious at 0 instead of single actions only).
Not going to bother reading all 15 pages of this, just throwing my 2 copper to the original question.
Killing the acolytes in their sleep is not evil. It's not good, but it's not evil either. On a moral axis, it simply is. Let's be honest with ourselves, they were going to die by your hand anyways.
Killing them in their sleep is neither chaotic nor lawful. It's strategy, but plays no part in your character's greater ethics.
If we introduce the Honor system from the Rokugan campaign setting of 3.0, we actually have some play.
Killing the acolytes in their sleep is DISHONORABLE. If you were a Rokugan samurai or ninja, you could find yourself falling down the honor scale and might suffer repercussions for it.
Since killing them in their sleep IS a dishonorable action, some paladin codes and cavalier orders may feel some reverberations as well.
That said, the base paladin code also includes punishing those who harm or threaten innocents, so depending on the situation, it may not violate code.
|
|
The summoning spell seems unnecessary. A captured giant would be worth at least 500gp to a slave trader. An inefficient use of resources.I need help with this guys:
In my game we now have a similar situation, but the party defeated about 10 giants with nonlethal damage and the giants are now unconscious on the ground. The party is Chaotic Neutral and the mission is to clear out this giant fortress for a Chaotic Neutral king. The party is about to summon a bunch of wolves to have them finish the giants off while we move to other parts of the castle. They know it's probably not honourable, and perhaps evil, but they are Chaotic Neutral and they don't care much. Any problems?
Logistics, resources and power level of the victors (the party) makes it impossible to make them prisoners. Imagine a cat defeating 4 humans. Unless the cat has shackles or mind-control magic, or logistical support, he can't transport those humans... in one piece.
|
|
Are the giants evil? Because if they aren't that would be a separate problem over whether you could deal with them in another way. But otherwise the impracticality of taking them alive might mean that's your only option.
The giants are not good. Not sure if they are evil. But they want the party very, very dead! :)
|
|
If you are going to kill them anyways, why did you defeat them with nonlethal damage?
In any case, it sounds like the lawful execution of prisoners who broke the local laws.
Gunslinger has merciful dragon pistol and plastered the room with his gentle shot blasts which deal 1d6 additional (nonlethal) damage. Pretty much saved the party's ass by knocking all the cyclops out... the fight was heading towards a TPK.
They didn't break local laws: they own the castle. Party invaded their territory. Upon seeing us at their front gates they said nothing: they just tried to kill the party on sight. Party went "let's do this, then!" and now they're on the ground, unconscious. Party is nongood, plans to execute them and burn them in a funeral pyre. Party achieved invasion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing them because it is convenient would be Evil in my book, unless you are pretty sure that they are themselves guilty of evil deeds (aka, not innocent people).
The "trying to kill the party on sight" seems to indicate an evil (and likely not innocent) mentality.
Otherwise, trying to kill armed trespassers on your property does not necessarily makes you not-innocent in such a dangerous world.
An Evil act by itself, unless quite grandiose, would not shift a Neutral alignment to Evil in my game though. Doing it frequently would.
Killing them because it is convenient would be Evil in my book, unless you are pretty sure that they are themselves guilty of evil deeds (aka, not innocent people).
The "trying to kill the party on sight" seems to indicate an evil (and likely not innocent) mentality.
Otherwise, trying to kill armed trespassers on your property does not necessarily makes you not-innocent in such a dangerous world.
An Evil act by itself, unless quite grandiose, would not shift a Neutral alignment to Evil in my game though. Doing it frequently would.
well said.
Does the fact that they are big bad evil giants change anything here? Does knowledge of their evil nature before killing them change anything?
Probably not considering that killing them wasn't an attempt to do good in the first place. From what you've told us the giants were pretty violent in any case and could have remained dangerous if not killed since taking them as prisoners wouldn't be viable.Summoning the wolves to eat them might seem a bit cold but I wouldn't call it evil if the goal is to dispose of the body for the sake of stealth.
How many wolves did they summon by the way? Seems like you would need a lot to get rid/reduce the size of the bodies.
|
|
I think summon monster is just 1 round/level, so the wolves are just to coup-de-grace each cyclop, and if that fails, keep coud-de-gracing each round until they are dead.
Mainly: there's more cyclops in the next room and they're trying to bust the door open to kill the party, so the party needs to buff/heal while the summoned wolves finish off the cyclops so that whatever is coming doesn't heal them all back up...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In that case I definitely wouldn't consider it evil since they're just removing a threat by proxy. After all it's quite difficult to take a castle for any meaningful amount of time if you're leaving the opposing army alive.
Not going to bother reading all 15 pages of this, just throwing my 2 clay to the original question like Lord Twitchiopolis.
Is slaying enemies in their sleep evil?
YES!
|
|
Not going to bother reading all 15 pages of this, just throwing my 2 clay to the original question like Lord Twitchiopolis.
Is slaying enemies in their sleep evil?
YES!
I tend to agree with you. Almost in all situations, even the cyclops. If the party was good, in the cyclops case, a case could be made to keep the unconscious cyclops alive as a bargaining chip for the new cyclops' surrender. In the cyclop's case, party is Chaotic Neutral, and inclined to kill these bastards i.e. the part of them that is neutral recognize some stuff they do is good while some other are evil. Like others mentioned, if they keep doing that as a modus operandi, their alignment would probably switch to CE... however if they take the castle and populate it with new settlers / expand the king's borders much good will come of it... equalization.
Not going to bother reading all 15 pages of this, just throwing my 2 clay to the original question like Lord Twitchiopolis.
Is slaying enemies in their sleep evil?
YES!
okay then, why is it evil?
You have removed their ability to act or make a decision.
Note that enemies dose not take into account the victims alignment only that they are an obstacle to a personal objective.
You have removed their ability to act or make a decision.
Note that enemies dose not take into account the victims alignment only that they are an obstacle to a personal objective.
still don't see how that makes it evil, they made the decision to be part of an evil cult
still don't see how that makes it evilYou have removed their ability to act or make a decision.
Note that enemies dose not take into account the victims alignment only that they are an obstacle to a personal objective.
Agreed. Dishonorable, definitely. But Evil? Hardly.
okay then, why is it evil?Not going to bother reading all 15 pages of this, just throwing my 2 clay to the original question like Lord Twitchiopolis.
Is slaying enemies in their sleep evil?
YES!
I think the point being made is that it is self evident that killing a person in their sleep is evil unless there are some highly contrived mitigating circumstances.
The mitigating circumstances in this case are flimsy and yes I have read every post.
Agreed. Dishonorable, definitely. But Evil? Hardly.still don't see how that makes it evilYou have removed their ability to act or make a decision.
Note that enemies dose not take into account the victims alignment only that they are an obstacle to a personal objective.
Practical? Yes
Practical and evil I can agree with.
Agreed. Dishonorable, definitely. But Evil? Hardly.
What does dishonourable mean to you? To me it means going against your moral code that defines what is right (good) and what is wrong (evil).
What does dishonourable mean to you? To me it means going against your moral code that defines what is right (good) and what is wrong (evil).
Agreed. Dishonorable, definitely. But Evil? Hardly.
dishonorable doesn't mean you are going against your own moral code most of the time. I can't remember where I got this quote(and it might just be a paraphrase of it) but it seems to fit with this discussion
"Honor is a tool of the weak used to keep the strong in check"
still don't see how that makes it evil, they made the decision to be part of an evil cultYou have removed their ability to act or make a decision.
Note that enemies dose not take into account the victims alignment only that they are an obstacle to a personal objective.
What makes them an evil cult?
The PCs appear to have joined an evil cult that sends their members on assassination/suicide missions.
@ Blackvial, your explanation of honour is not clear to me.
If honour and morality are separate then what is the difference?
@ Blackvial, your explanation of honour is not clear to me.Honor and morality are separate things, is what he's saying. At least I think so, as it's reasonable and I agree.
Also, I thought this thread died? un-rip
yes, exactly. what one person thinks is honorable could be considered a criminal act by another
I am aware of some of the different cultural and historic nuances of honour. In some societies chastity and fidelity are considered honourable. But in every honour system I am aware of the default assumption is that it includes the moral code that that society is expected to follow including what is defined as good or evil. I have never heard of a code of honour that is separate from a moral code.
still don't see how that makes it evil, they made the decision to be part of an evil cultYou have removed their ability to act or make a decision.
Note that enemies dose not take into account the victims alignment only that they are an obstacle to a personal objective.
What makes them an evil cult?
The PCs appear to have joined an evil cult that sends their members on assassination/suicide missions.
Aside from the fact that the GM specifically referred to them as evil cultists?
Well, in our most recent game, we did find a number of shackled, starving slaves in their cavern basement mining precious metals for them to fund their evil schemes. Said slaves were guarded by an ogre, three orogs, and an umberhulk that had, had its eyes stabbed out and it claws removed and replaced with "stump blades." It had also been starved and tortured to the point of being nothing more than a mindless mad dog. Our dragonborn ranger took pity on the thing and set it free. We were then forced to put it down when it attacked us in blind fury.
Good can be quite stupid...
Cultists or not, there is no question in my mind that this organization is wholly evil.
That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if the group that brought us here turned out to be a little less than good themselves.
@ Ravingdork, you could well be right. One evil group taking out a rival certainly fits with the facts as I see them.
|
|
I am aware of some of the different cultural and historic nuances of honour. In some societies chastity and fidelity are considered honourable. But in every honour system I am aware of the default assumption is that it includes the moral code that that society is expected to follow including what is defined as good or evil. I have never heard of a code of honour that is separate from a moral code.
Honor≠Code of Honour. Dishonorable just means that an act was shameless or disgraceful, that it ignored proper procedure. It's dishonorable, for example, to address royalty as "dude", for example. It's not immoral, but it is disgraceful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is killing enemies when they're awake evil? It seems like it's causing harm to a sentient being, taking away their free will, and (if they're evil in Golarion) sending them to hell. Sure, adventurers do it all the time, because it's more convenient than the alternatives, but that's a pretty feeble justification, isn't it?
Honorable; Playing fair. You meet your foe on equal footing. You challenge them face to face and don't resort to any underhanded tactics. No poisons, no relying from help from a friend unless he has help as well, no fighting armed if he is unarmed, etc.
Dishonorable; Playing unfair. Using whatever advantages present themselves. Dirty tricks, outright cheating, superior technology or weaponry, knifing someone in their sleep. They may seem underhanded, but it's about getting the job done.
As has been mentioned, if killing someone in their sleep is evil, then why wouldn't it be so while they are awake?
Now let me ask you this; Is it still evil to kill the wicked black dragon who has been rampaging the countryside, murdering innocent civilians and poisoning the land, while it slumbers? Or must you really wake the sleeping dragon to defeat it in order to be doing the righteous thing, even if it means that you will surely lose?
If dishonorable acts (poison, sneak attack, dirty tricks, coup de grace) are all evil, then how can there EVER be a Good aligned Slayer or Rogue?
|
|
No problem with Good guys killing DEMONSTRATED Evil bad guys in their sleep.
Killing on a hunch or because the opponents are reacting to you trying to kill them is not Good and likely Evil in my book.
Killing people who will otherwise kill you (no hope for peaceful resolution) is not Evil. It is self-defense.
Of course, many many PCs will not even try to find a peaceful resolution to what looks like a fight, hence murderhobos.
GMs who yell Roll Initiative whenever the PCs meet NPCs do not help this either.
BTW, shocking as it might be, not caring if innocents are hurt by your actions or their consequences is Evil in my games. NOT Neutral.
In the end, every GM has the last say on what the alignments are and mean at the table. Reason why the alignments should be described and discussed before the game begins, just like houserules.
Honorable; Playing fair. You meet your foe on equal footing. You challenge them face to face and don't resort to any underhanded tactics. No poisons, no relying from help from a friend unless he has help as well, no fighting armed if he is unarmed, etc.
Dishonorable; Playing unfair. Using whatever advantages present themselves. Dirty tricks, outright cheating, superior technology or weaponry, knifing someone in their sleep. They may seem underhanded, but it's about getting the job done.
As has been mentioned, if killing someone in their sleep is evil, then why wouldn't it be so while they are awake?
Now let me ask you this; Is it still evil to kill the wicked black dragon who has been rampaging the countryside, murdering innocent civilians and poisoning the land, while it slumbers? Or must you really wake the sleeping dragon to defeat it in order to be doing the righteous thing, even if it means that you will surely lose?
If dishonorable acts (poison, sneak attack, dirty tricks, coup de grace) are all evil, then how can there EVER be a Good aligned Slayer or Rogue?
Thanks for clarifying what you mean by honourable and dishonourable.
It makes little difference to me whether you kill an opponent while asleep or awake. What is important is whether it is in self defence. If you can make a case for self defence against a sleeping dragon then fine.
|
|
Wasn't just failing a mission considered dishonorable in some cultures?
It still is.
In modern Japan, a person is supposed to fulfill all his obligations and any duty he took on himself. There are no excuses for failing in this. Only mitigating circumstances at the very best.
Which is why most japanese people are very reluctant to take an obligation beyond what they already have on their plates per their role in society. Unless they are 200% sure that they can fulfill it.
Note that this expectation applies only to japanese people. Gaijin are not held to this standard (and henceforth usually distrusted).
Modern Japan is my standard for a LN society.
Note though that we are talking here about dishonorable results (failing a mission). Not dishonorable means or acts (killing people in their sleep).
Wasn't just failing a mission considered dishonorable in some cultures?
Heck, if we're talking about what some cultures consider honorable, we can include stuff like "savagely beating serfs who forget their place," "burning off the face of a female relative who was raped" and "ritual suicide."
Honor's a flexible term that way.
It makes little difference to me whether you kill an opponent while asleep or awake. What is important is whether it is in self defence. If you can make a case for self defence against a sleeping dragon then fine.
Does killing in defense of innocent life not count, then? Or bringing the dragon to justice for prior crimes? The common rationale for hunting down an evil dragon (or most other evil monsters) is that they've killed in the past, and will continue to kill in the future unless stopped.
If self-defense is the only justification, we end up with Paladins sitting back and watching dragons feast on peasants as long as the dragon doesn't threaten them personally. Which is obviously absurd.
Well, if tasked with killing these Acolytes, wouldn't not killing them be considered a dishonorable act?
If they didn't kill the leader and held an honour code similar to those in Japan, then yes. Leaving the acolytes alive would still be okay provided they still managed to kill the leader.
Honorable; Playing fair. You meet your foe on equal footing. You challenge them face to face and don't resort to any underhanded tactics. No poisons, no relying from help from a friend unless he has help as well, no fighting armed if he is unarmed, etc.
Dishonorable; Playing unfair. Using whatever advantages present themselves. Dirty tricks, outright cheating, superior technology or weaponry, knifing someone in their sleep. They may seem underhanded, but it's about getting the job done.
As has been mentioned, if killing someone in their sleep is evil, then why wouldn't it be so while they are awake?
Now let me ask you this; Is it still evil to kill the wicked black dragon who has been rampaging the countryside, murdering innocent civilians and poisoning the land, while it slumbers? Or must you really wake the sleeping dragon to defeat it in order to be doing the righteous thing, even if it means that you will surely lose?
If dishonorable acts (poison, sneak attack, dirty tricks, coup de grace) are all evil, then how can there EVER be a Good aligned Slayer or Rogue?
Thanks for clarifying what you mean by honourable and dishonourable.
It makes little difference to me whether you kill an opponent while asleep or awake. What is important is whether it is in self defence. If you can make a case for self defence against a sleeping dragon then fine.
What about defense of others?
Self defense is actually a pretty Neutral action. If you attack a bear (who has no concept of good nor evil), it will defend itself.
Defending others (so long as they themselves are not attempting to harm other innocents) is a Good action.
What about defense of others?Self defense is actually a pretty Neutral action. If you attack a bear (who has no concept of good nor evil), it will defend itself.
Defending others (so long as they themselves are not attempting to harm other innocents) is a Good action.
In my view fighting to defend others is fraught with moral consequences but it is something a good hero would strive to do. Part of the fun and challenge of playing a good hero like a Paladin is negotiating through the minefield of moral dilemmas that arise. When I play a good character some principles I keep in mind are:
1) Fight only in self defence or when those I defend are in immediate danger. No pre-emptive strikes.
2) Use minimum force to achieve my goal. Kill only as a last resort.
3) Be merciful, it is not my job to issue punishments, only to remove danger.
4) Encourage non-violent solutions to problems.
5) Make sure those I defend condone my actions.
6) Making allies is better than defeating enemies.
7) Be careful to identify the real villains.
8) Everyone is responsible for their own actions. There is no guilt by association.
With the black dragon example you used before, you may reach a situation where it is necessary for a good character to kill the dragon in it's sleep because that is the minimum force required to remove a clear and present danger to those you defend (good luck trying to catch an evil dragon while they sleep). I have no issue with that, what I have issue with is good characters killing a creature that detects as evil, without any understanding of the history of that creature and whether it really poses an immediate danger to anyone. In my view that is the province of the anti-hero, which I believe are neutrally aligned. The anti-hero tries to do the right thing, but they are just a little too trigger happy to be considered a truly good hero. The anti-hero is my favourite type of character to play.
By the way, I am not in the Paladin falls camp (assuming there really is such a thing). My philosophy is to steer the Paladin back to good not punish them for their transgressions. I also allow non-good versions of Paladins who are all about punishing the wicked.
So the one with the giants. You were hired by the locals to kick the giants out of their own castle?